Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLC)

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Contents

NominationsEdit

Sanjay Dutt filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the biggest actor of Bollywood. Please leave any comments below.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would suggest the lead needs a copy-edit by a native English speaker, as the quality of the English is unfortunately not very good. For example: "Rocky became semi-hit at the box office, and it was ranked number 10 on the list of highest-grossing film of 1981" - "semi-hit" is not an English word and "highest-grossing film" should be "highest-grossing films". There's little things like this that I could pick up in almost every sentence, so I suggest a thorough copy-editing is needed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I've submitted the article for copy edit.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West SussexEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. I have not been able to archive the citations as the bot appears to be down. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in MonmouthshireEdit

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've not done one before and would be interested to know if this comes anywhere near reaching the criteria. This list combines two of my main interests, architecture and Monmouthshire, and I've been adding to this, and to its Grade II* companion piece, for quite a while. My aim for the II* list is to have an article, and an image, for every entry. Having got there for Grade I, I'm keen to see what else it needs for FL status. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Have just had a thought. Although I’m the main editor by number of edits, I’m not by added text. That honour belongs to User:KTC who created the table. Should I consult with them before nominating? KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments
ChrisTheDude - Really helpful. I shall amend as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think my only comment now would be that you have note (1) and note (a), which looks odd...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude - It does indeed! The issue is that Note 1 is embedded in the template and I just need to work out how to match Note a to it, so that it becomes Note 2. Shall get on to it asap. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Needless to say, I can't work it out quickly, so have moved the content to the main text as a temporary fix. Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • There are a number of Harv errors in the references and sources. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script which flags these errors.
To do - need to run this.
  • "the authority for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sits with Cadw." "sits with" sounds odd to me. How about "lies with"?
Done.
  • "There are 53 Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire.[7] The buildings include twenty-six churches, including a priory and an abbey, eight castles, seven houses, two bridges, a barn, a cross, a farm, a folly, a gatehouse, an hotel, a municipal building, a stables, and two elements of town walls." 1. I do not think you need to repeat "buildings" 2. As you list all the types, "consists of" would be more correct than "include". 3. As priories and abbeys are establishments including a church and other buildings, I do not think it is right to say "churches, including a priory and an abbey". How about "They consist of twenty-four churches, an abbey, a priory,..."
Done, as per suggestions.
  • "The county has a "fine collection" of castles, mostly dating from the Norman invasion of Wales,[8] with Chepstow "the glory of medieval south Wales"" These and other POV comments should be cited inline to named authors.
Done, to Simon Jenkins.
  • What is a "rood arrangement"?
Have bluelinked which I hope will help.
  • "One of the county's two Grade I listed abbeys" You say above that there is only one abbey.
Done - mixing up my abbey (Tintern) with my priory (Llanthony).
  • "hung, drawn and quartered, the last such sentences to be passed in Britain." I think you should say that the sentences were not carried out.
Done, by way of a footnote.
Not sure about this. They'd be pretty vague, e.g. Sedgemoor has a lot of "X century". On top of that, I'm afraid I lack the skill to amend the template.
  • Knowing whether a building is twelfth century or sixteenth century is of great interest whereas whether it was listed in 1952 or 1964 is of little or none. The only change which would be needed to the template is to alter the heading which I can easily do. However, it is not a deal breaker if you prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether the first word of notes on each site is capitalised.
Done.
  • A first rate list, especially as it has photos of every building. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your interest, excellent suggestions and kind comments. Have taken all on board except where noted. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Saif Ali Khan filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A well written and well sourced list of Saif Ali Khan's film career. Another nomination of mine has received three supports, so I think I am good to go. As always, looking forward to some constructive and helpful comments. Thanks! Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would be more specific in the infobox image caption by saying where the picture was taken. See something like a List of Emily Blunt performances as an example of this.
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I think a verb is needed for this part (and then in Aashik Awara (1993).). Maybe something like (and then starred in Aashik Awara (1993).)?
  • For this part (Khan played the supporting roles ), "the" is not needed.
  • I would add a citation for Sacred Games as everything else in the lead is cited.
  • Since there is an entire section (i.e. Non-Fiction) about how he has hosted multiple Filmfare Awards ceremonies, I would add a short sentence to the lead about it as the lead should reflect a part of every section of the list.

Great work with the list. I have only looked over the prose, and I have not looked through any of the sources. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thanks for your queries. They have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • In the photo caption, "inaugural" is not a noun and really isn't the right word to use here. "Opening" would be more appropriate
  • "as did his other three releases" => "as did his next three releases"
  • "leading a setback" => "leading to a setback"
  • "It also marked a turning point in his career" - how?
As per the sources, DCH brought a dramatic change in Khan's approach to work and established him as a serious actor. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to say that then. Just saying "it was a turning point in his career" doesn't really tell the reader much.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs on the first sentence of paragraph 3 are not in numeric order
  • Same again two sentences later
  • And again on the first sentence of the last paragraph
  • Cocktail wikilink is wrong
  • In the TV fiction table, the year is the first column, whereas in the other tables it isn't - be consistent
  • Non-fiction should not have a capital F
  • Note a needs a full stop
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Made this edit for consistency
  • Aashik Awara is spelled with a k in the lead but a q in the table (and table one is a redirect)
  • Ref dates for Sacred Games aren't consistent with the rest

Everything looks good. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – All good for me. :-) – zmbro (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Michael W. Smith discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because my nomination for List of National Football League rushing champions has passed. My other nomination, [[1]], has unanimous support so far with all problems resolved so a second nomination should be acceptable.

This is the second in a series of discographies I have been working on for the most important contemporary Christian music artists. Michael W. Smith is one of the best-selling Christian artists of all time (the best-selling male artist, perhaps), with over four decades of fairly constant music output. He started as the keyboardist for Amy Grant, the best-selling Christian artist ever and the two are great friends to this day. Uniquely he's had RIAA certified albums in at least six different areas: Christian pop/rock, Christian worship music, mainstream pop/adult contemporary music (including "Place in This World" and "I Will Be Here For You", top 40 hits in the US and Canada), Christmas music, video albums, and an instrumental album written in the style of film scores. Making a discography for such a varied career required extensive research and tough decision making for the lede, but I think this article does a great job of balancing everything. If there's anything I'm iffy on its the exact prose in the lede, but I think a good discussion here will help hammer out any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
  • "as well multiple holiday albums" => "as well as multiple holiday albums"
  • "and his 16 No. 1 albums" => "and his 16 number one albums"
  • "I 2 (EYE) (1988) became Smith's first No. 1 album" - same again
  • "peaked at nos. 6 and 60" => "peaked at numbers 6 and 60"
  • "charting at No. 8 in Canada and No. 27 on the Hot 100" - you can probably guess what I am going to say here ;-)
  • ...and there's two more instances towards the end of the lead ;-)
  • Lots more uses of "No." in the notes
  • All of them are replaced now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks really weird to have a heading of "Notes", immediately followed by a sub-heading of "Notes". I would have the Notes > Notes section as a L2 heading in its own right called Notes, and then below that I would have a References L2 section, with sub-headings of General (for the two books) and Specific (for the individual footnotes). Does that make sense?
  • Yeah, that makes sense. Good solution. I think I’ve fixed that now? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Walter Görlitz per his request. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: why are you advising to ignore the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO? It should be consistent in the article and it should not change over time once consistent. No. is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Probably I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO. Having "No." in the middle of a prose sentence just looked wrong to me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Having read the guideline, do you agree that it is acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems so, yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of chief ministers of ChhattisgarhEdit

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my second FLC nomination, my first, Districts of Bhutan, is at four supports and a source review support. I've made some changes to this list, to be more in line with List of chief ministers of Karnataka, a featured list. I think it meets the criteria. TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment
  • Your link to bifurcated is an WP:EASTEREGG. Not sure if this is the best word anyway.
  • In 2018 the current incumbent... 2018 is not current.
  • No need for sub-sub headings. One subheading for notes and one for references should be enough. Mattximus (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, I've tried to solve the first two issues, let me know what you think about it. I think the sub headings are simply stylistic choice, it's not needed, but looks good, especially on mobile phones, at least to me. If it is causing any problems, let me know. TryKid (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"bifurcated" can be replaced with "carved out of", if you think that is better.... Thanks for the quick review though. TryKid (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks a bit better. But I'm sure someone can suggest something better. TryKid (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a more encyclopedic word for the creation of the state, it is "partitioned", which is much better than "carved out of". Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus: When I hear the word "partition", it reminds me of India-Pakistan partition, and that wasn't very pleasant. I don't think partition is the right word. I've read a lot of news reports about the creation of states (Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttranchal, etc), none of them use "partition". See this report from The Hindu. The Hindu is very reputable source and it uses "carved out of", "bifurcation" and "separate"; never "partition". I don't think the word "partition" should be used out of the context of Pakistan or sometimes the state of Bengal (in British Raj). Regards, TryKid (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How about split from? "Carved out of" is not encyclopedic and needs to be replaced. Mattximus (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, That's better I think, done. Thank you. TryKid (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, If you have time, you can check out the list again. I've made some minor changes and hopefully you'll like the new wording. TryKid (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • The infobox image needs an alt text.
  • "Following elections to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly." The word 'Chattisgarh' is getting repetitive here. Removing it will create a better flow.
This hasn't been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Chhattisgarh is used three times in the first paragraph of the lead, one time in the second paragraph and two times in the infobox. I don't see where I can replace Chhattisgarh with something else. Maybe replace "Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh" with just "Chief Minister". But the current usage is consistent with two other featured lists — List of chief ministers of West Bengal and List of chief ministers of Karnataka. TryKid (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher:, forgot to ping. TryKid (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Given that he has the confidence of the assembly". --> Given that they have the confidence of the assembly. It should be gender neutral.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:, I've added alt text. I've replaced the lead with lead of List of chief ministers of West Bengal, I hope that's better. Thanks. TryKid (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Fixed the above issue myself. Rest looks fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1988Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There are now 28 of these year-by-year country number ones lists at FL status, and another has been open for a couple of weeks and has multiple supports, so here's what will hopefully be #30, covering a year when Keith Whitley hit his commercial peak before sadly drinking himself to death the following year :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks great. Care to check out my new FLC? – zmbro (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Reference column could be centered but other than, great list.--Lirim | Talk 03:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Wonderful work as always on these lists. In a way, this one honors Whitley's legacy to try and find a silver lining to it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in AustriaEdit

Nominator(s): Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This list follows the style of several successful FL nominations for European countries. The latest two promoted were List of World Heritage Sites in Albania and List of World Heritage Sites in Malta. Austria has even more sites listed. As usual, some copyediting is expected to take place during this nomination. Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Using "In the following table" is outdated phrasing that is no longer used in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. --Tone 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • The notes section normally goes before references.
  • As there are only two notes, they look odd in four columns.
  • You are inconsistent whether locations are linked. It would be helpful to link them all.
  • "Salzburg was the meeting point between German and Italian cultures". Between when and when?
  • "The region built itself around salt mining". A region building itself sounds wrong to me.
  • "While only some of the sites have been excavated". This comment is superfluous as it would apply to any such set of sites.
  • Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests. The citation for this site links to a Chinese site.
  • Late Middle Ages could be linked.
  • "called Thalers". I do not think thaler should be capitalised.
  • You are inconsistent whether to capitalise Gothic.
  • "The Danubian Limes, a network of fortifications along the Danube river, was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire." "protected" would be better than "was protecting".
  • A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • "As of 2019, Austria has 10 total sites inscribed on the list and further 12 on the tentative list" - I think the word "total" is redundant here, and also "further 12" should be "a further 12"
  • "which began as early as 2,000 BCE" - dates don't usually have a "thousand separator". Nobody would write "we are currently living in the year 2,019".
  • "The Semmering Railway was built" - the title of our article doesn't have a capital R - which is correct?
  • "This project was undertaken in the early days of railroad construction" - article doesn't seem to be written in US English, so "railroad" should be "railway"
  • "around 5000 to 500 B.C." - earlier you used "BCE" - be consistent
  • "The site is a part of transnational site" => "The site is a part of a transnational site"
  • "functioned both as a spiritual center"......"The historic centre" - article is inconsistent as to whether it uses US spellings or not
  • "was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire" => "protected the borders of the Roman Empire"
  • "a visual school of nature" - literally no idea what that means
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchisesEdit

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to get this page nominated for FL status a while back, however it has failed for a number of reasons, mainly with the list not being able to pass WP:V. After quite a bit of time revamping the page and making large-scale improvements, I've decided to try and renominate the article again. All corrections were based on those brought up by other editors in the first FL nomination page. Here's what's been done to clean up the page:

  1. Table has been completely redone (thank you Dissident93), with franchises listed in a greyed-out column to distinguish them from the other columns. Licensed series are now highlighted in yellow to indicate they are not an original creation by Bandai Namco. The "Platform" section has been cut entirely, instead replaced with columns listing the first and latest releases.
  2. All entries present are reliably sourced, and all of these prove they are an actual series and not a one-off title. The articles themselves are also dedicated to these games/series and don't simply reference these franchises in articles for other companies' games, as was the case before.
  3. Minor edits have been done to the lead, simply removing outdated information.

Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by comment: you seem undecided as to whether the company is singular or plural, viz "The company is (singular) best known for their (plural)........" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll retract my oppose as all issues are dealt with. But I'm confused regarding this edit. How is Demon's Souls not apart of the table when it's officially the first game in the Souls series and was also released in PAL regions by Bandai Namco. – zmbro (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Dissident's edit summary, the GameSpot article states Bandai Namco only owns the Dark Souls games and not the Souls series entirely. Plus BN only published it in Europe, while Sony and Atlus published it in Japan and America respectively. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP, per this Polygon article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women MediapersonEdit

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) & DiplomatTesterMan

This is a comprehensive list of one of India's leading journalistic award. As usual, hope to receive constructive feedback's. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think I'm experienced enough to do a full review, but the first thing that jumps out is missing alt texts from the two images in Recipients section.
  • Space after comma in "Since it's inception in 1981,".
  • Some explanation for why it wasn't awarded in 1987 would be good.
Reference given. It is not specific in the book as to why the award wasn't given that year.
  • Some earlier entries in "Associated media houses" section are empty, but newer ones contain "Independent Journalist". Is Independent Journalist name of an organisation?
I could not find proper sources for them. Independent journalists mean journalists who do not work under any organisation. Sort of freelance. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it needs to be consistent. If they weren't associated with any organisation, then it should be either Independent Journalist or empty across the board. Maybe an en dash. But it needs to be consistent. TryKid (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

TryKid (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

TryKid Done. Thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That was fast, Yashthepunisher. I've added two more points. TryKid (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
TryKid Please have a look now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Support: Looks great to me. TryKid (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - is the award called "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediapersons" or "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson"? The title and the first sentence do not agree..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Renamed article name. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Infobox still says "Mediapersons" (as I'm currently looking at it)
  • Table needs scope rows
  • Ref. → Ref.
  • Ref col would look better centered
  • Why was there no winner in 1987?
  • Should probably archive all website refs

Rest looks good. – zmbro (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro I haven't been able to find a source that specifically mentions the reason behind no award in 1987. The rest has been fixed. Thanks for your queries. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson is" => "The Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson is"
  • "a Indian journalistic award" => "an Indian journalistic award"
  • Italicise Business Standard
  • Don't italicise The Media Foundation
  • "The award was instituted at an initiative" - no idea what this means, can you elaborate?
  • "The criteria for selection includes" => "The criteria for selection include"
  • "journalists in regional Indian language" => "journalists in regional Indian languages"
  • "A Pakistani journalist, Rehana Hakim, won the award in 1996." - why is this significant? Is it because she is the only Pakistani winner to date? If so, make that clearer?
Remove the entire sentence. It isn't of much significance.
  • "Priyanka Dubey of BBC" => "Priyanka Dubey of the BBC"
  • Caption on first image has "the the"
  • The same caption should not have the award name italicised
  • Why no winner in 1987?
  • ref column should be centred
  • Is there a standard English-language name for the award? Currently the title is "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson" which isn't grammatically correct English. Some of the refs use alternative titles such as "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Woman Journalist" Business Standard themselves (ref 38) seem to just call it "Chameli Devi Jain Award"
ChrisTheDude The original title is ""Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson" which is widely used by most sources. Some refs use the shorter name, the "Chameli Devi Jain Award". I have also come across some refs that mention it as "...Journalist", but they are few and far between. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • One other thing I noticed - the name column sorts on first name (e.g. Alka Dhupkar sorts under A). It should sort on surname.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by David BowieEdit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Another song list. Another British artist. This time the legendary Starman himself David Bowie. After seeing that his discography and awards lists are FLs and his main page is an FA, I felt his song list should be the same. It covers Bowie's entire career, from 1965 to 2016, and includes the material from his 1989–92 band Tin Machine. As always, I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. Happy editing! :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "including producers Tony Visconti and Brian Eno and singer Iggy Pop". Replace the first 'and' with a comma.
  • Period missing in alt texts.
  • Note no. t should be sourced.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks very much :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments

Only got time to look at the lead now, will do the rest later.....

  • "Beginning his career under the name "Davy Jones"" - don't think the quote marks are needed, especially given that it was his real name
  • "Bowie released several singles with multiple backing bands" - lose the word "several", as it could be taken as meaning that he recorded several singles, each with multiple backing bands
  • "Following his psychedelic pop self-titled debut album" is a little bit "sea of blue". Maybe slip "-influenced" after psychedelic pop to break it up a bit.....?
  • "the album introduced the world to Bowie" - not sure this wording is 100% accurate. His previous album had hit the top 10 in the UK and the top 40 in many other countries, and if anything Ziggy wasn't significantly more successful in chart terms at that point. Obviously it has gone to be regarded as a legendary album, but I am not sure it's true to say that in 1972 it "introduced the world" to Bowie
  • Yeah you're right. Changed to "the album launched Bowie to international stardom and introduced his glam rock style" that better?
  • "notably on its title track" => "notably its title track"
  • "throughout the 1980's" - no apostrophe in 1980s
  • "Tin Machine, who explored alternative and grunge styles before they were particularly well-known" - it took me a couple of readings to realise that you mean that the styles were not well-known, as opposed to the band. Any way this could be re-worded?
  • Changed to "who explored alternative and grunge styles before the genres were particularly well-known;"

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

More comments
  • Writers for "Without You I'm Nothing" and "Sorry" should be coloured blue but currently aren't
  • Whoops
  • Some covers aren't denoted as such. For example, "Working Class Hero" is a John Lennon cover and "Love Missile F1 Eleven" is a Sigue Sigue Sputnik cover, but neither is noted.
  • Fixed
  • On the subject of covers, "I Wish you Would" is listed as a Yardbirds cover, but their version was itself a cover of the original by Billy Boy Arnold.
  • My bad, fixed
  • Notes b, m, t, w are not full sentences so don't need full stops
  • Conversely notes c, e, g, n, s, u are missing full stops

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks very much! – zmbro (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I can still see some covers which aren't noted as such, e.g. "Try Some Buy Some" is a Ronnie Spector cover, "Dancing in the Street" is a Martha and the Vandellas cover, etc. I would suggest double checking every song not written by Bowie himself...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Alright I think I got all of them. Can't believe I missed those, but with over 400 songs in one table I'm bound to miss something. Thanks so much. :-) – zmbro (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – Ref 13 has an incorrect year of publication for the Buckley cite, and refs 18 and 24 are also generating red error messages for me (you may not see them without a script, but they should still be fixed). It looks like you didn't put rev=harv into the full source citation for the book used in refs 18 and 24; maybe that will fix the issue with them. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Giants2008 Whoops must've missed those when adding them. All good now, thanks. :-) – zmbro (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The Car & Murray refs are still coming up with error messages for me. I think you have to go into the bibliography and add Template:SfnRef to each entry to create an anchor for the cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Giants2008 Fixed – zmbro (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • "Notably" is inappropriate tone and a personal opinion, see WP:EDITORIALIZING – Done
  • "greater pop sound" is subjective; different people have different thoughts on what makes pop "great" or "greater" than other tracks in its genre
  • Changed to "more art pop"
  • "hits" is not very encyclopedic – Fixed
  • The lead only mentions singles when talking about specific songs. As this page isn't exclusively about those, it should also include non-singles (i.e. I'd name the new tracks from his New Plan EP). – Done
  • I'm not sure work with bands should be included in the tables when this is supposed to be more about his career as a solo artist. Take for example how List of songs recorded by Beyoncé doesn't go into Destiny's Child material, and List of songs recorded by Justin Timberlake excludes NSYNC work. Mentioning he was with groups in the lead, however, is fine.
  • Yeah I really wasn't sure about the use of Tin Machine. I originally removed them back in 2017 but re-added them this year primarily because it was Bowie's way of re-energizing his career after his period of decline in the 1980s. I'll remove them again as what you're saying makes sense.
  • Remove the "Indicates song released as a single" key from tables; that makes them too single-centric when this page isn't supposed to be a singles discography and shouldn't be treated as such.
  • I've noted singles in most of my other FLs so I don't think it's that big of a deal

Hopefully my comments help. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS All done. Thanks for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Better, but I'd add more non-singles to the lead (such as covers of other artists' tracks he didn't write or co-writr) and remove that "singles" key from tables as that puts too much focus on them when this lost isn't exclusively about those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Steven Curtis Chapman discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

My previous nomination here, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League rushing champions/archive2, is at three supports with all comments resolved, so I figured I'd nominate another list. This is the discography of Steven Curtis Chapman, one of the best-selling contemporary Christian music artists and the single most awarded figure in industry history. This list categorizes his major studio efforts and certifications along with chart positions for his studio albums as well as compilation albums, holiday albums, other albums (EPs and side projects), and video albums. It also includes a list of his singles and charting songs going back to 1987. Both of these sections are large, but I think they are summarized adequately in the lede, which notes his first albums, his major successes in the 90s, and his recent albums in the 2000s and 2010s, as well as brief mentions of his singles. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • I have only had time to look at the lead so far, where I have noticed the following:
    • No need to repeat his entire name at the start of para 3
    • "Chapman’s next two albums, Declaration (2001) and All About Love (2003), become" => became
    • "peaking at Nos. 14 and 12" - no need for a capital N
    • Same in the next sentence
  • I hope to get to look at the tables later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Corrected all of these now. Thanks in advance for taking a look! Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The only thing I could spot on the tables is that I strongly suspect that "Speechles" is spelt incorrectly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And you’d be correct... fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

  • The prose would benefit from some fine tuning. "Chapman" begins 7 out of 10 sentences, and some are quite long. Also, the uses of "would" and "became" don't really add much, when "Chapman released" and "Real Life was his first" are more direct.
  • The "Certifications" and "Albums" columns in the tables sometimes appear much wider than the "Titles" columns (the 2001–present singles titles are squeezed into a very narrow column). This gives an unbalanced look and draws attention away from the titles in the first row. Also, more consistency in column sizes from table to table is easier to follow (there's quite a jump from the first single table to the second).

Obviously, these are personal preferences, but something you may consider. Otherwise, good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catches. Did not notice the "singles" table does not have any length requirements - I've added them so they are consistent now (with the exception of the 2001-present table, as it has a certifications row). I've also removed several Chapmans from the lede and a few uses of the unnecessary phrasing. Toa Nidhiki05 20:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. In looking over the citations, I noticed many of the "Album details" entries use AllMusic reviews or the RIAA awards list. AllMusic is only considered a reliable source for its reviews. It's not clear where its sidebar info (dates, genres, etc.) comes from and is frequently incorrect. RIAA only shows the labels and album or single; the certification dates are not applicable. Amazon.com "should be avoided" (WP:NOTRSMUSIC). Release announcements, "breakout" entries, etc., in Billboard, genre magazines, or Chapman's own press releases are better sources.
    I’ll see what I can find but there is some contradictory advice at wp:NOTRSMUSIC (which advises against Amazon but does advise using Allmusic for internet-area releases). The RIAA sources actually do show release dates, though - if you click “more details”, it expands out to include the dates of certification but more importantly it does show the actual release date. I have access to Newspapers.com so I’ll see if I can find dates there. Would Chapman's website be a reliable source for this? He appears to have all the release dates listed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Occasionally, my computer won't show certain info, which is the case with the RIAA "More Details". If RIAA shows the release date, that's good enough. I think the first AllMusic sentence in NOTRSMUSIC is outdated (and out-of-place) and is contradicted by the following paragraph. Until this can be corrected, it is best to avoid the AllMusic sidebar info, especially when other sources are available. The Chapman website info should be OK for dates for the albums that RIAA doesn't have (I wonder how the three compare?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I've removed all of the Allmusic release dates and corrected the dates as well; there are still two albums cited to Amazon, but I could not find any other non-retailer sources that gave exact release dates. Regardless, both are out of print so I do not think the conflict of interest in selling still exists, and the dates line up well with other retailers as far as I could tell. Chapman's website does have a page that lists his long-form videos, but only the year of release. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
In looking for better sources for videos, I noticed some more.[2][3][4] Are these just earlier editions of the three you've listed? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
From the ones you listed:
  1. The Videos is already listed.
  2. I actually own the Live DVD so I know it exists, but it did’t chart and I couldn’t find much if any coverage on it.
  3. The Christmas Is All In The Heart VHS is, AFAIK, just a VHS music video released for promotional use, maybe in video stores.
  4. The Great Adventure VHS was bundled with some versions of The Great Adventure CD. Maybe a pre-order bonus?
  5. The Live Adventure was released as both a VHS and CD release, but since it charted on CD I included it in live albums while noting it was also released on VHS.
  6. Christmas Child was a made-for-TV movie he was in as an actor, so it’s not a video album.
  7. CCM United was a large compilation project with a ton of different artists, so not a Steven Curtis Chapman exclusive project.
  8. Front Row is an ancient VHS (1990, maybe)? It didn’t chart, and it didn’t receive much (if any) coverage.
Toa Nidhiki05 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The singles and charting songs show the references for peak positions, which may be sufficient for years. But if there is a general source for years, this could be added at the top of the "Year" columns (missing for "Other charting songs"). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed the lack of year in “other charting songs”. There is not a general source for years, the year column comes from the earliest date the song charted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This came up in a recent review, so I'll add it here: all the tables indicate "selected chart positions". I'm not sure where to add it, but a statement regarding the selection criteria should be given.
    Not sure what this would look like. I mean if there’s a criteria I guess it’s relevant, major charts he showed up on a lot? There’s not really a criteria since the number of charts he has appeared on is actually fairly limited due to him being a Christian musician (no international charts, no Hot 100, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
If you're not actually excluding any major charts that he appears on and including the ones he shows up on the most, then you've covered it. If he appears a few times on the Billboard 200, Hot 100, or RPM, these may be added as footnotes. The "selected" qualifiers should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. Aside from excluding charts that are typically excluded from discographies (Billboard 200 component charts and catalog charts), there was no real editorial decision here. The AC chart is the only mainstream singles chart he's appeared on AFAIK. I've removed the "selected" qualifier. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support All my concerns have been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds owners and executivesEdit

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Nashville Sounds minor league baseball team was known in its early years for its ownership by several country musicians. This list is the final piece needed before an attempt at a team featured topic. It follows the same style and formatting in use in other team featured lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • In the table, I think the asterisks to indicate new owners should come before the commas, not after. Putting them after the commas almost makes it look like the asterisk relates to the next person's name.
  • As the key only relates to the first table, put it just above it, within the "owners" section
  • "along with help from" - don't think the word "along" is needed here
  • "Richard Sterban of The Oak Ridge Boys" - maybe clarify here that the Oak Ridge Boys are a country music group
  • Think that's all from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Numbers 0–9 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS (in owners section)
  • Lowercase "the" on "the Oak Ridge Boys" mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC

Great job on this. Should be FL in no time. – zmbro (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Good for me. – zmbro (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

List of governors of GeorgiaEdit

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another state, another list of governors. This one was hard. I've been going generally in alphabetical order, and Georgia is the first state that was both a colony and secessionist, so it had complications from all corners. The fact that there were, at one time, as many as three schismatic governments didn't help. The state finally supplied a list from a blue book from the '70s that helped a lot in filling in the gaps, and I think it's ready. Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • The most immediate thing that jumps out is that the lead is far far too short. It should have three good-sized paragraphs, not three sentences.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Fleshed out. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The governor of Georgia is the head of the executive branch of Georgia's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor also has a duty to enforce state laws, the power to either veto or approve bills passed by the Georgia Legislature, and the power to convene the legislature." - none of this seems to be in the body, so it needs citing here
    • Done
  • "the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War" - same for this
    • Done
  • "The state seceded and was part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War," - ....and this
    • Done.
  • "each of which served two full four-year terms" => "each of whom served two full four-year terms"
    • Done.
  • "The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp who assumed" - need a comma after his name. Also I would tag this onto another paragraph so that we don't have a one-sentence "paragraph"
    • First part, done. Second part, What do you propose? The previous graf is about extremes in the office, so it seems improper to just latch this on to it for the sake of avoiding a single sentence graf.
      • I think it would fit OK onto the end of the very first paragraph.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • Governors section starts with another one-sentence "paragraph" - join this onto the next para
    • Done.
  • "This article relies on" - we try to avoid using "this article" or "this list" within an article, so find a way to re-word this bit
    • Done
  • Maybe it's because I am dumb and/or British, but I really don't understand why the first governor is number 7. The note says "It begins the numbering from the colonial governors" (which, BTW, should really be "it continues the numbering....."), but our article on the colonial governors says there were 10 of them???
    • Each state has a unique method of numbering. Alabama ignores acting and repeat governors; some states don't. Georgia and Connecticut number starting from their colonial governors. According to the source, that puts Bulloch at #7. I haven't looked at our other list, so I don't know where they get ten governors. I have to use exactly what is in the source, because there are so many different ways of counting and listing Georgia governors that once I found the source, which is the closest I'm going to get to an official source, I had to rely on it entirely. Deviations are handled in footnotes and text, but the numbering should stay. Either we start at 7, or we come up with our own numbering system. Changed to 'continues'. For fun, looking at the colonial list.. our source omits their #1, since he was a trustee, not governor; it omits their #8 and #9 because they were military/provisional governors; and #10 is the same as #7, and they don't number repeats.
  • Once you're re-sorted the table, it's impossible to get back to the original order, because there are 3 nulls in the "no" column. I suggest using hidden sort keys to make sure these appear in the appropriate place when sorting by number.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the notes are unsourced.
    • I'll work on this.
  • Some notes are not full sentences are therefore don't need a full stop
    • Is this really that important? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, it isn't correct as it stands.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
        • oh fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's it from me at the moment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Reywas92
  • I know this isn't the place to go into detail, but "local rule was re-established" (used twice) is quite the euphemism for "the right of black citizens to vote was no longer protected"! "exerted some control" also obscures that it enforced the US Constitution, the fifteenth amendment being relevant here. I'm not sure the best way to word this but Georgia during Reconstruction should at least be linked.
    • It's nicely euphemistic, isn't it. But that is the terminology near-universally used for the end of reconstruction. I did drop 'some', as the generals had dictatorial power.
  • I support your decision to go with your source on numbering to begin at 7, but this should be explicitly stated in the prose, not just hidden in the footnote. The numbering in List of colonial governors of Georgia should be made consistent with this source then, since it also goes through 7.
    • Made an attempt.
  • No comma after "provided for a lieutenant governor"
    • I dunno, that makes it seem like the constitution provided for the Lt Gov to serve the same time, etc ... no, it provided for a lieutenant governor, stop, which also has these other qualities.
  • The second paragraph could be split to be more chronological
    • I don't know which paragraph you mean.
  • The final paragraph seems out of order, should be more chronological
    • You mean the one about the Battle of Savannah? I thought it would be useful to mention it right before the list. It's also a separate topic from the constitutional changes, so making it chronological doesn't seem to help...
      • The entire thing being chronological may be the clearest. It reads as early history - statehood - civil war - back to statehood, term limits, and succession - civil war again and term limits again - back to succession, back to term limits - finally back to the revolution era for some reason? I know you're doing history of the state - everything in the constitution chronologically - facts relating to numbering, but it feels quite jumbled. It would would be more cohesive to do everything chronologically (the cleanest, which puts the line on readmission dates and the capture of Savannah near the relevant constitutional changes, or do one paragraph with everything about term limits, one with everything on succession, one with Civil war changes, etc. Subsections either way could also work, but not the best if a couple only have one paragraph. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I combined the first two grafs, since they're purely about when it became a state. As for the ordering, I agree. When I wrote this I probably thought chronological was needed, but yeah, it works better going by subject. I still think we need a notice why the list is going to be so different from most lists online, and it doesn't work "chronologically". --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The final sentence is not grammatical, I think "which" and the comma should be removed.
    • Dunno how the 'which' got there, but I don't know which comma you mean.
      • The one between clauses, I got it.
  • Update see also link to First Ladies of Georgia (U.S. state)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "The early days were chaotic with many gaps and schisms in the state's power structure, as the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War." 1. "The early days" is vague and the word "early" is repeated later in the sentence. 2. The sentence is a non sequitur as a battleground does not necessarily cause schisms. Maybe "The state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War and between x year and y year the state's power structure was chaotic with many gaps and schisms."
    • Tried to fix.
  • "as the state capital of Savannah was captured". "as" implies that the capture was the sole cause of the schisms. Is this correct? Otherwise, I would profer "and" or "partly due to". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • All sources linked say or indicate that the fall of Savannah was the sole cause. On the other hand I have no sources that state any other cause; therefore it would be incorrect to offer a sourced statement of "partly due to", wouldn't it?
  • "The state was solidly Democratic-Republican until the 1830s" Only from 1789.
    • Parties didn't exist before then. I tried to fix.
  • "split elections" This sounds odd to me. Is it AmEng?
    • Don't think so? They split elections, they went back and forth. Like how you might split your time between work and home. Not sure how better to write this.
  • How about " the governorship swung between the Whigs and Democrats"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Tried something.
  • The rest of the paragraph is vague on dates and I suggest clarifiying.
    • Is it? It has few dates at all, because it's prose, not a rote list of dates. That's what the list and later paragraphs are for.
  • The second and third pagragraphs of 'Governors' are the wrong way round.
    • I'd disagree but since I rejiggered that section anyway, this criticism is moot.
  • "While the 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, the other constitutions surrounding the American Civil War brought lots of changes." "surrounding the American Civil War" does not sound right and "lots of changes" is too colloquial. Maybe "The 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, but later constitutions during the American Civil War and Reconstruction brought many changes."
    • In the above-mentioned rejiggering I fixed some of this. Did a little more editing.
  • "An amendment in 1941..." This belongs in the next paragraph, not the one about the Civil War period.
    • Moot, I think, since I moved things around.
  • "The revolutionary government was thrown into disarray by the capture of Savannah in 1778, which led to two governments with varying levels of influence; they would reunite in 1780. The Official and Statistical Register of Georgia ignores the Council of Safety of William Ewen in favor of Archibald Bulloch's government, and omits the government of William Glascock and Seth John Cuthbert.[26] The Register also begins the numbering at 7, including the previous colonial governors." 1. I think it would be better to merge this with the first short paragraph of 'Governors'. 2. I assumed at first that the omitted governors were British appointed, but I see that this is wrong. I think you should clarify this, particularly for Ewen as he is not mentioned in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I tried clarifying this. I still strongly think that a paragraph explaining 'why is this list different than all the others' is about more than just chronology, it's important info.
  • I still think you need to clarify that Ewen, Glascock and Cuthbert were not British appointees. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were British appointees. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Muddy Waters discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've recently expanded this discography to include inline citations for each release, added several charting albums, and revised the lead. Muddy Waters is one of the most important blues artists of all time and I hope to make this a featured list. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Alright all good for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Firstly, great to see a bluesman getting recognition at FLC!
  • What's the criterion for "selected" live and compilation albums i.e. why are these selected but not others?
  • Since there is such a large amount of questionable material out there, I tried to include the ones that 1) were issued by his official record companies, 2) appeared on the charts, or 3) noted in his bio by Gordon or other references, such as the All Music Guide to the Blues. I used the same approach with the Elmore James discography. The many releases by Charly Records and related labels were excluded, because it lost the copyright infringement lawsuit over its unauthorized releases of the Chess catalogue.[7]Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I notice that that discog has a couple of sentences at the top of the relevant section explaining the selection. Would something similar be possible here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In some cases where multiple refs are together they are not in numerical order
  • Ref columns are usually centred
  • Fixed, although most discographies lack inline citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "as accompanist - singles" table, not a single one charted, so is there really any point in having the chart peak column?
  • It gives a more consistent, professional look, IMO. I'm not a fan of jumping to different sized tables with different columns from section to section. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be tempted to show the two versions of "The Last Waltz" as "The Last Waltz" and "The Last Waltz (deluxe re-release)" or "...(box set re-release)" rather than use the dates, as using the dates doesn't rule out the possibility that they are two completely different albums that happen to have the same title.....
  • Some (although not all) of the notes are complete sentences so need full stops
  • Quick commentRef 46 doesn't include the publication year in the cite, which is causing a nasty red harv error message to appear. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed (mine doesn't show in red). Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1989Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There are now 28 of these year-by-year country number ones lists at FL status, so here's what will hopefully be #29, covering a year in which a little-known singer called Garth Brooks spent a single week at number one. I wonder whatever became of him.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The only feedback I have is Ref. needs to be Ref.Allied45 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Only comment: "is a chart" -> "is a record chart". Otherwise it looks great. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • TBH I don't think it necessary. That sentence says it ranks the top-performing songs, so what other type of chart could it be....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarity's sake if you want to link "chart". I truthfully don't think you need to link chart at all as it's common enough knowledge/rather obvious what it does. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've changed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Great work, happy to support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. – zmbro (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2010–present)Edit

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a great list comprehensively covers the topic and would make a good addition to featured lists.. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I don't think it's at FL level just yet.

  • My biggest problem is the lead. It's quite short for a featured list, and lacks a lot of focus – less than a quarter of the text is about Big Brother during the 2010s (the final four sentences of the lead), even though that's the entire subject of the article. The rest is either about Big Brother in general, or about episodes during the 2000s. It's telling that the lead for this list is identical to the one at List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2000–2009).
  • There's a lot of information missing from the lead. For example, there's nothing about Over the Top. What was it? How was it different to the regular BB series? Why was it introduced? Why did it only run for a single series? Similarly, it looks as if the format of the episodes changed between seasons 16 and 17 – how did they change, and why?
  • I think that, even with a more comprehensive lead, this might be a difficult article to get to FL standard. The "No. in season" columns in the tables are entirely redundant given the "Title" columns, and could definitely be removed without any loss of information to our readers. However, if you do that, what's left? Is there anything further that you could include in the earlier tables, such as viewing figures or ratings share?
  • "Big Brother" in the article title needs to be in italics. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.
  • The lead image needs alt text.
  • "Series Overview" -> "Series overview"
  • It seems to me that you could get rid of the first 11 rows in the Series overview section, since they're outside the scope of this list.
  • Per MOS:NUMRANGE, use en dashes ( – ) in the Day(s) columns, rather than hyphens ( - ), i.e. "Days 1-8" -> "Days 1–8". Similarly, "18-49" -> "18–49".
  • "Marsh, Calumdate=June 27, 2018" -> "Marsh, Calum. June 27, 2018"
  • Spaced hyphens need to be spaced en dashes.
  • Avoiding shouting in reference titles (i.e. citations 12 and 14).
  • The publisher of the viewing figures jumps between "TV by the Numbers", "TV By The Numbers", "TV By the Numbers" and "TV by the Numbers.com". It should be the first one throughout.
  • Similarly, dates flit between "January 1, 2000" format and "2000-01-01" format.
  • Citation 97 contains an error.

I think this list still has some way to go before it's at FL level, and I wish all the participating editors the best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho comments have been here now for a month, are you intending to address them or would you prefer the nomination to be archived? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: My apologies, I've fixed about half the issues but aren't sure I'll be able to get to the rest. It can be archived and when or if I ever get to the other half I'll renominate. Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

List of ACF Fiorentina seasonsEdit

Nominator(s): —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it matches the Featured List nomination criteria as well as fits with other similar articles on club seasons. —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


  • Comments
  • The lead image's caption isn't a complete sentence, so it needs no period.
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It does need alt text.
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The club's fortunes quickly turned in the early 2000s as they entered administration in the wake of the 2001–02 season." - This hardly seems like a quick change (going from a successful 1955–56 season to the misfortunes of 2001–02. Perhaps it would be helpful to add prose covering each promotion and relegation (only some are currently covered) as well as a general overview of successful & less successful periods in the club's history.
  Reworded the introduction to include more detailsChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the count of seasons played in each Serie is correct (or maybe it is). It says 6 seasons were played in Serie B, but I count 5, unless the 1945–46 Serie A-B season is counted. If is counted as a Serie B season, shouldn't it also be counted as a Serie A season? Maybe it's the "or equivalent" part at the end of the sentence. If this is the case, it would probably be best to indicate in parenthesis which former classifications are counted toward each current classification.
  The Serie A-B was the highest level of league football in Italy, equivalent to today's Serie A, so the count has ben added for Serie AChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Several top scorers are still in need of {{sortname}}.
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Any links to players on Italian Wikipeida will need to be formatted such as this: {{sort|Casarsa, Gianfranco|[[:it:Gianfranco Casarsa|Gianfranco Casarsa]]}} in order to sort by last names.
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In the three instances of shared capocannoniere awards, it might be interesting to know what club the co-winner played for.
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a problem with the ISBN on reference 6.
  Not sure if correct ISBN, as the one used is provided by FIGCChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - My concerns have been met. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Even more comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "After a 55-year spell in the top division, Fiorentina was relegated to Serie B" - you still need to say when this actually was. Readers shouldn't have to look back to an earlier paragraph and then do mentally arithmetic to work out when "55 years later" was
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "saw him finish as the club top-scorer" => "saw him finish as the club's top scorer"
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • " the fourth-level" => " the fourth level"
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Records of competitions such as Mitropa Cup and the Anglo-Italian League Cup are not included." - except they now are :-)
  :)Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, owner family, the Della Valle family," - this is still not correct English grammar. It should be "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, the club's owners, the Della Valle family," (as I believe I said above, in fact)
  DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • "the 1955–56 season" season should be within the pipe. Many examples of this.
  • Real Madrid is piped to a redirect.
  • "(lost 2–0 to ..." losing ... Plus link to the article about the final. Or if not, the specific Champions League (like you do to the Coppa Italia articles linked in the lead).
  • "Their second league title" Reiterate Fiorentina here, the last club you mention is Rangers.
  • " near relegation finishes" near-relegation should be hyphenated in this context.
  • "third Serie A title in the 1981–82 season, however they lost the title " repetitive use of title, needs reworking.
  • " losing again to Juventus 3–1 on aggregate" they didn't lose 3-1 on aggregate last time.
  • "Fiorentina was relegated" previously you've referred to Fiorentina in the plural.
  • "Supercoppa Italiana" specific year article should be linked.
  • "played 82 seasons in Serie A, seven in Serie B and one season in Serie D " MOS:NUM cats and dogs (82/7/1) or (eighty-two/seven/one).
  • I would much rather see the use of the {{ill}} template for those articles which only exist at Italian Wikipedia. That way it encourages someone to create the articles rather than just rely on it.wiki.
  • Why are some top scorers in bold?

The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by ColdplayEdit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my clear obsession with British rock bands is my next song list, this time the rock band Coldplay. Seeing how many of Coldplay's articles are GAs and most of their lists are FLs, seeing this one like this just didn't do it for me. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! :-) – zmbro (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • Fix this green link.
  • Period missing from alt texts.
  • The prose seems fine to me.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks so much! – zmbro (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • "British rock band Coldplay has recorded" - in UK English bands' names are treated as plural, so this should be "British rock band Coldplay have recorded", and you need to ensure you are using plural forms throughout (as indeed you already do in the very next sentence.....)
  • "among the best-selling albums in UK chart history." - I don't think the word "chart" is needed here
  • "Since their formation, Coldplay credits all of their songs" - plural/single/plural - ugh! :-)
    • Also, the correct tense would be "Coldplay have credited"
  • " In the beginning of their career" => "At the beginning...."
  • "said to reminiscent " => "said to be reminiscent "
  • "X&Y is different than" => "X&Y is different to" (we don't say "different than" in UK English)
  • "more stripped-down melancholy style" => "more stripped-down melancholic style" (melancholy is a noun)
  • "overarching theme that there's" => "overarching theme that there is"
    • Is that a direct quote (it sounds like one)? If so, it needs to be attributed.
  • You don't mention anywhere in the lead that the band have also recorded as "Los Unidades" - you need to explain this, otherwise it's not clear why songs by that "act" suddenly pop up in the table.
  • That's what I have spotted in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks for the input! :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Further comments
  • My only comments on the table relate to songs which appear more than once. For example, if "Lost?" is just an acoustic version of "Lost!" and "Lost@" is just a live version then they aren't different songs and therefore don't need to be listed separately. Most bands will have released a live album at some point but I wouldn't expect to see the tracks from it listed separately in a "List of songs recorded by...." article, because they aren't different songs. If they are listed separately here because they have (fractionally) different titles then I think that can be covered by a footnote against the entry for the original song. Similarly you have "How You See the World No. 2" listed, which just seems to be a remix of the song above. Many Coldplay songs have been remixed, so I don't see a compelling reason for this one to be shown here as a separate song. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Yeah you're right I just put them in notes on the originals. That better? – zmbro (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro: are the following pairs also different mixes/recordings of the same song?
  • "Lost!" and "Lost+"
  • "Life in Technicolor" and "Life in Technicolor ii"
  • "A Message" and "A Message 2010"
ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude "Lost!" and "A Message" are (changed that) but with "Life in Technicolor", "i" is an instrumental that was released on Viva la Vida while "ii" was the vocal version of it that ws released on Prospekt's March; "ii" was also the version released as an actually single (and has its own page on WP), so I think these two warrant a separation. – zmbro (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • According to the key, the blue highlights songs that were written or co-written by the band, but its usage in the table seems to indicate it highlights the opposite.
  • Cannot believe I never caught that. Supposed to be "not written" – changed.
  • This is a question more than anything — the notes that indicate that a song also appears on a different album, wouldn't it make more sense to have them alongside the album name in the songs respective row instead of next to the song itself?
  • That's how I've done it for all the other song lists I've brought up to FL.

The lead looks great. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 16:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DanielleTH Thanks so much for the comments! :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Concerns addressed/explained so I support the nom now. I also have a (considerably similar, oddly enough) FLC ongoing if you would like to make comments/criticisms! DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing! – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Eurohunter Done. – zmbro (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
  • Charts, reviews, sales, and awards for the band's music are irrelevant here, so I'd cut them.
  • "Several" from "have recorded several unreleased songs" is a vast understatement.
  • Changed to many
  • Not very many songs are discussed in the lead, and I'd add some non-singles as well; this isn't supposed to be a singles discography article. Including some of their covers written by other artists could help add diversity.
  • Remove the "Indicates song released as a single" key from the tables; it makes them too singles-centric when "List of songs recorded by" doesn't exclusively refer to singles.
  • I've noted singles in most of my other song FLs so I don't think it's that big a deal here.

Let me know once the above is addressed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • SNUGGUMS So you're basically saying I should rewrite most of it?, since cutting the entire first section would make it way too short. – zmbro (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Much of the lead, but not exactly all of it. Mentioning each album was a smart choice and I'd keep that in. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 10:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • SNUGGUMS Alright I'll see what I can do. I'll re-ping you when I'm done. – zmbro (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • SNUGGUMS Done. I'm glad you suggested I do that, I think it now better represents the band's music as a whole. I was able to expand upon many of their albums, and add in info about the Prospekt's March EP. Hope it's better. :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That lead definitely looks better now, though you still haven't removed the key from tables indicating certain songs are singles; that gives them too much focus when this isn't supposed to be a singles discography. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I now support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) episodesEdit

Nominator(s): Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a comprehensive list of the material and a great addition to Wikipedia's featured list of episodes. After reviewing the criteria for a featured list I believe this list meets all the criteria. I also looked at all the similar lists and realized that no reality show has a FL list of this nature so it would be great for a reality TV show to have a list of this nature pass the FL process. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • When we have lists of episodes for dramas/sitcoms/etc, normally there's a two or three sentence summary of each episode, but here there's nothing, so I can't glean anything about the content of the episodes from the list. Could a brief summary of the key moments in each episode not be given........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, if it's the norm then I guess that's OK. My other comments:
    • "last remaining HouseGuest in order to win a grand prize of $250,000" - I don't know how important it is to mention this in this article, but do the celebs actually receive the money themselves? I only ask because here in the UK celebrity editions of quiz shows, reality shows, etc, without exception have the celebs playing for a nominated charity rather than looking to pocket the money themselves.
    • "Allison Grodner and Rich Meehan serve as executive producers and is produced" - missing "the show" or similar before "is produced"
    • need a comma after "host of the series"
    • Not sure the words "on multiple nights" are needed. If it airs over more than two weeks then obviously the episodes aren't all on one night.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I fixed the second through fourth issues. In the American version the winning celebrity receives the money themselves. Even I found this a bit odd at first as this is the first American celebrity reality show I know of where the winner receives the grand prize instead of it being donated to charity. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I wasn't sure if it was just us Brits who deemed that celebs didn't need the money for themselves ;-) I am now happy to support this nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Gonnym
  • I'd rearrange a bit the lead so instead of Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is an American reality television series that premiered on CBS as counterprogramming to NBC's coverage of the 2018 Winter Olympics on February 7, 2018. and The show is a spin-off of the American adaption of Big Brother created by John de Mol. change to Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is the American adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Big Brother, which was created by John de Mol. The series premiered on CBS... or instead "adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Celebrity Big Brother" which is more precise.
  • including competitions and the nomination/eviction process. - MOS:SLASH so maybe "including competitions and the nomination and eviction process."
  • In note "a" (both of them) you have "Days" with an uppercase "D" - it's a normal word so should be lowercase.
  • In the reference section you have 2 section headers which should follow MOS:HEAD and act as normal section headers (== ==).
  • The image used should have an "alt", see MOS:IMAGESYNTAX
  • Not required by the FL criteria (no idea why not), but would help and nice to have, is to add archive links to the refs so this article won't have WP:link rot.

Other than that looks good. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review Gonnym! I fixed all the issues you mentioned and I reworded the notes in the table. With the English language adaptions of Big Brother they capitalize the word Day(s) when talking about a specific time in the house. The American & Canadian versions will also capitalize week if someone is talking about "Week 2", etc. Here is an article from CBS where day and week is capitalized when referring to a specific day or week. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I would expect to see a synopsis of the major events in each episode, especially given that there are only 26 in total. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The reasoning for this is explained above after the issue raised by ChrisTheDude. It's not possible because of the way the template is set up. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Then don't use the template. That's hardly a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode. This, in my opinion, does not qualify as part of Wikipedia's finest work as it stands. Don't get overtaken by templates, even just handcrafting the table would be better than trying to excuse a lack of detail. The template is clearly insufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Okay what about this being a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode? This is the standard on list of television series episode articles including featured lists such as List of Dexter episodes, List of Millennium episodes, List of Quantico episodes, and List of Lost episodes. It also follows MOS:TV specifically the paragraph that reads It may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. [...] If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries. Each section should have a {{main}} link to the sublist.. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well times have changed. And I'm sorry, I cannot support this as being amongst Wikipedia's finest works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: thank you for your comments and with all due respects I followed MOS:TV when creating this article and looked at various list of featured episode lists to find the appropriate table setup to use for this article. While this series is short with 26 episodes currently it has individual season articles where the episodes are summarized. All the featured lists I looked at with this setup do not have episode summaries even the series with less than 40 episodes that could accommodate short episode summaries. Instead of going against the established guideline would summarizing each season similar to List of Lost episodes work for this article? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think the Lost example you've given is a reasonable compromise. If you could write a few paras on each season as a summary, then I could be convinced to reverse my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay The Rambling Man I've added the paragraphs to the seasons as requested. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I've struck my oppose. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • This may be a question that's bigger than this FLC, but is the 'No. in season' column really necessary, given the 'Title' column? It seems a little redundant to me. Obviously Episode, say, 7 is going to the the seventh episode in the season. I may bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television...
  • The caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
  • "purpose built" -> "purpose-built"
  • "Julie Chen Moonves continues her role as host of the series, a position she ...". This confused me the first time I read it, as I didn't know that she had hosted the regular series. How about "Julie Chen Moonves hosts the series, continuing a position she ..." instead?
  • Both the Season 1 and 2 sections seem quite under-referenced to me. This might be fine if this were an article on a fictional TV series (per MOS:PLOTSOURCE), but, since we're dicussing living people here, it might be best to err on the side of caution and make sure that the text is fully-referenced, even if that just means citing to the CBB episodes themselves.
  • In the Season 1 section, I don't think you need to repeat the phrase "grand prize of $250,000" quite so quickly.
  • What are the "Head of Household" competitions? They're mentioned out of nowhere without any context given for what they are and what they represent. Presumably the houseguests competed in regular challenges, which meant that they were exempt from eviction, or something like that?
  • "season long" -> "season-long"
  • "Days 14-20" -> "Days 14–20"
  • "never used it where she wasn't nominated for eviction". I didn't really follow this. Do you mean she never used it because she wasn't nominated for eviction? Also, avoid contractions in prose.
  • Could you maybe write a paragraph about the show's ratings for the Ratings section? I don't think I've never seen a level 2 header with nothing but one image in it. You could just merge the sentences about ratings from the Season 1 and 2 sections into it, then maybe say, for example, which episode was the highest-rated of each season. Happy to help, if you'd like.
  • Most of the publishers in the References section aren't wikilinked. Is there any particular reason for this?
  • Avoid shouting in reference titles (see citation 3).

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

According to sources, it's complete discography of Swedish musician Basshunter. It meets the criteria for a featured list, passed GOCE and received peer review. I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I spent quite much time adjusting every detail of this list. Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The thing that immediately jumps out is that there are a lot of sources missing. Currently the Compilation albums section, the EPs section and the Remixes sections are all completely unsourced. You also need sources for any album or single that didn't chart anywhere. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • How Chris already said, refs, are missing
  • The tables are a mess
  • A discography should look like this: [8]
    • There are examples of FLs with different styles. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the year column
    • There are examples of FLs with year column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The table should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;"
    • Missing only at first table.   Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Albums need to be listed in italics with in the first column
    • There are examples of FLs with albums listed in second column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Chart position should be in one row
  • It's IFPI DEN, BIP, RMNZ, IFPI AUT, IFPI SWE, IFPI FIN
    • There are examples of FLs which have certifications by country code name. "RMNZ" or "BIP" doesn't says anything to people not faimiliar with the music industry but "NZL" and "UK" are obvious and name of organisations are included in the link. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "—" denotes album that did not chart. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory."
    • In singles table changed "territory" to "country".   Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't link CD multiple times
    • It's linked once per section. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • EPs: Label: None "Label: Independent
  • Singles: The title column should be the first and has scopes, the year one the second; Same goes for the other tables
    • As above. There are examples of FLs with different tables. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use all caps in the references
    • I used original records. In certain cases in may be helpfull to find content. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs with authors: Surname, first name
    • It's not sorted in any way and eventally links to Wikipedia article so first name, surname. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For IFPI AUT certs. [9]
  • Sources which are not in English need to be translated with |trans-title=
    • Isn't it violation of WP:OR? Eurohunter (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Added. In two cases I will look for people that know Swedish and French to help. Eurohunter (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All these FLs you mentioned are old. A discography should have the proper modern style. Independent is not a label; Independent record label. WP:OR has nothing to do with what I mentioned. Caps: MOS:CAPS.--Lirim | Talk 13:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • This album also wasn't relesed by independent record label if you mean that. Eurohunter (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did some fixes to the tables and refs: I have some more comments later.--Lirim | Talk 13:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lirim.Z: Why you removed sale based on certifications? You removed even Finland with extact data sales. Eurohunter (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Certifications can't be used to source sales. i'm sorry for removing Finland, I'll add it back later.--Lirim | Talk 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Why they can't be while they are used in singles and album articles? I restored sales in Finland. Eurohunter (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Some more comments
  • it was certified tripe platinum. it was certified triple platinum by IFPI Denmark.
    • Could you provide example? Is name of organisation that important? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • His second studio album LOL released on 28 August 2006[8] charted in the top five in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The album was certified platinum in Finland[10] and double platinum in Denmark.[11] ... LOL was released on .... and charted in the top five of ... . It was later certified platinum by IPFI Finland and double platinum by IFPI Denmark.
  • In the second half of this same year, In late 2006, Basshunter published his third studio album The Old Shit and rereleased The Bassmachine through his website Note: Was this a re-release?
    •   Done If I correctly understand word "re-release" yes. Is release released 3 days after original release a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The album was supported through seven singles including "Now You're Gone", which reached number-one in the UK and Ireland and "All I Ever Wanted", which received similar success in the beforementioned countrys.
  • It also reached platinum in the UK and New Zealand. It was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ).
  • His fifth studio album Bass Generation was released in September 2009 and was supported through two singles. The album reached minor-commercial success in Europe and was certified silver by the BPI. Calling Time his sixth studio album was released four years later and wasn't able to reach the charts in any country. Six singles were released to support the album; two were able to reach the charts; "Saturday" was later certified gold by RMNZ.
    • I don't guess we are here to give a ratings saying album reached "success" or not. Numbers are enough. I added information about silver. Calling Time reched number 25 on US Dance/Electronic Albums. Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I still have comments for the references, but that should be everything for the lead. There is no reason to mention every single released. Only mention what is relevant.—Lirim | Talk 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lirim.Z: Could you let me know what is incorrect with references? Eurohunter (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lirim.Z: I changed parameter publisher to website and supply publisher where is it needed to references so Apple Music has perameter website = Apple Music and publisher = Apple. Is it what you meant? I didn't use Cite magazine because I don't know if these articles were published in paper versions. Eurohunter (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Could you please incorparate my comments for the lead?
    @Lirim.Z: What you mean? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything that is not a website or a newspaper needs to be credited with |pulbisher= and not |work=/|website=
    • I think there is no thing which can be called just a "website". Every reference links to website of organisation, shop, encyclopedia, database, news paper, new agency etc. so I don't know what to do at this point. Question would be what can be called just as "website"? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Every hyphen (-) needs to be changed to en-dashes (–)
  • It's |via=Itunes Store; the publisher is the label; no need to give a language for an itunes ref
    • Did you mean cite AV media notes reference number 21 and 24 which used "via = Apple Music"? I changed them for standard web cite. Eurohunter (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use Discogs as a reference--Lirim | Talk 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Discogs isn't used as reference. Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • en dashes only for refs, not for words which are writen with an hyphen like self-published--Lirim | Talk 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lirim.Z: Done. Why only for references? What is the difference? I used one em dash in case of title like "50-2018". Eurohunter (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

  • Basshunter in the lead doesn't need to be in bold.
  • Lead para is too short.
  • Lead sentence shouldn't mix numbers and words, see the "cats and dogs" clause in MOS:NUM.
    • All FL disographies which I checked had numbers and words mix included. I just connected them to the next paragraph.   Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " Denmark and Finland.[6][4][9] " citations in numerical order please, plenty of these to fix.
    • Why you want that? It follow content order instead of numerical order so you know what to expect from next reference (top 5 in Sweden, Denmark and Finland not Denmark, Sweden and Finland). Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Where are release dates referenced?
  • Which territories are the release dates relevant to?
    • I don't gues it's really needed and it just would lead to big mess. Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Nota at all, I see that information in all recent featured discographies. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @The Rambling Man: So what if album was released digitally and territory wasn't specified? What if album was first released in two or even more countries? Which country is more important to list? Eurohunter (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't need the row span in certification column after "Hallå där".
  • Itunes is really iTunes.
  • I thought discogs wasn't considered a reliable source.
    • @The Rambling Man: True and it isn't used as source. You should notice it use Template:Cite AV media notes. Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't follow. The discogs website is used seven times as a source. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @The Rambling Man: No. These seven references use Template:Cite AV media notes sourcing directly to release and has link to their images on Discogs. Eurohunter (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
          • They all link to discogs, which isn't RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
            • @The Rambling Man: They are sourcing directly to release and has optional link to their images on Discogs. They are not sourcing to Discogs. What's the problem? Eurohunter (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
              • As I said, I'm not following your logic. Take ref 37, the release date of that is "verified" by discogs and discogs only, which is not an RS. What else is verifying that release date which I'm not seeing? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                • @The Rambling Man: In this case it's right. Should I delete whole date? Eurohunter (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • I'm still not following really, sorry. This is how you're using discogs, then each time you use it this way, it's not RS. You need to find other sources instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • @The Rambling Man: No. It was only two cases from whole article (I just checked them all). I changed them to "Unknown". Eurohunter (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

@Eurohunter: - apologies, I completely forgot to return here. My only remaining query is with the note against "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA". The table says it got to number 33, but then a footnote says it got to number 30. I don't understand...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yes bacuse different release of this song called "DotA" got to number 30. What do you think to change it to "2007 "DotA" charted at number 30."? Eurohunter (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
If they are completely different recordings then they should be listed separately in the table. If the song was simply remixed/re-released then it should just be shown once but with the higher peak position. The way it is shown at the moment is not clear/helpful at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: It's new version released in 2007 but 2006 "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and "2007" DotA was charted separetly in Germany. In simplification we could say the same song was charted as two different songs. Eurohunter (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If they are different recordings then I would list them separately and put a footnote against the 2007 version saying Re-recording of "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Could you show example? It was labeled as "new single version" on track list. Eurohunter (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
See Coldplay discography - "Lost!" and "Lost+" (which are different recordings of the same song) are shown separately, with a different US chart position for each -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Maybe the reason is that "Lost+" wasn't released as single and was charted? Do you have other examples? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have expressed what I think needs to be done. Either show them completely separately, or else show them as one row but with the higher position. It is lunacy to have the table show a peak position and then have a footnote hidden away right at the bottom saying "oh, actually it got higher than that". If the re-release had got to number 1 would you still have the table showing it got to number 33 but then a tiny footnote right at the bottom saying "actually it got to number 1 later"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I think yes because it's re-release, not original release. Eurohunter (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. If the song got as high as number 30 then the table should say it got to number 30. It doesn't matter when that happened -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I have added separate entry for 2007's "DotA".   Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: the last column is missing on that row.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:   Done Eurohunter (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

  • Commas are sorely needed before and after "released on 28 August 2006".
  • "and same as single" would read better as "and like the single".
  • Another comma would be helpful after I Promised Myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removalEdit

List of cetacean speciesEdit

Notified: WP:CETA, WP:WPLISTS, User:Dunkleosteus77


  • "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
Do you have any recommendations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
  • Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Scripps National Spelling Bee championsEdit

Notified: Matthewedwards, WikiProject Awards

Article has been tagged for insufficient citations, while the lead is only two sentences long. This list could probably be merged into Scripps National Spelling Bee, really. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist – Without substantial work, the list shouldn't have the star any longer. It has multiple deficiencies, as pointed out by the nominator. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - In addition, there is a subheading with nothing in it. Mattximus (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    In fairness, the "See also" section does include a portal box to the right, but it probably isn't worth including there anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This section is gone now, but for some reason the notes start at letter C? Mattximus (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's because I have eliminated some notes which I didn't think were necessary and haven't yet get round to re-lettering the remaining ones...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mattximus:, might you be able to check back in here? Everyone else who had !voted "delist" has now struck their !vote, just wondering if you had any comments on the current state of the article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – should've been demoted in 2012 once that tag got there. – zmbro (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist. The background and media coverage sections don't belong on this list, they belong on the main article. There are multiple citations missing from the table. The lead introduces the spelling bee and not the champions, which is what the list is about. No images despite there being photos of some winners on Commons. Absolutely not an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 22:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - if it's not too late after four delist !votes, I'm happy to have a crack at salvaging this one..........? Let me know if it's worth bothering......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Great changes. Four somewhat minor things — are all three sources needed for Clara Mohler's win? It seems like a bit much, and I think the third source is a dead URL. The references column is titled "notes". The images are missing alt text, and the first two captions need periods since they're full sentences. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleTH: - TBH most of the refs in the last column aren't needed, as the ref in the column headers covers everything. I'm still working on fixing the article's issues, hopefully I can get everything ship-shape by the W-E-E-K-E-N-D weekend ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleTH: - all done now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: The only other things were quite minor so I went ahead and did them: the full-sentence captions needed periods per WP:CAPFRAG and one caption needed a minor change to keep tenses consistent, and some locations weren't linked. I've struck my delist, keep. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 19:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Much better now. Here are a few things I noticed from looking at the list, all minor:

  • Bolded links in the intro are discouraged by the MoS, so that bolding at the start should probably go.
  • The 2008-2018 range needs an en dash for style.
  • In the List of champions section heading, the first two words aren't needed since it's obviously a table. Just using Champions is cleaner.
  • In the references, I see New York Times and The New York Times. Pick one and stick with it for both cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Not gonna lie I'm actually very impressed with what you've done with this. Honestly didn't think this was salvageable, fantastic job! Here are a couple of things I'd add:

  • Table still needs scope rows
  • I'd archive every ref
  • Why only 14 refs?zmbro (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Why only 14 refs? - why not? Everything in the article is sourced, there's no real need to add more refs just for the sake of it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. On top of my first two points, ref 8 still needs an access date. – zmbro (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Scopes and missing accessdate added. I don't know how to archive refs...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Only ref 11 was missing an archival version, so I archived it for you. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – I'm good with this keeping the star. Great job improving it. – zmbro (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

List of birds of ViequesEdit

Notified: WikiProject Birds

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list is almost entirely unsourced. There has been a "lack of inline citations" tag for almost 10 years (!!!). The lead is short, and uses outdated terminology such as "This list...". Images don't have alt-text. I haven't seen a featured list this far from our standards, but it was nominated in 2006, so it shows. Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist not up to current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – Unless the nominator's comments are addressed, this should end up delisted for the reasons they mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – per Rambling Man. Honestly wondering how this got promoted in the first place. – zmbro (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist, the list is a mess and hard to use, none of the images have alt text, and the notice at the top of the page is still valid. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 16:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)