Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

  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:



List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leadersEdit

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Champions League Twenty20 captainsEdit

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meats the criteria. Some changes might be required but I am completely open to any constructive criticism. Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in BerkshireEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image reviews —pass

No issues. Sources are reliable for what they're used for and images are free. A few source checks did not uncover any problems. buidhe 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - the two FLs which you link above have leads of over 1500 characters, whereas this one is only 900, which seems very short. Can it be beefed up a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Added information about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder was one of the greatest American filmmakers. Known for film noirs such as Double Indemnity (1944), Sunset Boulevard, and the comedies Some Like It Hot (1959) and The Apartment (1960). As always I welcome all constructive comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - Jimknut (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "while there he co-directed" => "where he co-directed"
    • "French language version of Scampolo" - seems odd to have this much further up the table than Scampolo, prompting me to initially think "what's Scampolo?" Either move Scampolo above this one, or else remove the note here and instead put a not against Scampolo saying it's a German version of Un peu d'amour.
  • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Made the above amendments, I don't know why I had put the French version so far from Scampolo. Cowlibob (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in FinlandEdit

Nominator(s): Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

With Denmark promoted and Norway getting in shape, Finland is next in the series of sites from Northern Europe. I started paying more attention to the alt text for images since the last discussion. The style of the article is following the previous ones. Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image reviews
  • Both pass. Sources look reliable and spot checks check out. Images are free and I added FoP-Finland tags where appropriate. buidhe 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This should have a longer lead so it can stand alone. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom in comparison which goes into some more detail about the types of sites and the country's relationship to UNESCO. I don't see any issues with the table though. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I expanded the intro. --Tone 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Washington College alumniEdit

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after much research I think I have listed all of the notable Alumni of Washington College. I modeled the formatting and organization after several existing FLs and I think this lives up to the MOS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mexican National Tag Team ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the appropriate quality for a Featured List, it has actually been through an FLC before, but failed due to lack of participation sadly. I have kept this up to date, make sure to do format improvements as our FLs evolve. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments on the lead
    • In the promotion field in the infobox, dates for the first two overlap
    • The lead says that EMLL had control until 1992 when it moved to AAA, but this does not agree with the infobox
    • The fact that it was (apparently) defended on the independent circuit for 8 years should be mentioned in the prose
    • No reason for the Commission's Spanish name to be in quotes
    • "contested for by tag teams only" - either "contested by tag teams" or "competed for by tag teams", but not what you have currently
    • Given that there have been "three a side" and "four a side" titles in Mexico, probably worth clarifying in the lead that this is a "two a side" title
    • "but did not defend them between after December 25, 2011" - don't think the word "between" should be there
    • "There were been at least" => "There were at least"
    • Most team names are in italics but Los Guerreras is not - any reason?
    • "was not won not by actual competition" - stray extra word
    • Everything in the sentence starting "on occasion" should be in the past tense given that the championship no longer exists
  • I will get to the tables later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I believe I have addressed these including clarifying that the championship was inactive for 8 years, then defended once in 2011 and not since. Let me know if any of the above issues have not yet been addressed. And thank you for your time and effort. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
        • You say that you clarified that the championship was inactive for 8 years, then defended once in 2011 and not since, but I can't see that mentioned anywhere (unless I am being really dumb this early in the morning). Also, their respective articles indicate that both Octagon and La Parka (RIP) remained in AAA long after their title win, so the infobox saying that these titles were on the indy scene from 2003 onwards doesn't seem to be accurate. And the infobox still has the dates of EMLL (1957-1992) and CMLL (1991-1992), which overlap. If this is intentional/correct, it would be worth clarifying why. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Also, if the title was inactive for eight years between 2003 and 2011, then the line "and intermittently until 2011" isn't accurate, because "intermittent" means "occasionally" rather than "not at all"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I see the confusion that I introduced here. first of all in Mexico most wrestlers who work for AAA (or CMLL) is also allowed to work in the independent circuit on days there are no AAA shows, which is what's happened here. 2) I used the word "Promoted", as they wore the belts to the ring, was shown with them on posters etc. in that period of time, just no known championship matches. But rereading it I agree it is not worded clearly. I will rewrite that portion. note - also fixed the EMLL/CMLL overlap. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
              • So I clarified, only defended 2 times between 2009 and 2011 - hopefully that is less confusing? Please let me know what you think. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
                • Perfectly clear, thanks. I tidied up the language slightly for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments on the tables
    • Tenses are not consistent ie "Defeat Rene Guajardo and Karloff Lagarde in the final of a tournament." and "Defeated Los Infernales (El Satánico and Espectro Jr.)". Also that first note is not a complete sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop (check for that elsewhere too)
    • "La Parka was previously known under the name "La Parka Jr."" - don't think the quote marks are needed
    • "Máscara Año 2000 champion with his brother Cien Caras." => "Máscara Año 2000 held the championship with his brother Cien Caras."
    • In the tournament bracket, there's no W against the last match of the first round
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I believe I have addressed these as well. I left a full stop on some notes as they are complete sentences, let me know if you disagree with those? MPJ-DK (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, I think my only remaining query is around the structuring of the refs. If I look, for example, at Bestia Salvaje and Pierroth Jr.'s reign in 1990, the ref in the end column is to note aj in the "footnotes" section, which reads "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 396 "Pierroth Jr. & Bestia Salvaje 1990/05/26 Puebla". This is in turn sourced to ref 16 in the "references" section, "Duncan & Will 2000, p. 397." Firstly, the page numbers don't match, but secondly why is the info sourced to a footnote which is then sourced to a reference which says the same thing? Why not just source it straight to ref 16.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The footnotes are quotes from printed, offline material, with a reference to the specific book / page the quote was taken from. I'll double check on the page references. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't see the need to have it separate. Ref 16 sources the info on that line, so what value is there in having the footnote as well.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I used the suggested format previously, a previous FLC discussion led to the change, honestly I am not sure which one is the correct way of doing it, is there some sort of Wikipedia guideline on which format is prefereable? If I make a change, I just want to be sure I have soemthing to point to in case someone in the future comment. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
          • ChrisTheDude - I have made an adjustment to reference #10, combining the shortened citation with the quote, putting it all in the reference section. Before I make further changes I wanted to check that this is an acceptable format? MPJ-DK (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves is a Canadian actor who has had an extensive film career. He is known for his roles in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989), The Matrix (1999), and more recently John Wick (2014). This list describes the roles he has had throughout his career with appropriate referencing. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, you learn something new every day. I never knew Keanu was Canadian......
  • Comments
    • "The following year, Reeves appeared in the crime film River's Edge. In the same year, he starred in the television films Babes in Toyland, Act of Vengeance, and Brotherhood of Justice." - I would combine these two sentences as the first is very short.
    • "dies of suicide" is an odd and unnatural sounding choice of words. Why not just "commits suicide"?
    • "He played time-travelling slacker Ted "Theodore" Logan in the science fiction comedy Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989) with Alex Winter.[3] It was his breakthrough role, and the film was an unexpected commercial success" - again, I would combine this, maybe as "His breakthrough role came when he played time-travelling slacker Ted "Theodore" Logan, alongside Alex Winter as Bill S. Preston Esq in the science fiction comedy Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989), which was an unexpected commercial success"
    • "In 1991 he starred in action film Point Break with Patrick Swayze. In the same year, he appeared in the science fiction comedy sequel Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and independent drama My Own Private Idaho" - again very "choppy" short sentences, which I think could be combined
    • "He starred as a police officer in the action thriller Speed (1994) with Sandra Bullock.[6] The film was a commercial success and garnered critical acclaim" - same again
    • "He reunited with Bullock on the 2006 romantic drama" - I would say in, not on
    • In the TV table, two titles starting with "The" sort under T, when they should sort under the next word
    • Think that's it from me. My main advice is to eliminate some of the really short sentences in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review, I have made amendments per above. Cowlibob (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments from Lady Lotus
  • I have to really try and find things to comment on, good work from Cowlibob as always. I only have a few things:
    • On the sort for his characters name, Don Jon, it's sorted by "Don", shouldn't it be by "Jon"?
    • For his image, I would remove the image restraint of 200px and add "upright=1" or "upright=1.35" for the lead image
    • Regarding the references in the lead section - if the film and role is already referenced in the table below then I would remove the references from the lead. If it's referencing how well the film did then it could stay. Just try to remove the redundancy.
    • That's all I got really LADY LOTUSTALK 18:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lady Lotus: Thanks for your review, I've made the amendments as described. I'll try to have a look at your list later this week. Cowlibob (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support LADY LOTUSTALK 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – really happy to see this one at FLC, considering how big Keanu has been the past few years. Great job to you :-) – zmbro (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review from DanielleTH

  • Only concern: why is the online magazine Insider the only online magazine not italicized and the only source with a .com? Inconsistent from the rest of the sourcing.

Otherwise no issues. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@DanielleTH: Thanks for your source review. I've amended the reference above. Cowlibob (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Great work. Support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Justin Moore discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, my work at this page has been limited to quite recently, although this is because I've only been a user since November. I've been a regular updater at this list since. I believe this list meets, or is very close to meeting, the featured list criteria, and I have compared it formatting wise to other featured lists and the formatting seems consistent with them. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - at just six sentences and less than 800 total characters, the lead needs significant expansion. Take a look at Mac Miller discography, which was promoted last year. Miller has released the same number of albums, yet the lead for his discog is more than three times longer than this one. I think you should be looking to make it closer in length to that. Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your initial feedback and the example. I'm going to be busy in real life for the next day or two, but I'll start working on expanding the lead once I get a chance, hopefully soon. Thanks! Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional comments
    • Change the credit for "Small Town Throwdown" to "Brantley Gilbert (featuring Thomas Rhett and Justin Moore)" (or whatever the exact credit was), as it looks odd not mentioning Moore given that he is the subject of the article
      • Done
    • Some of the music videos are unsourced
    • All the CMT video links just seem to redirect to
    • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
      • When I attempted to access the CMT links, they were dead for me, so I replaced all of the music video links. All but the Small Town Throwdown links have been replaced with links to Justin Moore's official website. Is this an appropriate use of a primary source, or should I look for independent verification? I'll get the lead expanded later, when I have a little more time. Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • No problem with using a primary source per se, the only issue is that it doesn't source any of the directors as far as I can see. Have you tried using the Wayback Machine to retrieve the original CMT pages? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I have not. Can you point me to the page giving instructions on how to use the Wayback Machine? Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
            • WP:WAYBACK. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Thanks! That tool's very helpful. After using the Wayback Machine to restore the links, I looked to find citations for the unsourced music videos. I found citations to verify the directors of all videos except for "If Heaven Wasn't So Far Away" and "Bait a Hook." I could source to IMDb, but I don't consider that website to be very reliable. What's a good recommendation on that issue? Hog Farm (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                • If the director genuinely can't be reliably sourced then I personally wouldn't have an issue with is just being shown as "unknown". I am sure I have seen that in other successfully promoted lists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • Done. Sorry about all the stupid questions. Thanks! 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • The videos with the unknown directors still need sources to confirm that they exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • Citations inserted Hog Farm (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking good now! Two remaining comments from me:
    • Guest singles table needs refs for the chart columns, although obviously it's OK to re-use the ones from above
    • You don't need to have both the website and the publisher in the citation if they are essentially the same eg and CMT. In cases like this, just show the publisher
  • Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually I just noticed one more thing - our article on Moore says (admittedly with no source) "The label then released the digital single "I Could Kick Your Ass"." That single isn't listed here - any particular reason? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • According to 1, "I Could Kick Your Ass" was released as a digital single, but it doesn't appear to have ever charted and was never released to radio (I recently created a redirect to the applicable album for it). I can easily add it, if its inclusion would be deemed appropriate. Hog Farm (talk)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Justin Moore (album) also does not list "I Could Kick Your Ass" as a single. I know "promotional singles", or singles released early off of an upcoming album for the purposes of promoting the album but not sent to radio generally aren't considered singles (Moore did this with "Jesus and Jack Daniels" on his latest album), but I'm not sure about the ambiguous description as a "digital single". Hog Farm (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It's so annoying how the lines have become blurred on these things - when I was young it was easy, if it came out on a piece of vinyl 7 inches across then it was a single, and that was that. As you mentioned above, though, AllMusic refer to it as a single and so does this source, so I would add it to make sure all bases are covered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Added to the table. This single doesn't appear to have charted or been certified by the RIAA, unsurprisingly. Hog Farm (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Robert Mitchum filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUSTALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well referenced and well worded list of Robert Mitchum's work in film and television. LADY LOTUSTALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Robert Mitchum (1917 – 1997) was an American actor who was in over 110 films and TV series" - "was in" is a bit weak. Maybe "appeared in"
    • "He is ranked as #23" => "He is ranked 23rd"
    • "During the 1940s, he also cast in" => "During the 1940s, he was also cast in"
    • "The Friends of Eddie Coyle, The Yakuza and Farewell, My Lovely (in which he played Philip Marlowe)" - presumably he only played Marlowe in the last-named film? This could be interpreted as saying he played him in all of them.
      • Tweaked a bit and just took out the Philip Marlowe role altogether
    • "His later roles in the 1980s up until 1995" - 1995 was not in the 1980s, so this needs re-wording. Also why 1995, given that there is one film listed for 1997?
      • Tweaked again to say "His later roles between 1980 and 1997"
    • "He was also in the 1985 miniseries" - as above
    • "He had a reoccurring role" - pretty sure you mean "recurring"
      • Lol yup, done
    • In the 1940s films table, the role of Jeb Rand seems to sort under J and Seaman Chuck Ryan under S. Both should sort under R.
    • In the 1970s films table, Father Oliver Van Horne should sort under V, not H, and "the final victim" should sort under F.
    • In the TV table, is there a reason why Victor 'Pug' Henry's rank is not listed both times?
      • I checked and he's actually not credited as Captain at all, so I removed
    • Also in that table, Jake Spanner should sort under S, not J
    • In the short films table, titles starting with A or The should sort under the next word in the title
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good work on this list. Cowlibob (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for all your help and ref work :) LADY LOTUSTALK 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by SantanaEdit

Nominator(s): CHICHI7YT (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I have made the list better than how it previously was when it was nominated for FL in 2013. CHICHI7YT (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - the "lots of little tables" format has been deprecated for quite some time. The current standard is to have all awards in one table, like the recently-promoted List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – There needs to be more distinction between Santana the band and Santana the individual. Many of the awards are for Carlos Santana, particularly recognizing his contributions as a Latino/Mexican-American. Santana the band was/is a multi-ethnic/multi-racial American rock band. Although there is some overlap, the band is more recognized for its broader musical accomplishments than its "social engagement". There are many dead links, so it is difficult to assess what the sources are saying. This list may have benefited from a current peer review to address this and several MOS/format issues, including citation consistency. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a list detailing Carlos Santana's awards and nominations could be created instead of his accolades being detailed on this article, since the article is supposed to be about the band Santana, not Carlos Santana. Also, could you elaborate more on the "dead links" issue? Chrisnait (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Nevermind. I finished fixing dead links in citations by adding archived versions of the links or finding other sources. Chrisnait (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe take this up on the talk pages, but the awards received solely in Carlos Santana's name could be moved to his WP article, replacing the Carlos Santana#Awards and nominations section, which currently includes Santana band Grammies. That would free up this list for Santana band-only awards (probably too many to move to the band article). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that is a good idea, but on which talk page should that idea be brought up? Chrisnait (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I added a note on Talk:Carlos Santana about the awards and nominations issue. When a consensus has been reached, I'll move Carlos Santana-only awards to his WP article. Chrisnait (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I finished moving the Carlos Santana-only awards to his WP page. I think a different picture be used in the Infobox, since again, the list is for the band Santana, not Carlos Santana. Chrisnait (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know if it's an issue with my browser, but (for me at least) the sort functionality doesn't work on any of the columns.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm having the same problem, although it seemed to work before. Also "style="text-align:center;" doesn't seem to be working on several entries (couldn't this be added once at the top after "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"?). I don't see the immediate cause – maybe ask an expert. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Minogue list and this prior version works for me,[6] but the latest doesn't.[7]Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Who should I ask about this problem? Chrisnait (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. I fixed the table. Chrisnait (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comments on sorting: anything which starts with a " should sort as if the " isn't there. And anything that starts with "the" should sort on the next word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. Is there anything else in the article I need to change? Chrisnait (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The sorting in the recipient column still needs fixing as per my comment above
    • Image caption should be "Carlos Santana live in Barcelona, 1984"
    • In the lead you mention that the band has won numerous awards twice in consecutive sentences
      • Not yet corrected -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • How's this for the lead?
Santana is a Latin-influenced rock band, formed in 1967 in San Francisco by its one constant member, Carlos Santana. Since its inception, the band has won numerous awards, including ten Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards, largely owed to 1999's Supernatural and its subsequent singles, especially "Maria Maria" and "Smooth". They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Santana's works entered the Grammy Hall of Fame and Latin Grammy Hall of Fame.
The band released their self-titled debut award in 1969, but didn't earn a nomination until 1973, when their fourth album Caravanserai (1972) was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Performance with Vocal Coloring. In 2000, the band's album Supernatural was the subject of nine Grammy Awards, including the award for Album of the Year, tying the record held by Michael Jackson for the most number of awards in a single night.
Santana has sold more than 100 million records to date. The band's best-selling album to date is Supernatural, which sold over 27 million copies worldwide. According to the British fact book Guinness Book of World Records, Supernatural is the best-selling album of all time by a Latin artist. Chrisnait (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The albums Shaman and Supernatural have sold a combined total of 30 million" - is there any need for this? In the very next sentence you mention that Supernatural sold over 27 million, so that means Shaman sold less than 3 million, which is fairly unremarkable, so there seems little reason to mention it here, especially as it doesn't appear anywhere in the table.
  • The lead seems very short, at less than 900 characters (potentially even fewer based on my comments above) - surely there must be a but more to say?
  • No reason to put line breaks between refs when two appear in the same cell of the table
  • "First band with over 5 million record sales worldwide" - not accurate at all. According to the source it was for CBS acts only (needs to be made clearer) and it was for 5 million sales outside the US (not worldwide). Currently it suggests that Santana were the first band in the world to sell 5 million records, which obviously isn't correct (I suspect by 1977 that the Beatles had sold a few more than that ;-))
  • You have changed this, but it still says "worldwide", which is wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It does. Also, should the image in the Infobox be changed to a picture of the band, since the list is supposed to be about accolades earned by Santana, not Carlos Santana. Chrisnait (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Additionally, isn't the sorting in the recipient column not working the way it should because of the song titles that start with "?
        • You will need to use a {{sort}} template to make them sort correctly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Gypsy/Grajonca", "Every Now and Then", "El Farol", "The Calling", and "Love of My Life" are redirects to albums that contain very little info about about the songs and linking them is not helpful. Using Template:Sort may help with sort problems and a band photo would be better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to fix the sorting issue in the recipient column right now. I tried to use the {{sort}} template for that column, but it puts brackets in front of and at the end on each row when I preview it (i.e. [["Smooth" (with Rob Thomas)]]) How do I fix this? Chrisnait (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I did a quick test and it seemed to work, but double check before re-adding it. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments - definitely looking a lot better now, however the lead still states that the band has won numerous awards twice in consecutive sentences. Also, at only 800 characters, the lead is really really short (and will be even shorter if you take out one of the two references to numerous awards). Surely there must be a bit more that can be said? The group won eight Grammys in one year, for a host of different recordings - could you expand on that?
    • Also, is it even true that the band have won "numerous" awards? A total of 24 doesn't actually seem that many over a 50 year career, and is only half the number apparently won by Billy Ray Cyrus, of all people....... --ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I expanded the lead section a little bit. How is it now? Chrisnait (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
        • This would be my suggestion for the lead:
Santana is a Latin-influenced rock band, formed in 1967 in San Francisco by singer/guitarist Carlos Santana, who has been the band's one constant member throughout its career. The band has won a number of awards, including ten Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards, largely recognising 1999's album Supernatural and the single "Smooth". The band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, and Santana's works have entered the Grammy Hall of Fame and Latin Grammy Hall of Fame.
The band released its self-titled debut album in 1969. In 1973 Santana received its first nomination for a major award when its fourth album Caravanserai was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Performance with Vocal Coloring. The band was nominated for further Grammys in 1993 and 1996. In 2000, following the success of the previous year's album Supernatural, the band was nominated for nine Grammys and won eight, tying the record held by Michael Jackson for the highest number of awards in a single night. The album won the awards for Album of the Year and Rock Album of the Year and the single "Smooth" received the Grammys for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals. Four other songs from the album also won Grammys. In the same year, the band received three awards at the Latin Grammys, including Record of the Year.
Santana has sold more than 100 million records to date. The band's best-selling album to date is Supernatural, which has sold over 27 million copies worldwide. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Supernatural is the best-selling album of all time by a Latin artist.
  • It does! I'll add that lead section soon. Chrisnait (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I did a test for the ref formats MOS, consistency, etc. You may want to double check before re-adding (a couple still need to be fixed). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you give an example of what needs to be fixed? Chrisnait (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought it was easier to demonstrate it on a test rather than trying to list. The automatically generated efn [a] and "References" in the infobox seem odd; usually they should appear at the bottom with the others, but I don't see an easy way to override this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The efn note and the References section comes with the Infobox, so if it seems odd to you, you should discuss that on Template talk:Infobox awards list. Also, are your tests supposed to show how a certain issue or two of the article looks like when it's fixed? Chrisnait (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there anything else I need to fix? Chrisnait (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My comment about the infobox was just an observation, but as you suggested, have brought it up on the template talk page. The rest were numerous small fixes, such as the Grammy link to Carlos rather than the band, the Brit source didn't show the nomination, etc. Generally, publishers are not normally used for periodicals and are not used for the name of a work or website (see the Template documentations). But it looks like these have been fixed now. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • But is the article still not ready for FL yet? Chrisnait (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • So does that mean that the article is getting promoted? Chrisnait (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It will be promoted as and when the FL director or one of his delegates feels it is ready to be promoted. It normally takes more than two supports. It also still needs a source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I didn't know. Thank you for telling me. Chrisnait (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by BTSEdit

Nominator(s): DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the K-pop group BTS. A group of editors (including myself) did an overhaul on this page back in August to fix all sources and essentially come up with a format that meets FL standards and works for K-pop articles. This list wasn't nominated due to issues with the lead but the format was used by List of awards and nominations received by Exo which passed FL. After making some changes to the lead and speaking to that editor group I got the go ahead to nominate this. This list is long, so the deciding factor on which awards to omit and those to keep was based on WP:GNG; if the win got significant enough coverage for the award show to be notable, it was put on here. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - a quick glance suggests there's some singular/plural issues going on eg "BTS has also placed [....] and are the youngest ever recipients" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comments on the lead
    • "The group's debut single album" - so which is it, a single or an album?
    • "despite releasing to little commercial success" - this doesn't read very well, I would say "despite achieving little commercial success"
    • "received an Album of the Year nomination at the 2016 Gaon Chart Music Awards, for the fourth quarter" - what does this mean? Quarter of what? If it's quarter of a year, then how can it have been Album of the Year for only a quarter of the year?
    • "a single off BTS' Wings reissue" => "a single taken from BTS' Wings reissue"
    • "first K-pop group to win the Top Duo/Group award at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards" - well they were the only K-Pop group to win the award at the 2019 Awards, so that needs re-wording
    • "first K-pop group to win the Favorite Duo or Group – Pop/Rock at the 2019 American Music Awards" - same here
    • "the Favourite Social Artist award consecutively in 2018 and 2019" - does this mean they were the first K-pop act to win this award consecutively? The first act of any kind to win it consecutively? Or does this simply mean that they won it in both those years? Needs to be clearer......
  • I will have a look at the tables later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much for the comments. Apologies for the ridiculous lateness -- I will go through and address the comments now. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Singe album: This has been wikilinked (by Snowflake) to explain the Korea-specific single album.
  • Yes, it's album of the year for a quarter of the year. The Gaon Chart awards are weird in that sense. (They do 12 song of the year awards per month.) Added a footnote with this text to explain that: "The Gaon Chart Music Awards presents four Album of the Year awards, dividing the year into four sets of six charting weeks."
        • That only adds up to 24 weeks, which is less than half of the year, is that correct? Also, the note has two full stops at the end..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @ChrisTheDude: Double checked the source. The award is for a quarter of the year, but the data for the award is collected from the album's first seven weeks (week one plus the six following.) Changed the footnote to reflect that. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Commercial success/Wings: Prose changed.
  • "First K-pop group" replaced by "only K-pop group"
  • Removed " consecutively in 2018 and 2019" to state that they're the only K-pop group to win TSA. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 07:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "only K-pop group to win the Top Duo/Group award at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards" is still wrong, because they were the only act of any kind to win that award at that ceremony -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I’m not sure what you mean by this. That award has been given out since the 90s, see Billboard Music Award for Top Duo/Group. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
        • You say "only K-pop group to win the Top Duo/Group award at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards". By definition only one act of any kind won this award at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards. I presume what you mean is something like "the only K-pop group to win the Top Duo/Group award at the Billboard Music Awards, a feat which they achieved in 2019"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My only remaining comment on the lead is this:
    • "They are also the only K-pop group to win the Favorite Duo or Group – Pop/Rock at the American Music Awards and the Favorite Social Artist award" => "They are also the only K-pop group to win the Favorite Duo or Group – Pop/Rock and Favorite Social Artist awards at the American Music Awards"
  • In terms of the table.....
    • You need to use sort templates so that all the song titles in quote marks don't sort at the top, and anything starting with "The" should sort on whatever the next word is
      • While looking at this, I've found another issue with the sorting – see this image, when I click on "Category" to sort it, there is "BTS" under the year column for Soompi Awards, something is wrong there. And the first three rows are empty (?) in "Category", it should not be like that? Snowflake91 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In the Gaon section, the album of the year/quarter awards are in numerical order except for 2017, which looks odd
      • @ChrisTheDude: the awards are listed correctly. We list them alphabetically by wins first (AOTY4Q, VLGPA), and then alphabetically by noms (AOTY2Q, SOTY). If you look at 2016, it's listed by an award starting w K first (the only one they won) and then the 2 awards they didn't win sorted alphabetically. Hope I explained that clearly. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: The issues with the Gaon listings were fixed by Carlobunnie. I've addressed the small lede fix, added {{sort}} where needed, and fixed the glitches Snowflake91 pointed out. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Holocaust transports from SlovakiaEdit

Nominator(s): buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all transports that deported from Slovakia between 1942 and 1945, carrying most of the Slovak Jews to their deaths. It is a pair with The Holocaust in Slovakia, headed to FAC soon, and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. Copyediting was recently done by Twofingered Typist of GOCE. This is my first FLC nomination. buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The first sentence feels a little weird since you're trying to have that first link; I'd suggest "During the Holocaust, most of Slovakia's Jewish population..." and link The Holocaust in Slovakia another way
    • Done
  • The lead has "In 1944" but doesn't mention the rest of "and 1944–1945". Does that 13,500 include the 1945 transports?
    • Yes it does—fixed
  • The 1942 destinations all repeat "concentration camp" but the 1944 ones do not; see if there's a better way to word for conciseness.
    • I'm not sure there is. In 1942 it's needed for clarification because destinations were concentration camps, ghettos, or extermination camps, but in 1944 all the destinations were concentration camps so it's not needed. I'll have to think about it.
  • I know sources can't all be perfectly accurate and consistent, but here it says around 67,000 died, but The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Aftermath has 68,000 to 71,000.
  • "The logical solution"???
    • Reworded
  • Wikilinks for the source cities like Trnava
    • Done, on first mention.
  • Is there reason some have the citation in the date column and others in the Source column
    • Yes, sources differ on the dates because some sources are giving the departure date, others the date of crossing the border, and more the arrival date. So where sources differ I cite that in the date column. For the third table, the source location is cited inline because it isn't mentioned in the main source (Büchler).
  • HSĽS is not defined
    • Fixed

Great job, thanks for your work on this important topic. Reywas92Talk 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    • Reywas92, thanks so much for your comments. I think I have addressed most of them and the others I'm not sure how to fix. buidhe 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Excellent, I support! It wouldn't hurt to expand the lead a bit but overall it's great. Reywas92Talk 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchisesEdit

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I have decided to nominate this for FLC. This is a comprehensive list of all video game franchises created by Bandai Namco Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Banpresto and B.B. Studio, alongside those from both Namco and Bandai created prior to the merge. All entries contain references from reliable sources that prove it is a series, all of which meet WP:V. This list has been a personal project of mine that I have worked hard on improving and fixing, and I hope to see this finally become a Featured List. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

Third time's the charm, let's take a look:

  • The first reference is to Bandai Namco Entertainment's coporate history yet the first sentence is about Bandai Namco Holdings. This is quite confusing.
  • In references the website parameter should be filled as well as the publisher parameter. E.g. for website=Eurogamer the publisher=Gamer Network. A useful list is on WP:VG/RS.
  • "As of 2017, Bandai Namco was the largest toy company by revenue in the world" Statista source states 2018.
  • "as well as the third-largest video game company..." I think the "as well as" is redundant here since you are using a list.
  • "Bandai Namco owns former developer Banpresto, which operates as a toy company in Japan and was purchased in 2008," ,In the source it states Namco Bandai Holdings made Banpresto a wholly owned subsidiary in June 2006 hence it was purchased in 2006 not 2008.
    • Bandai Namco purchased Banpresto in 2006, and merged their video game operations with theirs in 2008. Fixed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The company retains the rights to defunct developer BEC" Could you be more specific here? Do you mean BEC's video game intellectual property? If so it may be worth stating for clarity.
  • " Licensed IP" I do not see why the acronym is since Intellectual property (IP) was not introduced in the lede.
    • Not sure what you mean here...? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I was confused as to why "IP" was used over "Intellectual property" in the key for the table. Although this has already been addressed by Dissident93 when he changed "Licensed IP" to "Note: Fields highlighted in yellow are licensed intellectual properties"  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we shouldn't be using abbreviations unless we've used the full word at least once prior. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not managed to look at the table yet.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Spy-cicle I've corrected all errors you have brought up so far. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay it seems you have fixed all the issues addressed so far in the lede however I have found something else. Currently the archived Statista source does not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Additionally the references in Japanese need to have the following parameters filled out: trans-title, trans-website (if applicatable), language.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Drive-by comment - Cells highlighted in yellow also need a symbol, as colour alone cannot be used per MOS:ACCESS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comments
    • "The core video game branch of the company is Bandai Namco Entertainment [...] and continues to develop games for home console" - doesn't make grammatical sense. The "and" should probably be "which"
    • "defunct developer BEC, who merged" => which merged
    • .hack is initially listed under H, but when that column is re-sorted it jumps to the top - need to use a sort template to ensure it stays under H (same applies to the first/last release columns)
    • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Resolved these issues. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • .hack still sorts at the top in the first/last release columns. Also I just noticed that in the refs Statista is spelt incorrectly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1973Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. So far this little project of mine has produced 36 FLs and another is close, so here's the potential #38, covering a year in two 14-year olds hit the top of the chart........ - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • For this part (At the start of the year the number one song was "She's Got to Be a Saint" by Ray Price,), I believe there should be a comma after the word "year".
  • The second sentence of the lead's second paragraph (i.e. the one about "You're the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me") seems rather long and dense with information. Would it be possible to split into two sentences to avoid having a somewhat run-on sentence?
  • A minor note, but there seem to be additional space between some of the sentences that should be removed.
  • For this part (Later in the year another 14-year old, Marie Osmond, reached the top spot with "Paper Roses",), I believe there should be a comma after "year".
  • For these parts (In March Cal Smith topped), (In April Charlie Rich gained), and (In July Kris Kristofferson, who), I believe there should be commas after the months.

Wonderful work with the list. Although I am currently semi-retired, I thought that I should help with this nomination since it has not received much activity yet, so hopefully this will help get the ball rolling. Hope this helps at least somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: many thanks for taking the time to stop by. WRT your third point, can you indicate where you are seeing that? I might be being very dumb but I am not seeing it myself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have corrected the spacing issues. I support this list for promotion. Great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from DanielleTHEdit

  • Not sure why chart needs to be wikilinked? Maybe make it more specific and have it displayed as a record chart with the wikilink?
  • Second sentence from the lede is a bit of a run-on and was kinda confusing. I'd maybe break it up as: " In 1973, 36 different singles topped the chart, at the time published under the title Hot Country Singles, in 52 issues of the magazine. Data was based on playlists submitted by country music radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores."
  • Second sentence of the third paragraph has similar length issues. Maybe something like "Later in the year, another 14-year old, Marie Osmond, reached the top spot with "Paper Roses". Osmond became the first female solo artist to top the chart with her debut single and set a new record as the youngest female artist to top the chart."
  • Table looks great.

DanielleTH (Say hi!) 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) @DanielleTH: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Great work! Support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – great as always. – zmbro (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruno Mars videographyEdit

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive look at Bruno Mars' videography to today. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the music videos, directors and a small description of the video's plot. I'll try to update it constantly as new videos are released, like I have done with all the works for the artist mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments on the lead
    • "various music videos, films, television shows, and one television commercial" - last sentence of the lead says two commercials
    • "After guest appearing in music videos, including "Long Distance" and "Wavin' Flag (Coca-Cola Celebration Mix)", between 2008 and 2010" - say who these were by
    • "he was first featured on the hooks" - what does this mean?
    • "His work with the Dechard" - presume that "the" is not meant to be there
    • "He has appeared on Saturday Night Live three times; by the second time he appeared" - word "by" should not be there
  • I will look at the tables later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments on the tables
    • Songs starting with "the" should sort on the next word
    • "The video features photo backdrops of other cities like London and Tokyo." - other than what?
    • "of beautiful women pictures" => "of pictures of beautiful women"
    • "in a scene B.o.B plays guitar" => "in one scene B.o.B plays guitar"
    • "Mars artistic abilities" => "Mars's artistic abilities"
    • "In the way to her house, he meets some unpleasant personas" => "On the way to her house, he meets some unpleasant people"
    • "just to find his beloved with another man" => "and then finds his beloved with another man"
    • "ends up in a railroad track" => "ends up on a railroad track"
    • "a psychedelic, "acid trip" setting" - no reason for comma there
    • "were several women are dancing" => "where several women are dancing"
    • "As she has been "fooling around" with someone else's man (Mars). " - this is not a complete sentence
    • "Isabella and Mars' affair" => earlier the article uses "Mars's" - be consistent
    • "Then, the former performers" => performs
    • "in a piano" => on a piano (presumably, unless he is actually inside it)
    • " followed by her coming in Mars' room." => " followed by her coming into Mars' room."
    • "Finesse (song) link needs to be piped
    • "sing to one and another." => "sing to one another."
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Adressed every comment except the first one on the table as I'm not sure what you want there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Lazy Song", for example, should sort as if it starts with L, and the same thing for other songs that start with the word "The". You will need to use a {{sort}} template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Everything was addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You didn't do the sort template quite right - I have fixed it for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and fixes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

List of North Carolina militia units in the American RevolutionEdit

Nominator(s): Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:G._Moore is nominating this for a featured list because it is a comprehensive look at North Carolina militia units during the American Revolution. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the units and their first commander. It will be of interest to readers of the history of the American Revolution and early North Carolina history. G._Moore (talk · contribs) Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • BTW what makes Lewis ( a reliable source? It just seems to be some random guy's personal website...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • He has a book that documents his research and has put all of the information in the database that is online. I have compared his results to all of the other sources and have found it most accurate. He actually used some 50,000 sources to compile the information. I added an intro to the bibliography about the work that has been done. Whenever I see a discrepancy, I send him a note and he corrects it based on the original sources. William S. Powell, a state historian in North Carolina, has produced an encyclopedia of NC history, much of what is now online in a cite called NCPEDIA. Together, these have been my guides to NC Revolutionary History. I found that having this in WikiPedia was really nice because it links to the other info in Wikipedia on NC and the Revolution. Let me know if there is anything else that I should do to the list. User:G._Moore User talk:G._Moore
      • I don't think that note above the bibliography is needed, and referring to the "heroic efforts" of historians definitely doesn't conform to WP:NPOV..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I took out the non-NPOV wording. I think the intro for the bibliography does add to the historical perspective on how we know about these units. It was not just a matter of copying from muster rolls and Tables of Organization. I asked J.D. Lewis to review the page. I put his comments on the Talk page. Is there anything more to do on this FL nomination? User:G._Moore talk 18:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Has Mr Lewis been published on the subject (by independent outlets - his books listed in the bibliography are self-published)? Has he been cited in others' publications? Trying to establish if he is regarded as an established expert on this subject rather than simply an avid amateur....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
J.D. Lewis's works are cited in the following journals, bibliographies, books, historical societies, public education curricula, and South Carolina County governments. His books are also available via Google books:
  • "The Battle of Moores Creek Bridge". Journal of the American Revolution. January 6, 2014.
  • "Evolution of Marion's Brigade after the Fall of Charleston" (PDF). Francis Marion Symposium. 2018.
  • "St. Joseph the resting place of Revolutionary soldier". News Press November 17, 2019.
  • Whitney, Frank (2015). Jean Ternant and the Age of Revolutions: A Soldier and Diplomat (1751-1833 ... ISBN 978-1-4766-6213-8.
  • "National Humanities Center, America in Class, Primary Sources in the American Revolution".
  • "Francis Marion Trails".
  • "Annual Francis Marion Symposium". 2014.
  • Smith, Claiborne T. (1979). "Alston Philip". NCPedia.
  • "Lesson Plan: Overview, Into the Wild: Settling the South Carolina Backcountry". Teaching American History in the South.
  • "Swamp Fox Research Hub". seeking
  • "A Roadside Guide to Chester County, South Carolina Association of Counties" (PDF). 2019.

G._Moore (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Table needs scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS
  • Images seem a little big. Also, why is the lead image smaller than the rest?
    • I added upright in the pipe, so all portraits are similar. Does this work? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All notes should have references
  • Most refs should be archived
  • There you go. Under "view history", there's a link that says "fix dead links" which will take you to the IABot which tags and fixes dead links. There's also an optional button that says "add archives to all non-dead references" which you click. It makes it much easier to do it manually. HTH :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All images need alt text
  • Many urls have connections issues (seen here)
  • In background, you say "thirty-five" then "37" three sentences later. One or the other
    • There were 35 counties and two counties had two regiments as explain in the text. Will try to make this clearer in the text. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry what I meant by that was you spell out "thirty-five" but then use numbers for "37" a few sentences later. I just meant either spell it out or use numbers for both. My bad.
  • Is there a template box that can be added?
    • The template is at the bottom of the page {{NCRevWarUnits}} Militias were at the state level and I don't think there is a template for all Militia units in the United States during the revolution. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Rumple, Jethro Rev (1881). A History of Rowan County." This is a book and will need much more than author year & title
  • "Connor, Robert D.W. (1916). Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina (PDF). Greensboro: North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College." This is in both "references" and "bibliography"
  • Not sure if "" is an RS (same with "" on ref 67 since it's a blog)

What I've found so far. Lots of problems but seems do-able. – zmbro (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

    • See note above. The website is a database based on the books that J.D. Lewis wrote on the North Carolina militia. He lists the sources used in the database, also. It is considered by the researchers of the North and South Carolina Revolutionary War history a Reputable Source. Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785,
    • I am still trying to find a more direct link to the book, Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785, by Jean Bruyere Kell

This has been quite the learning experience. I will take a look at it again tomorrow and see if everything is fixed. Thanks everyone for your help and kind advice. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Took a final look at everything this morning and added: a few links, description of places were the units fought with existing ref; image of MG Smallwood (2nd NC Militia commander, sorry no images of John Ashe, Sr. the 1st cc, he died in 1781); summary of table. Can't think of anything more to add or fix. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no more unresolved issues, what is the process for making this a Featured List? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Game of ThronesEdit

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list of nominations and awards are cited thoroughly. The content is also up-to-date and sorted correctly. The list was a FL candidate a few years ago, I think the list has been updated and sourced correctly since then. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

    • ChrisTheDude, I believe I addressed all of your comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Humblest apologies, but I just spotted one more thing - "The Norman Felton Award for Outstanding Producer of Episodic Television, Drama" is shown in quote marks for some reason, which means it sorts incorrectly. It's also shown inconsistently both with and without the "the" at the start. I would say without the "the" is correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the note Chris! Not sure why "the" was included because it's not included in the official award. I've removed both "the" at the beginning as well as the quotation marks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - thanks for bearing with me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2018 AFL Women's Rising StarEdit

Nominator(s): – Teratix 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

After raising the 2017 Rising Star award to FL, I'm following up with the 2018 edition. The winner, Chloe Molloy, dominated her first season in the AFL Women's, winning just about every accolade for first-year players and becoming the first (and so far only) player to earn the maximum 50 votes in this award. The version at the time of nomination has three images, but there is also a four-image version; I would appreciate feedback on which is preferred. – Teratix 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - for the record, I prefer the version with three images -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Excellent work Teratix. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me – zmbro (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review/support from DanielleTH
Sources are either from the AFL itself or reliable publications, many of whom regularly cover supports. Sourcing is consistent. Great work on this! Support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The HoursEdit

Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's been eight years since User:Courcelles and myself brought The Hours to FLC, and it's been largely untouched since that failed nomination. But, with the help of, I was able to replace that pesky questionable source. I've also improved the article to match recent film award FLs, and I'm willing to carry out any further work suggested. I would love for this one to pass the second time around! - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "The screenplay is based on the eponymous novel" - I don't think eponymous is the right word here. An eponymous novel by Michael Cunningham would be called "Michael Cunningham". Better to say "the novel of the same title".
  • "the ceremony saw" - a ceremony cannot see anything, it doesn't have eyes. Find a way to re-word.
  • "a LGBT-oriented" - "an LGBT-oriented", surely
  • Refs should be centred
  • Recipients column sorts on forenames, it should sort on surnames
  • Also I think the title of the film should sort under H
  • Neither notes is a complete sentence, so neither needs a full stop.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you User:ChrisTheDude for your comments. I've made all the fixes, although I believe the list already sorts under H, unless I'm missing something? It is listed under H in the Lists of accolades by film category. - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The film title definitely sorts under T in the table. You need to use a sort template to make it sort under H i.e. {{sort|Hours|The Hours}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, in the table! Sorry, I totally misunderstood that. Fixed! - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks for making the amendments. Cowlibob (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am uncertain about the link in the part "The film received nine Academy Award nominations" since it borders a little too closely on WP:EASTEREGG for my taste as I thought the link would be for the general Academy Awards article itself rather than a specific ceremony. As with the sentences on the 56th British Academy Film Awards and the 60th Golden Globe Awards, I would make the link clearer in the prose to avoid any confusion.
  • This is more of a clarification question than a recommendation. For this sentence "The Hours grossed a worldwide box office total of over $108 million", would it also be helpful to include the film's budget as a point of comparison?
  • For this sentence "The film was nominated for a total of eight awards from the Satellite and 9th Screen Actors Guild Award ceremonies, but failed to win any.", I do not believe "but failed to win any" is entirely necessary as I think that should already be clear by saying the film was nominated for this awards.

Otherwise, wonderful work with the list. Once my three relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for a promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-ManEdit

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game for the PlayStation 4. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all parts of the FL criteria, covering the plethora of awards and nominations received by Marvel's Spider-Man whilst also following accessibility guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on the List. Kind Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Table has scope cols but still needs scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
  • Make sure all refs are archived (I can pinpoint a couple that aren't)
  • I believe "Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018" is listed twice in the bibliography section
  • Does "Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"" have a pub date?

Rest looks good for me. Great job on this! Absolutely loved that game. – zmbro (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, @Zmbro: I have made some changes based on your suggestions and here. I have Added Scope rows, Archived all sources, Removed duplicate reference (Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018), and added the date on the reference (Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "the game received twenty-one nominations and went on to win three awards for:" - don't think that comma needs to be there
  • "Spider-Man appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2018, including first place by Wired" (and so on) - this reads a little oddly to me. Personally I would use say "being ranked in first place by Wired" and so on
  • "one of the top-30 games of the year" - don't need that hyphen there
  • Any reason why "runner-up" is not coloured the same as second/silver? Surely being runner-up is the same as coming second? Or does that award have multiple runners-up?
  • Note a refers to "the Metacritic". I think this should just be "Metacritic"
  • Notes which are not full sentences don't need a full stop.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude, I have made all the requested changes here except to the colour of the "Runner-up" Result since Runner-ups are given to multiple games. However, I have changed it so when it is sorted by Result "Second" will appear above a "Runner-up" result here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now updating oppose rationale, see below. Please implement the award inclusion criteria as described by User:Dissident93 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Undertale/archive1 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_comment_by_WPVG_editors_at_an_FLC. As a general note, I'm not pleased with the recent trend I'm seeing of editors unilaterally splitting out lists and then rushing them to FLC. The rush leads to sloppiness, as evidenced by comments above. FLC/FAC should be where a piece of content gets put through its final paces, not act as a first time peer review or copyedit. The best content on Wikipedia takes time and, more importantly, collaboration to get to that point. In this case, you also copied a tremendous amount of work from Spider-Man (2018 video game) (without attribution in the edit summary) without consulting or even notifying Darkwarriorblake who was the primary contributor there. FL is not an "easy chit" to add to your editing resume. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Consensus for these type of Lists (Video game accolades) has been to include these as seen the last three FLs of this type: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto V. One user does not get to simply overturn years of consensus. In regards to your second point, in hindsight I probably should have notified User:Darkwarriorblake but in end decided not to when I made a good-faith edit to the lead and was met with a rather rude edit summary [8]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't get to avoid attribution and credit just because you perceive someone to be rude to you. That's not how this place works. Consensus can change and this and other discussions are evidence that the consensus, if any existed at all before (n.b. there was no specific WP:MOS/VG guideline on it as of this writing), is not what you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I have not heard of that guideline here before, I have added a contribution message on the Talk page since I cannot alter my previous edit summaries. In regards to your second point, yes consensus can change but there is currently no significant evidence of it changing. Perhaps an RfC could be set up?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Angeldeb82 too, they found most of those awards and were a star in sticking to the referencing structure used throughout the article to maintain its integrity as an FA. Given that most of the content was made in the initial edit, a lot of that work was probably done by Angel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. Point stands that this FLC is tantamount to taking credit for other people's work. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per failing FLC#3c: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Per WP:SIZERULE, the main article Spider-Man (2018 video game) is only 43kb of prose and does not warrant a split of this nature. The lead is largely a copy of the parent article but the table should be merged back. No one was clamoring for this bold-split-and-immediately-nominate-for-FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On Grand Theft Auto V the readable prose is 37kB and yet the accolades table (FL) has a readable prose of 2.9kB. So in theory it should be put on the same page per WP:SIZERULE. However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
    • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
    • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
    • Uncharted 4: A Thief's End readable prose = 25kB; Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
    • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • This is an FLC about List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man, not a FLRC on other FLs. It is not relevant that you seem to be arguing that those lists should be merged back to their main articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet WP:SIZERULE but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
        • Furthermore, Spider-Man (2018 video game) has a readable prose of 43.8kB. Thus it falls between 40kB and 50kB so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful per WP:SIZERULE. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.
        • Pinging @Rhain: for some input, since he knows far more about Video game accolades tables than me. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Barry Sheene MedalEdit

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This list concerns the Barry Sheene Medal, the most prestigious award in the Supercars Championship outside of its drivers' championship trophy. The equivalent to the Brownlow Medal and the Dally M Medal, it is named after the two-time Grand Prix world motorcycling champion and motor racing commentator Barry Sheene. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forwards to all comments and concerns. MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • "cast votes of three, two and one points towards a driver" - this reads really weirdly to me. Maybe "award three drivers scores of three, two and one points". Also, does each member of the panel separately award 3-2-1, or does the panel as a whole award one set of such marks?
  • "Many considered it highly prestigious after the drivers' championship" => "Many considered it highly prestigious, second only to the drivers' championship". Also, could you clarify who the "many" are? Drivers? Journalists? Fans? All of the above?
  • "and is frequently likened" => "and it is frequently likened"
  • "He took his maiden drivers' championship" - I would simply say "first", as this reads weirdly like he won the championship of driving maidens ;-)
  • "and Ford's first since the 1997 season" - now admittedly I know nothing about motorsport, but where does Ford come in? If his team was Stone Brothers Racing, where does Ford fit in?
    • Ford was Stone Brothers Racing's supplier of racing cars. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me. Good work overall, and pretty cool that we have five different pictures of Lowndes to use ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Stranger ThingsEdit

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Stranger Things is a critically acclaimed series that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "All episodes of the first season were released on Netflix on July 15, 2016,[3] while the second season was released in its entirety on October 27, 2017" - I would avoid using "while" there, as that suggests two things happening at the same time, which clearly isn't the case here
  • "and a Peabody Award nomination" - I think the last word is redundant here as it is part of a list of nominations, so obviously it is a nomination
  • "one of its Top 10 television programs of the year" - either it should be written as "Top 10 TV Programs of the Year" to match the table or else "Top" shouldn't have a capital T
  • Character column in the first table sorts on forename, it should sort on surname
  • AFI Awards are initially listed second, presumably because it stands for American Film Institute, but it you re-sort on that column it jumps to the top because it sorts under "AF"
  • Same with IFMCA Awards, which jumps about when you re-sort on that column
  • TCA Awards are listed before Teen Choice, but if TCA stands for Television Critics Assoc, then I would have thought it should be alphabetised based on that to be consistent with AFI and IFMCA, which are alphabetised based on what they stand for. Either that or alphabetise the other two based on the actual initials.
  • People's Choice Awards should not be listed before Peabody Awards
  • Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback. I have addressed all your comments. - Brojam (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

  • Add a short description.
    • Add a short description of what? Since I already have one for the show. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The claim it has recieved "Critical acclaim" needs a significant number of references per WP:PEACOCK.
  • Swap out the "E! Online" article with a different one that is more reliable per WP:RSP.
  • Add some more references/inline citations for the lead (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) to meet WP:V particulary the second paragraph: "Stranger Things has been nominated for many awards, including 31 Primetime Emmy Awards (six wins)..."
    • No references are needed here since the content is already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Efn notes should state "Also awarded to" not "Tied" since it is not a race.
  • IGN should be in italics.

That is all I could find so far but may have a deeper dive at a later date, good work. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Spy-cicle: All your comments have been addressed above. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • All those changes look good. The only other thing I have found is the that runner-ups are considered wins? I understand they are special recognition but conflating them with full on wins is somewhat confusing for readers if they want to find out how many actual wins Stranger Things has won at glance. Perhaps, if you wanted to note how many runner-ups + wins they recieved you could do that in an efn note separate to the wins tally.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Spy-cicle: This is addressed with the note in the infobox: Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. - Brojam (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Brojam: I understand that award ceremonies sometimes give a Winner, runner-up then third place. But I do not see why Runner-Up should be equivialent to an outright win - especially if readers want to find out the exact number of wins at a glance not Wins + Runner-ups. I understand it is recognition but that can be noted on the table itself like shown in the example below.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Test Result
  • Since the list is using {{Infobox awards list}}, we can't just add your proposed infobox table change just for this list. This is pretty standard for awards and nominations lists and such a change and discussion should probably happen elsewhere (like the WikiProjects and template talkpages) since as far I can tell none of the other lists of this type have such a thing. Also, since the actual awards list table is sortable, if someone wants to see the number of just runner-ups or just proper 1st wins like you mentionned, they can sort the result column to see how many the show got. - Brojam (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Support from Zmbro
  • Support – honestly looks great to me. I can't find any problems. Great job to you! :-) Spy-cicle do you have a support or oppose yet? – zmbro (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus

  • Names in the tables or the references should only be linked once. So the main tables with the awards - Millie Bobby Brown, Trailer Park, Inc., etc. should only be linked once. For the references The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, should only be linked once. It's whoever is mentioned first.
    • Since the table is sortable, it should link linkable items every time. Similarly for the references, since you can randomly look at any one of them individually, they should also be linked every time. The important part for the latter issue is it must be consistent (either you link only the first occurrence or every single time). - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason the "Total nominations and awards for the cast" table is set to center? I'd just be careful with so much text aligning when it's not necessary.
    • In order for the nominations and awards columns' values to be centered. I have removed the excess text-aligning in the table. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Also in this table - each "Actor" row needs a "! scope="row" |" next to it for accessibility
      • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the Awards and nominations table, only "scope=row" the first row, not every row
    • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all I can really find, if you have any questions on the above just let me know :) LADY LOTUSTALK 15:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback Lady Lotus, I've responded above as needed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... It meets every criteria for FA. Simple and not overly detailed, yet a complete filmography with very strong sourcing. Lead is straight to the point, and covers the content below. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "It was his first film for Warner Bros. The film was a commercial success." - these two extremely short sentences could be joined together (Done)
    • "which starred Christian Bale, and told an origin story of the title character" - don't think that comma is needed (Done)
    • "His next film was the sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight in which" - however here a comma is needed after "Knight" (Done)
    • "who steal information from entering a person's subconscious" - I think "who steal information by entering a person's subconscious" would be better (Done)
    • "Two years later, he directed the sequel to The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) which grossed" - needs a comma after the brackets (Done)
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. Hope this helps move it along. – zmbro (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Can't see any issue here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Daft Punk discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhaustively covers Daft Punk's releases since the start of their career in 1994, including remixes, production credits and music videos. It is also accessible and reliably sourced wherever possible. I believe that all concerns from the past two failed nominations have been properly addressed. Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "French electronic music duo Daft Punk has" / "Daft Punk released their second studio album" - so is Daft Punk singular or plural? Pick one and be consistent
  • "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks with each other" => "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks together" would be better
  • "Indo Silver Club" needs a reference as it didn't chart anywhere
  • That's all I've got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: All addressed, thanks for your comments! Philroc (c) 20:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Incorrect standard for tables (for example separate columns for "Released" or "Label"). Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Eurohunter - These differences are to comply with MOS:ACCESS as per the article's peer review. If I recall correctly there isn't a specific standard stating that the details all have to be in one column. Philroc (c) 21:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Philroc: It need to follow standard from previous nominations. Eurohunter (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Eurohunter: I still don't understand how a slightly different table format that WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't explictly prohibit is a significant issue, though I'm glad to be corrected since this is my first FLC. Requesting a second opinion. Philroc (c) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Philroc: There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space. US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory." should be included in tables where it's neeeded. I'm not sure if "Production and remix credits" should be included in the discography. Eurohunter (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Eurohunter: "There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space."
              The extra columns may take up more space, but they help simplify the tables and make them easier to understand for those using screen readers to access Wikipedia.
              • Don't gues so otherwise it would be a standard but it isn't. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table."
              The US Dance/Electronic Albums chart is a component chart of the main Billboard 200 listing which DISCOGSTYLE does allow to be included. Daft Punk was significantly more popular in this chart than the latter chart; for example, Human After All only reached number 63 on the Billboard 200 but topped the Dance/Electronic Albums chart.
              • Dance/Electronic Albums is very little chart in comparision to Billboard 200 that's why they had better positions and that's not argument. You could also pull out UK Dance etc. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "'"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.' should be included in tables where it's neeeded."
              This notice is already included at the top of each table in the article.
              • Shouldn't be there. Should be in the table at the end. Look at other featured discographies. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "I'm not sure if 'Production and remix credits' should be included in the discography."
              As far as I know anything that contains a credit to an artist is OK for inclusion in their discography article. Philroc (c) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Someone mentioned in my FLC that it shouldn't be there. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

East Bengal F.C. league record by opponentEdit

Nominator(s): SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is comprehensive and accurately produces data with proper reliable citations. This list features all time league record for East Bengal F.C. against all opposition it faced in the National Football League and the I-League till date accurately. I believe this list should get the featured list title. SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The first thing that jumps out is.....if the club was formed in 1920, where are all the matches from the first 76 years of their history? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I've just noticed the collapsed key, expanded it, and noticed it says "The records include the results of matches played in the National Football League (from 1996 to 2006) and the I-League (from 2006 to the present day)". Why are all the results from before 1996 excluded? It seems weird to have a list which purports to cover the club's complete league record but excludes over 75% of its history...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, National League was started in 1996, prior to that in India there was no national league happening just mere state leagues as East Bengal FC used to participate in the Calcutta Football League, which is not a national level tournament. -SabyaC (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Existing FLs Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent, Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent, Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and York City F.C. league record by opponent include periods when the clubs played regional football. In the case of East Bengal, such a massive chunk of the club's history is missing that I would find it hard to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment from zmbro
  • I have to agree with Chris as well. If other FLs of the same nature list every year, even when they weren't at the national level, I find that hard to support as well. On top of that, 22 out of 24 references listed are from "" while the other two are "East Bengal Football Club". You tend to want a variety of primary and secondary sources so that probably won't fly either, as everything here is primary. The other FLx Chris mentioned each have books that give some info so perhaps there's a book or two available? – zmbro (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • After a month and a half it hasn't been expanded to include everything so have to oppose. – zmbro (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment from Dey subrata
  • I think I have to agree with Chris the Dude, club has a 100 years of history, will be very poor if only 25 years history is included. With that the prose must be re-written accordingly with citations.
  • Again it will not be wise to consider NFL or I-League or coming ISL only. Irony is that these clubs play the oldest league in Asia Calcutta FL or played the second cup in the world IFA shield. It will be indeed interesting to add all those match records for sure.
The records are well kept but not enough for FL promotion. Dey subrata (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can't ignore a significant part of a club's history, so unfortunately this nomination is a non-starter as it is not comprehensive. Advise nominator to perhaps look for offline paper sources for the missing results (if there are no web records). Cowlibob (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videographyEdit

Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has improved greatly from its previous failed nomination... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1972Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. So far this little project of mine has produced 35 FLs and another is close, so here's the potential #37........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I am uncertain about this sentence: "At the start of the year, the number one single was "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" by Charley Pride, its fifth week in the top spot." It reads a little awkwardly to me, and I think it could be made more concise. Maybe something like the following, "At the start of the year, Charley Pride's "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" spent its fifth week in the top spot.", would be better?
  • I have a question about this part: "totalling 11 weeks in the top spot with "My Hang-Up Is You", "Bless Your Heart" and "Got the All Overs for You (All Over Me)". Is "totalling" intentionally spelled like that? I am not sure if it is a spelling variation on totaling or a typo so I wanted to ask to make sure.
  • This sentence, ""My Hang-Up Is You" had the longest unbroken run at number one, spending six weeks at the top of the chart in the spring, twice as long as any other song spent at number one in 1972.", reads rather awkwardly to me, specifically the phrase beginning with "twice...". I understand what you mean, but I am wondering if it could be revised to read a little better. Apologies for the somewhat vague comment, but I am not entirely sure how I would reword myself.
  • It may be better to revise this part, "Jerry Wallace achieved the only country chart-topper of his career", to something like the following, "Jerry Wallace achieved his only country chart-topper", to be a little more concise with the prose.
  • For this part, "after being featured in an episode of the TV show Night Gallery", I believe it should be "television show" instead of "TV show".
  • For this part, "Tillis co-wrote the song with Webb Pierce, whose version went to number 2 on the chart in 1959,", I would spell out "2" as "two" since numbers under ten are spelled out with words rather than numerals in other parts of the lead.
  • Since you specify the year in two of the image captions, I would do the same for the ones for Hart and Fargo.
  • When I first read through the list, I noticed a few odd spacing issues where there were sometimes double/triple spaces left between sentences. I think that I have corrected all of them, but I would encourage you to check again and see if I missed any other instances.

Awesome work as always. Your productivity and consistently good work is very admirable. I enjoyed reading through the list, and it inspired me to check out some of these artists in the future, specifically Donna Fargo since I have a preference for female singers. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: many thanks for your comments, which have hopefully been addressed to your satisfaction. With regard to "totalling", that's how I would spell it but then I am British and I appreciate that this article should be written in US English. I am not 100% sure what the correct US spelling would be, so I have used alternative wording which hopefully avoids the issue altogether..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Upon further investigation, the totaling/totalling difference is really just an American/British spelling difference. I guess American English drops the double l for a single l. Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Great as always. – zmbro (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentI had to strain to find anything worth complaining about, but is the space before the comma in the title of ref 1 meant to be there? If it's there in the original, it wouldn't be the worst idea to take it out for our purposes. That's the only (tiny) issue I saw. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: no, purely a typo on my part which I have now rectified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Support – Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TeratixEdit

  • (pictured in xxxx) I would avoid including this phrase in the caption unless it's relevant and necessary to mention (e.g. Joe Bloggs (pictured in 1999) suffered severe facial disfigurement in 2000).
  • ... Charley Pride and Merle Haggard each achieved three number ones in 1972, spending seven and six weeks respectively ... 1) You have already referred to Pride in full in this paragraph, so there's no need to mention his first name. 2) I would swap the order Haggard and Pride are mentioned, so that "six" and "seven" are in ascending order (and the artists are alphabetised by surname).
  • Tillis did not record the song himself until 1972, when he went one better than Pierce to gain his first number one. "went one better" is slightly informal phrasing and awkward when near another instance of "one". Replace with "improved on Pierce's version's performance" or similar.
  • Every number one in 1972 was by a solo artist; no bands topped the chart during the year. Without a source mentioning this, it seems like original research. But I concede it is evident after a glance at the table. Could be a "routine calculation". Not sure here.
  • Artist(s) As all of the songs are by solo artists, there is no need for the (s).
  • Ref. -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})

Excellent job as usual. – Teratix 14:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Teratix: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realise Williams actually suffered facial injuries! I don't see the relevance of (pictured in 1966) in Hart's caption – is that just an oversight or is there a specific reason? – Teratix 05:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Teratix: - I just missed that one. Now removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Last thing (I promise) — a recent FLR jogged my memory: ‘hit’ is too informal for an encyclopaedia and should be replaced. – Teratix 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Really? OK, I have re-worded to remove the word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica has no problem with using the word "hit" in this context..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Support (I note that same article also speaks of a manager who “fell in love” with the band, so perhaps it’s not the benchmark of encyclopedic style). – Teratix 12:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Source review by Cowlibob
Source review passed. I've done it for you. It's pretty straightforward, you go to that link, click the login in button on the topright where it logs you in using your wikipedia credentials. Then in the next page, you type out the name of wikipedia article, you want the bot to edit. The default is to only archive dead links but if you tick the box below where it says "Add archives to all non-dead references", it tries to archive every link it can. Very nifty bot. Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! I'll know for next time........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuriesEdit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Seven years after the last failed nomination, I bring this one back for your consideration. I'm a bit out of touch over here, as my last nomination was in January 2018, so bear with me!

Giants2008 opposed this last time around as a 3b violation, so let me address that point. List of first-class cricket records has a section entitled Highest individual score, in which seven of the ten entries here appear. However, the two lists are different statistics: the one listed here is every score of 400 or more. The Highest individual score list records only those scores that became the highest ever first-class score. This currently stands at 501, so any future scores between 400 and 500 would not enter that list. Giants2008 brought up the idea that "Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch?" This appears a reasonable point; but as laid out, these are different statistics: to include the missing three items would change the nature of the list. Another query was: "And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries?" As I laid out in the previous nomination (before I withdrew it), there are over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so such a list seems trivial and unlikely to be created.

Further issues were raised by Testing times. Some of these I have worked on and addressed in the article, while other parts of it I don't think are necessary or feasible, so those have not been included, but I am more than happy to be challenged on those points. As always, all comments and input will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'll say that I am still not certain about whether 3b is truly met, but won't oppose to avoid putting the FLC's chances in question right away. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

List of presidents of the National Rifle AssociationEdit

Nominator(s): –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJLTalk 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
  • The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
  • president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
  • Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
  • The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
  • The lead is too short
Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJLTalk 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • First, I know it's tough editing a controversial topic like this, but for FL consideration you really need to watch your word and sentence choice per WP:W2W and WP:SYNTH. Let the facts do the talking. Troublesome examples that immediately pop out to me are:
  • "... the group's was exclusively to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis. However by 1977, the NRA had been heavily involved in lobbying ..."
  • "Today, it is considered one of the most influential special interest groups ... and a powerful force ..."
  • "... the NRA has had several presidents make controversial statements ..."
  • "... they provide the appearance of legitimacy ..."
  • etc
  • That brings me to my next point, keep of level of detail about the organization itself to the minimum amount possible. For a list of people in group Y, you shouldn't be discussing how groups X and Z think group Y is the best/worst/etc. Nor should you discuss the history of the organization itself, it's official stances, controversies, etc. Leave that content to the article on group Y. The same thing can be said for controversial statements made by individudal members; leave that content to the people's respective articles. (In other words, delete most of the first two paragraphs in the lead.)
  • Instead: give a brief set of explanations on what an NRA president is, what their duties are, how they've changed through history (if they have), etc. (Similar to how the VPs are discussed)
  • Briefly talk about the history of the presidential nomination/election processes. Has it remained the same throughout the organization's history? Did any presidents have their status revoked, and if so, why? Did any presidents die during office? What's the longest the office has gone unfilled, and why? Etc.
  • In addition to talking about who the current president is, also mention the first president, the one who held the most terms, the shortest term, oldest, youngest, the wealthiest, the poorest, who owned the most guns, etc. Stuff like that. To be a featured list it really needs to be comprehensive.
  • In short, by the time you're done, it should be impossible confuse the NRA article with the article on the list of presidents of the NRA.
  • This is also written from an American-centric perspective. Try writing for a broader international audience.
  • Example, instead of saying "oldest president "in the country", which can be confusing for international readers, say "oldest president in the United States" or "in the NRA".

VF9 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to address this when I get back from school. –MJLTalk 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Here's the deal... I just spent like idk how many hours looking into the election process at this point. The best I could do was the current iteration of the article which involved a little way too much research. If you want to know what I am talking about, here is an actual investigative article just to find know who served on the nominating committee in 2013 (if you read the article carefully, you'll see this footnote). Quite frankly, it was a miracle I managed to find a WP:RS that explicitly says that the president serves at the will of the board. Most people talk about this stuff in hushed tones and/or on crank blogs. Wild. –MJLTalk 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: If there are no reliable sources on some of the information I or other reviewers want to see (such as a brief history of the election process in this case), that's a perfectly valid reason not to mention it. As per criteria 3a, comprehensiveness is defined by the scope of the sources, and it mostly applies to the list itself. Per criteria 2, a short yet reliably sourced lead can be acceptable for a FL, as long as it's not off topic and defines the scope. VF9 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Oh, good!! How is it doing in the off-topic department btw? I'd like to believe I cut out the right bits and added some more relevant info. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 05:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: The first paragraph definitely looks a lot better, and I have no more complaints there. The second article could still use a bit more work. The information is engaging and isn't necessarily off-topic, but it does need better re-wording. Try explaining "political status quo," such that someone unfamiliar with American politics would understand. Also, the way the second sentence is worded, it's unclear if the NRA makes the presidents say what they say, or if they say it on their own accord. VF9 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: I could tighten up the now unnecessary transitional phrase "In recent times," but besides that I think it provides the necessary context. If someone looking to understand why the NRA might want to intentionally provoke outrage, it would be as simple as clicking a link! :D –MJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: That's definitely an improvement! The first sentence is still a bit grammatically off though: "The choice ... to provide ... to intentionally provoking ..." Needs a bit more rewording. "In recent times" is fine, but look up comma usage when saying "such as," and possibly include another quote or two. VF9 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@VF9: Fixed. I sometimes tend towards a rather... archaic style of grammar. I end up using commas like a 19th-century lawyer. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed an issue with the first paragraph. The second sentence isn't grammatically correct, and I just fixed it myself as explaining it would be more work. VF9 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
My bad on the sentence fragment there. I don't normally do that. Crushing to my personal standards on excellent writing, really.I can still laugh at myself.MJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: One further nitpick, not all of your sources are archived. Due to the controversial nature of some of these sources, they may not last much longer. I'd hate to see this become a former FL in the future due to something as easily prevented as WP:LINKROT. VF9 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    All articles that can be archived have currently now been. I have saved the article multiple times in the Wayback machine as well as all its outgoing links. The bot can take care of any future dead links, I assure you.  MJLTalk 08:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Excellent! VF9 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comments:
  • There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
  • You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
  • First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJLTalk 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJLTalk 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Basshunter videographyEdit

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

After successful nomination of Basshunter discography I'm nominating his videography. According to sources, videography is complete it meets the criteria for a featured list and passed GOCE. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Red Dead Redemption 2 charactersEdit

Nominator(s): – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in Red Dead Redemption 2 and providing insight within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters' roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. I believe that the article is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Support - as mentioned, fantastic work, and very enjoyable to read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the images.
  • For this part "native-American hunter Charles Smith", I believe "native" should be capitalized. Also, is the dash necessary? I have more commonly seen the phrase as "Native American", but that could just be from my own personal experiences. It is already done this way for this part "as well as Native American tribe members" in the lead.
  • I am a little confused by this descriptive phrase "widow-turned-gunslinger". Widow is not a job title so she is still a widow when she becomes a gunslinger. Just something about it is off to me.
  • I do not think that this image caption, "Some of the main cast members of the game: Roger Clark, Alex McKenna, and Rob Wiethoff.", should have a period as it is not a full/complete sentence.
  • For the "Creation and conception" section, I would use a character's full name whenever you mention them for the first time as this would be the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article. Examples are: "and each character's relationship with Arthur" and "in which Dutch is described as an equitable leader".
  • For this part "The actors sometimes improvised some additional lines, but mostly remained faithful to the script.", I do not think "sometimes" is necessary as it is already clear from the context of the overall sentence.
  • Since "Western" is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same for this part "felt more appropriate for the narrative structure of a Western." in the body of the article for consistency.
  • I would clarify that the "first game" in this part "Some lines of dialogue from the first game" is Red Dead Redemption and wikilink it.
  • I noticed that the sections for individual characters have large uncited portions about their storylines. Is the game being used as a primary source/reference for this? I am pretty sure that it is okay, but I just wanted to make sure.
  • For this part "despite watching the Dollars Trilogy (1964–1966) he did not take much inspiration from", I believe there should be a comma before "he".
  • The lead says that Arthur Morgan is the lead character of the game. Is there a reason why he is second on the list instead of first?
  • I was a little confused by this sentence "John Marston (Rob Wiethoff) is the secondary protagonist and playable character of Red Dead Redemption 2.". The last paragraph of the "Creation and conception" section mentions how "the team decided that the player would control one character in Red Dead Redemption 2," so the mention of a secondary protagonist/playable character here took me by surprise as someone who has never played any of these games before.
  • I also agree with ChrisTheDude's comments above.

Great work with the list. I will do another read-through tomorrow to make sure that I caught everything, but this is everything that I noticed when reading it for the first time. I hope my comments are helpful and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba47! I've made some edits based on your suggestions. Dutch is the leader of the gang and Davis is listed first in the credits, so I felt that listing him first was more suitable (despite Arthur being the lead playable character). As for the unsourced plot paragraphs, you're right in that the game is the primary reference for this. I've asked Chris above as well, but if you'd like sources for the in-game missions, let me know. – Rhain 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! Your explanation for the listing order makes sense to me. I think that the sourcing should be okay as it currently stands since it is pretty consistent throughout the list as a whole. I will review the article momentarily and put up my second (and hopefully last) round of comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a "face camera"? It i used referenced in the part about motion capture in the "Creation and conception" section, but I am not sure how a "face camera" is different from other cameras.
  • For this sentence, "During the events of Red Dead Redemption, in 1911, John tracks down Bill, Javier, and Dutch, before being killed.", I do not think the comma between "Redemption" and "in" is necessary.
  • This may be a silly question, but would it be helpful to wikilink "reservation" to the Indian reservation article to help any unfamiliar readers?

Thank you for your patience with the review. I only have three relatively minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I will definitely have to check out these games sometime in the future. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. No worries if you do not have time or interest. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47! I've made some changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more concerns. I'll try to find time to check out your FAC sometime soon! – Rhain 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EurohunterEdit

  • It doesn't looks like list and could be rather moved to "Red Dead Redemption 2 characters". Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Check out other featured lists for video game characters. This is a common format. – Rhain 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from The Rambling ManEdit

  • Oppose while the huge mass of white space as a result of the TOC remains in place. It looks terrible and undermines what is essentially a reasonable piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I have addressed this on the talk page. – Rhain 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Can you see my comments at the talk page as well? Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
TOC is better now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by David FuchsEdit

After having read through this list, I am inclined to argue that it fails criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL. This is 63KB article—10,000+ words—about the characters of a single video game. It's bigger than the article about the actual video game. There's no third-party sourcing that demonstrates that the characters of Red Dead are notable outside reception of the game's story in general, and it's stuffed full of plot that definition runs afoul of our fiction guidelines. It's an improper spinout from the main article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: The list is larger (in word count) than the main game article because the latter has been split into several other articles due to its size. Would you be able to point me to the fiction guidelines to which you're referring? The plot descriptions here seem no different to what I have seen in the past. Similarly, the third-party sourcing here seems no different to that of other video game FLs, made up of mostly interviews with the developers/cast and reviews of the game/s, both of which demonstrate notability in this context. – Rhain 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd have similar issues with excessive detail about those other subarticles, to be honest. I'm mostly referring to the Manual of Style's entries on fiction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Any suggestions on how to stick to the MoS a little better? For example, would changing the in-universe perspective ("Arthur retrieves Jack...") to a real-world format ("In the game's third chapter, Arthur retrieves Jack...") work better? – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Anything? – Rhain 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Figured I'd try to get you one more time. Yours is the only oppose vote at present, so I'd like to hear your thoughts. – Rhain 03:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Realistically I think the changes you describe don't substantially address my core issues with the list meeting featured criteria or notability per WP:SAL on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Do you have any suggestions at all? – Rhain 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this list should exist at all, so not really. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicleEdit

Superb list it is well referenced and uses a good range of media. The only thing I found that needs improving is the ciation to the book. It should really use the "cite book" template with something along these lines: Price, James, ed. (October 26, 2018). Red Dead Redemption 2: The Complete Official Guide — Collector's Edition. United States of America: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1911015567.. I will happily support this nomination once that is done.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Spy-cicle. I've replaced the book citation. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The only other thing I noticed was: "The secretive nature of Rockstar's development processes meant that the actors and the director were unsure of the future of the characters during production" Does this refer to one specific director or should it refer to multiple directors. If so I think some clarity may be needed and is also repeated under Creation and conception Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: Good catch. I've clarified that Rod Edge was the director for the majority of production (though I don't feel as though that's important enough to include in the lead). Let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I could not spot anything else, Great job. I now Support this nomination. (Not required but I currently have a FLC on an accolades table for Marvel's Spider-Man your feedback would be appreciated especially in regards to how WP:SIZERULE is applied to video accolade tables).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbroEdit

Great list! Loved this game. Very well-written and should be an FL in no time. Few comments:

  • "Several characters reprise their roles from the 2010 game Red Dead Redemption, to which Red Dead Redemption 2 is a prequel." Idk why but this sentence reads weird to me. I'm not really sure how it'd be reworded though :\
  • Normally see bibliography below refs and not above them
  • I'd rename "notes" to something like "sources", as refs aren't really "notes"
  • I see a few refs that aren't archived.

That's it for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, zmbro! I've moved the bibliography and renamed "notes". All of the unarchived references are to YouTube interviews, which cannot be effectively archived. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. – Rhain 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from PresNEdit

Flipping through this list, I see that a full 15(!) characters don't have a single reference, and another 8 have one from a guidebook in the middle of their text; many of the others are that plus a sourced one-liner. This seems to be because their sections are solely composed of plot summary. While not as vehement as Fuchs about it, this is emblematic of a structural problem with the list: the main purpose of a character list (or article) is to hold a description of the character along with as much real-world information (development/reception) as possible. To see 23 out of 42 characters in a list essentially have none of that is disquieting. A list like this needs to be based on reliable sources for the purpose of notability, not just verifiability- that is to say, it should contain only major characters, as shown by 3rd-party sources writing about them, not instead including every single named character that you could find a bit of backstory for. I'm inclined to oppose, but I'm going to open a discussion at WPVG for other opinions. --PresN 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is certainly not "every single named character"—such a list would end up in the hundreds—but a selection of the game's primary characters, including the 24 main gang members and the several supporting characters and antagonists. That's not to say that it couldn't be trimmed, though, and I'm not opposed to cutting some characters down to a table or prose if necessary. – Rhain 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that there are 24 "main" characters in this game? I've never played it but that and 9(!) main antagonists seems like a stretch. PresN's point stands that many many sections are completely devoid of references establishing notability. I hope this page isn't being used as an island of lost plot sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The game's narrative revolves around the characters in the gang and their relationships. At a stretch, though, I'd argue that at least half of the gang could be defined as "main" characters (which is discouraged). The game is about 60 hours in length with six main chapters, so nine antagonists is accurate: chapter 2 is primarily Leviticus Cornwall; chapter 3 is Catherine Braithwaite and Leigh Gray; chapter 4 is Angelo Bronte; chapter 5 is Alberto Fussar; chapter 6 is Henry Favours; and throughout the whole narrative is Andrew Milton, Edgar Ross, and Colm O'Driscoll. They are each important to the game, though I wouldn't be opposed to shortening their sections to a table. – Rhain 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
If each chapter has its own antagonist, does that make all of them noteworthy antagonists or just temporary obstacles in the story? Summary style demands that you balance the desire to document every beat in the story with the requirement for a high level overview for a reader to understand. I'd start with going through and identifying which characters you can eliminate entirely without diminishing the reader's understanding of the story. Then trim back the ones that are necessary but consist too much of WP:JUSTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Question and comments from czarEdit

Arrived via that WT:VG thread
  1. Is there a reason why this article doesn't have a Reception section (like The Last of Us's and Uncharted's)? If the set of characters is independently notable from the game itself to warrant a summary style, ostensibly there would be enough coverage for such a section, right? czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. The article reads very heavy on plot compared to other character FLCs. Converting the minor characters to a table, as in other articles, would be a forcing function to greatly reduce their length and focus their descriptions to that which can be referenced in reliable, secondary sources. While it isn't necessary to source plot information, adding a ref when available makes it clear that secondary sources considered the character's info significant enough to cover. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Right now, I'm on the fence on the case of merging the article back into the parent. It's clear that there has been a fair amount of coverage on the game's cast, though much of it looks like primary source interviews, especially from interviews and otherwise unreliable sources. The summary style split should be predicated on whether the characters, as a set, have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact, via its sourcing, would make the case for why this set's added detail is too noteworthy to reduce and merge back into the parent article. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, czar. I've added a Reception section, cut down on some characters and plot information, added some more sources, and trimmed all supporting characters and antagonists to tables. Please let me know your thoughts when you can. – Rhain 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Much improved! Are the table rows without citations not mentioned in other sources, or is it just your preference to use uncited plot summary for those? And how are the voice actors sourced—to the credits or a secondary source? With this Reception section, the summary style appears warranted and I'd err on the side of not merging back to the parent article. czar 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks! They are sometimes mentioned in other sources, but the specific plot information is not discussed in those sources, so I've opted not to use them—if you think it might be best to source the missions within the game for some of these characters (as in The Last of Us's characters table), let me know. The actors are sourced to the credits, as no secondary source seems to list more than a few actors' names. – Rhain 03:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, it does not appear that you've done any prose trimming in converting the Supporting characters and Antagonists sections into tables, like Czar asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: You are mistaken; I trimmed back a few of the characters—most notably Eagle Flies, Rains Fall, and Leviticus Cornwall—and cut out two characters entirely. – Rhain 23:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough; the diff display made it hard to notice the change. RE: Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact As for the "main" cast, a character list should primarily describe who the characters are, not what they do. I'm worried that this list is still too focused on giving a play by play of the plot. See also MOS:WAF for what I'm seeing as a continued problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Do you have any suggestions for describing "who the characters are, not what they do"? I will look into trimming the plot even further, but other suggestions would be useful. – Rhain 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A useful way of thinking about it is why characters take the actions they do. Characters in a (good) story rarely do things for no reason; they usually do them because the writer(s) want to illustrate something about their character (a character trait) or help them achieve their goals. One way to trim would be to focus in only on the events that reveal something about the character's traits or goals and omit the events that they are only ancillarily involved in. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: I've done some more trimming per your suggestion. – Rhain 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a good change but I'm also not familiar with the source material so it's hard for me to evaluate. I think it's overall a lot tighter. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Hassan MaatoukEdit

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Having recently scored his 21st international goal, making him the all-time top goalscorer for his country, I have created Maatouk's list based on other FLs such as Ibrahimović's and Drogba's. I'm open for any suggestions and comments, so feel free to let me know if anything needs to be changed. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Happy to Support. Kosack (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


  • I did some improvements on the table already. Some comments are coming later, not much time right now.--Lirim | Talk 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Lirim.Z Hey, I was just wondering if you had any comments regarding the nomination. Or even, if you support it (or not). Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the list get promoted. Dey subrata (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • What makes National Football Teams (reference 11) a reliable source?
I've replaced it with another source. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • References 7 and 14 appear to be in a non-English language, which should be mentioned in the citation (as is done in ref 4).
  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Refs 9, 14, 16 and 19 are to print publications, which means their publishers should be italicized.
When I try to italicize them, an error message comes up stating: "Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=". Nehme1499 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Use the work= or newspaper= parameters instead of publisher. Either of those will give you italics without the ugly error message. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Giants2008:   Done Nehme1499 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The link-checker tool only worked on a few of the references for some reason, but for those it showed no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Giants2008: I should have taken care of your concerns. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The last of my comments has been resolved, so I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sussex Wildlife TrustEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It is in the same format as other wildlife trust FLs, such as Norfolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from CAPTAIN MEDUSA
  • When talking about a currency can you include &nbsp which adds Non-breaking space. For example £5.7 million (please view this in edit mode)
  • Remove all of the unused parameters from the Infobox Organization.
  • Done. I have not done this before and I trust it is OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the sources need to be archived.
  • As always, I have run the archiving tool but a few sources do not archive. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unused parameter from ref 7 can be removed (date=)
  • foxes can be unlinked as they are common terms.
  • The image in infobox needs more info in caption i.e. when it was taken, and where it is located.
  • Added date and wikilinked to the article which explains the location. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Once the comments have been fixed. I will be more than happy to support.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "This site has ancient woodland and species rich unimproved grassland. The wood has standards of pedunculate oak and coppice" - in this context, what is a "standard"? And should "coppice" be plural?
  • I have added a note explaining. Is it clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "All three British species of woodpecker breed breed on the site" - duplicate word
  • Think that's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Source and images reviews
  • Both pass. Sources look reliable, spot checks check out. Images are available under free licenses and I added FoP UK to the first one. buidhe 04:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

List of highest individual scores in ODIsEdit

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because,

  • Written as prose with a good lead, introducing readers briefly about the ODI format and also accounts important records chronologically.
  • The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations related to the ODIs and individual matches and the innings and batter's batting profile for that match in which runs are scored and also provided with citations per WP:RS.
  • Have a organised structure of the list table, cosnisting with proper sections and heading per WP:DTT and names are sorted per Sort.
  • Complies with WP:MOS.
  • The article is stable, as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Other than fulfilling the criteria, want to bring to notice that the article has been here since 2015 and other related articles like as listed in the (see also) section are now FL article, and as most crierion are satisfied, i think the article has a scope to get listed as FL. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • Any reason why "Deepti Sharma" does not have a reference?
  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the image.
  • Any reason why this part (since then there have been over 4,000 ODIs.) does not have a citation?
  • This is a rather long sentence: (On 16 December the same year, Australian women cricketer Belinda Clark broke the 200 runs mark and set the highest individual score of unbeaten 229 runs in One Day Internationals against Denmark at MIG Club Ground, Mumbai which remained unbroken for almost 17 years till Indian batsman Rohit Sharma broke the record on 13 November 2014 scoring a 264 runs against Sri Lanka on 13 November 2014 at Eden Gardens in Kolkata, which remains the highest individual score in the ODIs but Clark remains the highest individual scorer as a captain and her score remains as the highest individual score in Women's World Cup.) I'd recommend breaking it up to avoid having such a long sentence.

Everything else looks good. I know absolutely nothing about cricket so I can only focus on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed all the issues, alt text added, citations added for both, long sentence broken. Dey subrata (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything so quickly. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, with regard to the bit about Anwar's score of 194, I acknowledge what you say, but based on that I would change it a bit. I would start that paragraph by saying "The first score of 180 in an ODI was achieved by Viv Richard in 1984" and then give the rest of the information about that, then say "Saaed Anwar broke the record in 1997 with the first score higher than 190" and then give more info about that. Then talk about Clark being the first to score 200. Does that make sense? BTW on the subject of Sir Viv, he is listed in the table twice and has a different forename each time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I think resolved now, but "C" in cricket used in the link because its specifying the game, Cricket, used a proper noun so capital is used, where as in other links its uses in phrase, One Day International cricket is used so small letter. And I will change the "unbeaten" runs, but don't find any reason why, its not a journalistic word used here, its a term of cricket, we use "unbeaten" when someone remains not out. Not a journalistic word used, for example "follow on", "appeal", "snick", "square cut or cut", "beamer" even "silly" is a cricketing term, looks journalistic but not at all when used in cricket. Dey subrata (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The article title is Lists of cricket records, therefore it should appear in the "See also" section as Lists of cricket records. There is no reason to change the title to have a capital C (or to take the s off "lists") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok I am changing it. Coming to above point, the question will be raised why not 170 or 160, we need to consider a bench mark, its 200, so before 200 what is the score thats it, other wise, after a century thats 100, every number is significant in cricket. Just like why hat-trick which is just 3 goals is considered one of big achivement in football, because its because very few people can do it, right. Similary 200 run is very tough I must say near impossible thing to do in ODIs as there are 300 balls in ODI, and one idividual scoring 200+ runs means he need to face atleast 150 balls thats 25 overs, which is hell lot of balls and near impossible, you can see those few who did it are in recent years as the introduction of T20 happened, the strike rate of players seems to have increased due to different rule change and faster game which made it possible, otherwise, the great name that you have taken Sir Vivian Richards, he is that guy who have highest strike rate in Test(50+)(if you don't know, its a 5 days long game and on average 90 overs are thrown, on an average 200-300 runs are scored in an innings, strike rate is very low, its a different format) but that legend did maintained a 50+ strike rate which is tough, but Viv Richards could not score 200 runs in ODIs, and trust me he is one of the few Greatest batsman the cricket has ever seen, and he had the ability, so you know how tough the 200 runs to score. so yes I think its better to consider 200 as bench mark rather than any other score. Dey subrata (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am not going to labour that point. I will see what others think.
  • Other points:
    • "held by Pakistani cricketer" - better to say Pakistani batsman, it's obvious he's a cricketer, given that the article is about cricket
I will change.
    • "Australian women cricketer" - still needs to be changed to "Australian female cricketer". Actually "Australian female player" might be better as per the above.
ICC don't use "female" always use "women".
"Australian women cricketer" is not grammatically correct, because "women" is plural, so you can't describe her as "women". If you prefer not to use "female" then the correct word to use would be "woman", not "women" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "In men's cricket Zimbabwean cricketer" - "cricket....cricketer" doesn't sound very good - change "cricketer" to batsman
will change
    • "managed to equal Anwar's record" => "equalled Anwar's record"
will change
    • "but failed to reach 200 runs mark" - well obviously if he scored 194 he didn't reach 200, there is no need to say this
its because he was not out at that time,
That doesn't matter. You don't need to say "he scored 194, but didn't score 200" because it's totally obvious that if he scored 194 he didn't score 200. It's completely redundant language. It's like saying "my son is 5'10" tall but he isn't 6' tall" - the second part is redundant because it's totally obvious from the first part -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "after breaking Anwar's 194 runs record" - also unnecessary
ok will remove.
    • Refs after "age of 17" are not in the correct order
ok will fix
    • Same with the refs after "2015 Cricket World Cup"

ok will fix

@ChrisTheDude: fixed. The above two cases, can we add.."but failed to reach 200 runs mark as Zimbabwe reached the targeted score before he could achieve the feat"
But they didn't win, they lost :-) You can't imply that he would have scored 200 had the innings not ended, because it had gone on for another over he could have been out for 195 or 196. It would be OK to say "Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out" That makes the point that he was "stranded" on 194 but doesn't imply that he would definitely have gone on to reach 200 if the innings had been longer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup, they played the first innings :-) Dey subrata (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Please check, ok now? Dey subrata (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
For Belinda clark, what to do?? it really looks odd in cricket, female player, never heard someone saying such or in any article, always used women cricketer or in women cricket a player who bat is called "batter". Please let me know. Dey subrata (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"Woman player" would be OK, but you can't say "women player" because "women" is plural, so you can't say "a women (player)". See for example this, which refers to the "Australian Woman Player of the Year" award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup correct, it should be "woman". Dey subrata (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I made a small tweak and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, your recent edit making sense, its more clear now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello all editors here, can you please consider to put your comments here. It will be helpful for promotion. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Is "one innings" grammatically correct?
  • Make sure the table has scope rows per MOS:ACCESS

Honestly can't see any other problems. Very well-written, should be an FL in no-time (sorry it's taken so long). Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Yes one or an innings is correct, its a singular term and also a plural term. Fixed table with scope row. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I figured it was just wanted to be sure. The scope rows are currently reaching the first 3 cols (I think that's because of the way it's coded). Just the first or second col would suffice. – zmbro (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro:I think first and 3rd will be better, as its about highest individual score. Fixed accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Idk it seems odd to me to have two separate cols be bolded like that. I'd leave it just as the first col. – zmbro (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zmbro: Ok, fine. Kept in first column only. Dey subrata (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – All good now. Happy to support – zmbro (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment from VensatryEdit

@Vensatry: Thank for your comment.Because of the sheer number of centuries scored, we can't include all, it will be ridiculously long article, 1000s of centuries scored. Secondly, as this is about highest individual scores, a sample space of around 25 highest centuries taken in this case which lead 180 to be base line and 180 is also helpful to keep a constant and logical lead for the article and also not much centuries scored above 180 mark. It can be very easily understandable from this- If you just consider to reduce the base line to next 10 digit, i.e, 170, you will find there are 25 more centuries with in 170 to 180, which will be unnecessarily long. And yes I agree with that, the List of double century is redundant. Dey subrata (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Er, that's not my point – I'm asking what made you fix the 'cutoff' at 180? Also, I see that you've included scores from Women's ODI. Surely, that doesn't belong here because both formats are not comparable. Vensatry (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have discussed it in the second line, if you had read it. This summarizes highest individual scores, not a article which shows list of centuries in ODIs. For this we need to mark a base line and need a minimum sample size to represent the statistics to summarize the topic. Here the sample size taken is 25 which lead to 180 as base line. Secondly, if we push below 180 say 170, there are around 20-25 centuries within this small sample size, almost the same size of centuries between 180 and 264, which will be meaningless to add, its goes increasing with every 10 digit. A sample size of 25 is more than enough. With that I have added the progression of record, so that no question arises on how record progressed over the time along with dicussing in the lead too. Secondly, as I have said we are discussing about highest runs in ODIs, we are not gender differentiating or comapring. ODIs in both women and men case is same, every rules and regulation are applied same. Its the same format of cricket played. Along with its a unique article also as fist 200 runs attempt in any ODIs (men or women) was a woman and and was record highest runs for almost 20 years. Thus its very precisely sticking to the topic and gives more clear picture of the topic "highest individual scores". Along with this, it also summarises how the record progress from the 200 runs mark to 264 over the years. And the lead of the article also describes the same very clearly. Dey subrata (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you even understand the question? Anyways, about WODIs the fact that men's and women's format follow the same set of rules/regulations doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense to compare both formats unless both genders get to compete against each other. ODI is DIFFERENT from WODI. Otherwise, why do we need articles on Women's Test cricket and Women's ODI in the first place? Going by your logic, the following articles are redundant: Women's Test cricket records, Women's Test cricket records, Centuries in Women's Test cricket, Centuries in Women's One Day International cricket, Centuries in Women's Twenty20 International cricket, et al? Vensatry (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
In case, you don't follow the game: [9], [10], [11] Vensatry (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I understand your question very well. Didn't you able to get answer to.."what made you draw the line at 180?" I have discussed that clearly, I don't think it needs any more clarity on it.
(1). Dear, I follow cricket very much, I want to let you know your example factually wrong as women test is different format from men's test match. Women's test match is of 4 days while the men's is of 5 days game. Thus a seperate article is necessary for the different formats. So such a point does not count here. Here both ODIs are of same format.
(2). List of centuries in women odi or T20 is similarly necessary the way, list of centuries in world cup, or champions trophy are created because it keeps record of different tournaments not different formats. So such list does not become redundant. Secondly, we are talking about highest individual scores which comprises of few highest scores which shows top highest scores in this format and how the highest individual score progressed over time. AND all those lists that you have added summarizes every single centuries in a specific tournament not a format. So this article is totally different from those lists, by topic and by structure.
(3).I don't follow news article much, but I follow primary and most reliable sources, this is the way world cricket body ICC 1 specifically describes such It was the first double-century in one-day international cricket, by a man or a woman, if it were different format, they should not have publish record as the first 200 in ODI, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2 described, She was the first player, male or female, to make a double-century in a one-day international, this is how Cricket Australia 3 described Belinda Clark became the first person to score a one-day international double century., even news meadia; this is how The Statesman 3 described Belinda Clark of Australia was the first batter in the entire world to score 200 runs in an ODI innings. Its many more if I go, from ICC to reliable source, everyone describes it as highest or first irrespective of both in ODI not in WODI.
Finally, the describe about ODIs not men's or women's. Already mixed gender cricket started, so highest records are highest i the format is same. And the lead of the article clearly describe about when who created the record. It gives a very clear picture or the records and don't give a scope of any confusion. Thank you.Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point very well. I'm asking what made you arbitrarily fix the cutoff at 180 (i.e. 25 innings). Have you previously discussed this at WT:CRIC (or any other related Wikiproject)? Frankly, it would've at least made some sense had this been named "List of 180 plus scores in ODIs" – similar to List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket (an FL) and List of bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in One Day International cricket. Second, taking into account the rate at which such "high" scores are made in ODIs, we might have to raise the "bar" (which now stands at 180) periodically. Your point about men's Tests and women's Tests being different is not relevant here because I believe we're talking about ODIs Vs WODIs (I'd only brought that up as an example). But then, WODI differs from ODI in terms of ball weight (and size), (shorter) boundaries, field restrictions et al. In any case, it surely doesn't make any sense to have both stats in a single table as there are plenty of issues. Vensatry (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well we are talking about formats, not about how much boundaries and weight, there are many cricket stadium which have very small boudaries like that of NewZealand's Eden park and some have very big boundaries like of MCG (highly variable thing, its always mentioned "generally" it should be this and that not a mandatory) We are talking about basics of formats. Most importantly, I don't think as long as ODIs is concerned, and the record is about highest individual score and as long as ICC and Wisden and relaible news medias saying it as highest and first in ODIs, its a problem in anyway. Now coming to real issues, we can move the page from List of highest individual scores in ODIs to List of individual scores more than 180 runs in ODIs but before that I have a question. Where is the difference between the two, both are describing the highest scores. Secondly, in the latter case, we need to emphasize on 180. It will be absurd. (The following table lists scores of 180 or higher.) on the top of the table actually telling you there are many centuries but as the list is about "highest scores", scores upto 180 is taken. Secondly, in the first table the question immediately comes, then how can one know about the progression happened, thus the progression table is placed. Everything is cristal clear now as I have added the progression table. I want to give you another example, "List of centuries in ODIs" and "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" what will you expect in these lists. In the first you will expect all centuries (which does not exist due to same reason) and in the second you will ofcorse expect few top scores (thats why top 25 scores are mentioned). Lastly, I think for this table there can be two case, keep a minimum of scores(which already exist) or scores above 170 (as 171 was first score above 150 barrier, but it will need 25 more centuries to be added). Which one do you think is more feasible, I think the minimum of scores which justify the topic.Dey subrata (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Umm, can you explain why should we have separate articles on Men's ODI and Women's ODI records (instead of having them under one article as per your argument)? As for "highest" qualifier, it's going to be subjective. I'd personally fix the cutoff at 200 because the figure is objective and is considered a "milestone" (even in Tests) in a player's career. Vensatry (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
First we are talking about this particular article, my argument is specifically and precisely for this article and the argument, is given in bold above. Now as you asked about thsoe articles, this article talks about only one record of ODI cricket out of hundreds of different records, where as the articles that you have mentioned include various records in ODI in different formats, so there is no comparison between those articles with this one. Secondly, an article can be unique to other articles, and any reader who will go through the lead will have no problem in understanding the build up of records, its chronologically described along with mentioning the required information in the box to identify which score is from which tournament. Coming to your second point, I already have discussed that in my last reply(above), still want to add with that, it also gives a perspective to see how many players were able reach so close to 200 runs without reaching or breaking it. Now as you mentioned 200 runs about test, in cricket indeed 200 runs is an achivement so is a 100. In test 200 runs is not an extraordinary achievments, good achievment for sure, as it can often be observed being acored by test batsmen in their career, it can be more evidently assured from the fact that around 50 test batsmen have atleast 3 double centuries, so its not a big deal in Test, in test 400 is the extraordinary echievement and records of highest runs generally kept from 300 around 30 scores are kept. Similarly, in ODI 200 runs is the extraordinary, but the bench mark cannot be 200 then, it should be below that, thats why 180 kept and around 25 scores. I don't see that we need to keep banging on this, the lead is good the body is good along with the progression. I hope you agree. Dey subrata (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HarriasEdit

  • Should this list be merged with List of One Day International cricket double centuries?
    • Well that list is actually redundant, merge or delete any one of the case.
      • @Harrias: IMO, yes. Drawing the line at 200 (the figure is NOT subjective) is the best way to go about in these lists. Vensatry (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "One Day International cricket (ODI cricket) is played between international cricket teams which are Full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is only true for men's cricket, not women's cricket.
  • "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This seems superfluous.
    • Any response to this point? Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes ODIs counted against List A records. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of false titles in the article, please rewrite to avoid these. Some useful information is provided in this article.
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Please specify which one you need to be fixed, you are directing me to a third party links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
        • This is a review towards Featured status, not a peer review, or copy edit forum. I have provided a link which identifies what false titles are, and how to avoid them. Other resources are available via Google. Harrias talk 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Harrias I've read that article earlier and did not find such false titles, the kind of nouns or adjective described in the article. Also read other articles. But if you are talking about "Pakistani" or New Zealander" then these are not false titles as people of Pakistan are called Pakistani and it goes on other country or you are talking about something else. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "In men's cricket Charles Coventry equalled Anwar's record after 12 years when Zimbabwe's innings ended with him on a score of 194 not out against Bangladesh at Queens Sports Club ground in Bulawayo." This sentence needs breaking up, it is trying to do far too much.
  • "In ODIs, the.." This whole article is about ODIs, I don't think this clarification is necessary.
  • The prose is generally very clunky, there are a lot of busy sentences that need breaking up more for ease of reading.
    • The prose quality is still low, featuring a lot of repetition and busy sentences. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Broken sentences and remove repetition of ODIs whereever possible, only kept in 2 places where if removed looks odd. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.
  • Per MOS:DTT add table captions.
  • Kerr's strike-rate needs two decimal places.
  • Per MOS:FLAG, the use of flags in the venue column is non-compliant.
  • There is a lot of overlinking of place names in the Venue column; Melbourne, Kolkata etc don't need links.
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no repeat link now in the table, every single place is linked once. I are firm follower of MOS:OVERLINK, but all other FL cricket lists linked the places in tables even repeated links. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "MCG, Melbourne, Melbourne" Is clunky. Melbourne Cricket Ground will suffice. Similar for "National Stadium, Karachi, Karachi"
    • This is unresolved. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, fixed, i thought you were talking about table 2. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.
Source review
  • "Clark's score remains the highest achieved by a captain" The reference provided does not support this claim.
    • This is unresolved. The sources provided demonstrate that she was captain, but not that her score is the highest made by a captain. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • 3 scorers have more runs than her. I have added other 2 highest scorer links (Sharma and Guptill) where its written they're not captain, in her links its mention she is captain and Kerr was not. Thus no possibilities of confusion. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias:, removed all four individual players link, added links for highest scores by captain. Dey subrata (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as the highest individual score in the Women's World Cup" The reference provided only supports this "as of 2017".
    • This was me being an idiot, as there hasn't been a Women's World Cup since 2017. *eyeroll* Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • No need to curse urself man, we all learn here, if u are from US, let me tell you I have zero idea about baseball or nfl records n tournament, but thats not make idiot. Chill, everyone learn new things everyday.
        • I literally attended the 2017 Women's World Cup. Harrias talk 22:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't just use web addresses for publication titles; ref #4 should have India Today as the work and Living Media India Limited as the publisher. Check the rest too.
    • This is unresolved for refs #7, #12 and #24. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
      • ref 7 is of Cricket Australia (Australian Cricket Board), they are not a publishing house, so should be kept as work and website. ref 12 fixed, website based media, kept accordingly. ref 24 fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed all above.

Okay, that's a few things to get going with on a skim read; I can provide a more detailed review once these have been addressed. Harrias talk 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Addressed your issues. Dey subrata (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I have responded inline above. Harrias talk 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: Responded above. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for poor prose, which is far from the required "professional standards of writing". Harrias talk 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
If you are opposing for previously said "false titles" in the prose then as I replied, I don't see any false title in the prose. The prose is written similar to all other cricketing record lists. I asked also which of the words look like false title, and I don't find any wikipedia policies of false title also. Dey subrata (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I have asked a copyeditor to do copyedit in the prose. He also did not find any obvious false title. I don't understand, we all here for the same purpose, if you have seen anything wrong you could have done that correct yourself also. Where is the harm? Now as the copyeditor gone through the prose, I don't think there exists any thing by which it can be called as "poor prose" and saying far from professional level is bit harsh to me. Dey subrata (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here are some more specific points from the first paragraph alone, plus an example of a false title.

  • "One Day Internationals cricket..." This is not grammatically correct.
  • "Men's ODI cricket is played between teams which are Full members of the ICC as well as the top six Associate and Affiliate members." This is a clunky formulation, and should be reworked to avoid the use of "as well as".
  • "In women's cricket the ODI is.." This is not grammatically correct.
  • " ranked.." Should not have a hyphen.
  • "Unlike test matches, ODIs.." "Test matches" should be capitalised.
  • Reference #1 does not support all the information given.
  • "ODI cricket is List A cricket, so statistics and records set in ODI matches also count toward List A records." This sentence is still awkward and superfluous, as I noted above, and has been ignored. It is also unreferenced.
  • "by Pakistani batsman Saeed Anwar" This is a false title, as it places two noun phrases together: "Pakistan batsman" "Saeed Anwar".

I am not going to go through the entire prose and point everything out; it is the job of the nominator to have an article is a fit state for Featured review, not for reviewers to drag rubbish up to standard. Harrias talk 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Harrias, all the above corcerns are fixed. Dey subrata (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Cartography of JerusalemEdit

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the history of maps of Jerusalem is one of the most important topics in cartography, this is the best resource for the subject on the internet, the article has collated images of every single one of the most notable maps of the city, it clearly explains the reasons for the notability of each, uses the most respected sources on the subject, and this is the best of wikipedia's lists of maps and so may inspire further effort on an under-represented topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • "This article also is a list of maps of Jerusalem" - sentences like "this is a list of....." have been deprecated for many years and should not be in the article
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You now have "This article chronicles the known maps....", which is essentially the same thing. Articles basically should never say "this article....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 Y now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "More than 12 maps" - seems oddly specific. Maybe "at least 12...." would be better?
 Y amended. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vellum is wikilinked the second time it appears - should be the first
 Y moved, and also wikilinked the other materials. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "between the late-1400s to the mid-1800s" => "between the late-1400s and the mid-1800s"
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and few of the mapmakers had travelled to Jerusalem" - this should be a new sentence
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a random exclamation mark in the header of the first table
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't bold sentences or sections of sentences in the tables
The intention here is to highlight those maps which are at the highest level of notability (e.g. they were the first of their kind, or considered the most accurate of their generation). Do you think there could be another way we could achieve this?
 Y now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, more than 12 such maps are known" - why "more than 12"? How many is it actually?
I have changed to “at least” per the comment above. The sources (both the same author) say "more than a dozen survive today", but provide no further information, and there are no other specialist publications on the Crusader maps topic recent enough to clarify.
 Y Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sentence fragments such as "Thought to be from the 14th century." should not have a full stop
 Y removed full stops from all fragments. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: thank you for the excellent comments. I have made all the changes except the debolding – I have commented on that above, and would be grateful for your thoughts. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I based that comment on WP:MOSBOLD, which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". I can see where you are coming from, but I can't really think of an alternative approach. Let me muse on that (and also see what other editors who comment here think)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Y @ChrisTheDude: I have now removed the bold per Aoba47 and your agreement on the topic. Thanks again for your input here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I spotted one more thing - against the very last entry, the two refs are not in the correct numerical order, and ref 31 needs formatting properly using an appropriate citation template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • For the lead image's caption, I do not believe it should have a period because it is not a full sentence.
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest adding ALT text, but I do not believe is a requirement for a featured list and there has been some dispute in the past about this subject. I wanted to raise this to your attention though.
 Y added alt text to all. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude that the list should not refer to itself in the prose as it is done with this sentence: "This article chronicles the known maps of Jerusalem until the rise of modern surveying techniques".
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would a wikilink for ancient times be helpful just to clarify the time period being discussed in this part: "the creation, editing, processing and printing of maps of Jerusalem since ancient times".
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with ChrisTheDude that sentences or sections should not be put in bold. I believe that this is typically discouraged. I have seen items put in bold for a lead to help identify redirect targets, etc., but I do not think I have seen it done in the body of a featured list or a featured article.
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think this part "Ground plan from De Locis Sanctis drawn for pilgrims, showing relevant Christian sites in relation to each other." should have punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I noticed that some of the "date" columns have a reference while others do not. Is there any particular reason for it? I am not saying it needs to be changed, but I was just curious about your reasoning for it.
 Y this was because some of the refs for the exacts dates were different to the refs for the descriptions. I have now added these where they were missing, so it is consistent now. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the current citation format. There are instances where the page number is given in the "References" section with a link to the "Bibliography" section with the full book citation, and other cases where the full book citation and page numbers are put in the "References" section. See Reference 3 vs. Reference 25 as an example. Any particular reason why it is done this way?
 Y fair point - I have fixed these and moved all the books and journal articles into the bibliography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that the list mostly does not use the Oxford comma as in this part "including parchment, vellum, mosaic, wall paintings and paper", but the Oxford comma is used in this list "original factual maps, copied maps, and imaginary maps" so I would remove it for consistency.
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the list overall. I hope that it inspires other editors to work on more cartography lists, and it is awesome that you have updated is what is most likely an extremely helpful online resource on the subject. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for your generous and excellent comments. I have put them all through. I also hope that others follow this article - it would be great to see articles like this for all the other major cities worldwide. One day perhaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. I support this list for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Reywas92Edit

  • I really like this list but I don't see how this passes criterion 3a. The crusader maps are based on a catalogue, but the other three sections appear to be entirely subjective inclusion criteria. They're very interesting examples but how do I know nothing important is missing? If the Illes Relief is included why is the Holyland Model of Jerusalem relegated to a see also? Isn't the city model at city hall relevant to modern cartography? The Jewish Virtual Library has many more maps that seem important to the history of the city's cartography.
    • One of those lists the Brandis map as being the first printed map, pre-dating the Reuwich map by a decade (though with less detail of the city itself)
    • There isn't really a broad storyline connecting these maps either, such as discussing differences between the maps, how they improved over time, and how they were used. This is more of a "List of [selected] maps of Jerusalem" instead of "Cartography of Jerusalem", which I would expect to go into more detail about the study and process of mapmaking and the relevance to Jerusalem.
  • Hi @Reywas92: thank you for your thoughtful comments, and for addressing what I think is the single most important question for this FL proposal. This was the question I was most focused on from the moment I began this article. Per the comments from other editors above I have had to remove a couple of self-referential sentences which tried to explain the scope of the article.
In summary, this article lists all the maps which progressed the cartography of Jerusalem; that is its broad storyline. It does not include “imaginary maps of ancient Jerusalem” (a topic which could certainly merit an article; this would include the Brandis map, the Holyland model, and most of the Jerusalem maps listed at JVL [which is usually non-RS btw]), nor does it include either copies of existing maps which didn’t progress it in any way or maps which were materially less detailed than maps already in existence. It stops at “the rise of modern surveying techniques” because after that mapmaking became commoditized. My conviction in building this article with this scope is that an attempted list of every map ever made of Jerusalem – if it was even feasible – would dilute the impact of the maps which were historically significant in the cartography of the city, making it harder for readers to “see the wood for the trees”. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense but the lead needs to define these inclusion criteria, best with a clear explanation for how we can trust that what's listed here is comprehensive and tells the story of cartography rather than just being a selection of maps. The commented-on part above mainly concerned "This article" and the rest can be rewritten. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Reywas92: thank you. Could you help me understand how I should write this without self-referencing? I have read MOS:SELFREF which says what not to do, but doesn’t say how to explain the scope of a list to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Could be something like "The maps below represent the progression of mapmaking across the history of the city...They are the most historically significant..." or "All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here...This is a collection of the most important maps, because they show how mapmaking and surveying improved and outsiders could better understand the city." (Don't use my exact words but just omitting the word "article" while still talking about the list itself is fine). But the comments on each map could use a little more detail to corroborate why they're chosen. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Reywas92: thank you. I have added an explanation at [12]. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't have to quote me but that looks good! Reywas92Talk 02:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, at least 12 such maps are known" – "such" simply being Crusader-era? This section description doesn't line up with those listed. (5) München is missing, and Cambrai and Sanudo-Vesconte are added to Röhricht's catalogue, but these numbers still don't add up then for what's included.
  • Map (5) is the Arculf map, already in the section above. I have added a sentence to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No colon after "labeled"
 Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thank you for your very helpful comments. I believe they have now all been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes but not the elaboration on the map descriptions themselves that relate them to what makes them important. E.g. the Hague map is called "the most famous" but does not give any detail why and I don't have access to the cited book to learn more about its importance. The Willenberg map says where it was published, but not how it progressed cartography. Reywas92Talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Excellent improvements, support Reywas92Talk 21:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by DudleyEdit

  • There is no point in having the Madaba map as the lead image as it is shown identically immediately below. You need some variation, such as a different image, part of one of the other maps or a much larger image of the Madaba map.
 Y very fair point. I put a modern photo instead for comparison purposes. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Most extant maps known to scholars from the pre-modern era were prepared by Christian mapmakers for a Christian European audience." This implies that there are a significant number of non-Christian maps but ref 2 says that there are almost none. I suggest changing to "hardly any". Are any non-Christian maps known?
 Y changed to “almost all”. I think the reason the sources don’t say all/none is because there are likely a few known non-Christian sketches or illustrations on bigger maps like this one, but none which advanced the cartography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You should state your criteria for inclusion in the list, as you set out in the discussion above.
 Y @Dudley Miles: thank you. I have added an explanation at [13], following the suggestion of Reywas92. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Early religious / pilgrimage maps" It would be helpful if you added dates to this sub-heading.
 Y done Onceinawhile (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The dates in the left hand column should be as c.680 when the exact date is not known.
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The table heading 'Description' is misleading. 'Comments' would be better.
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The text in this column is very brief, particularly as it is such a short list. "Dated to the mid 12th century" just repeats the date column. It would be helpful to expand the information, although I realise that in some cases information may not be available.
Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y I have expanded these throughout where information is available. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The comments still look too brief. There must be more information available about maps which are significant enough to meet your criteria for inclusion in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: thanks for your copyedit, which I am fine with, and for your comment above. Re adding more detail to the descriptions, most of these maps have enough written about them that they could justify an entire article on their own. How much detail would you consider appropriate in the table? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
See for example List of local nature reserves in Somerset. This has 2-3 lines but less where details are not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "A "round map" showing simplistic buildings;" An argument can be simplistic, not a building. As almost all depictions of buildings on maps are simplified, I would delete the word "simplistic".
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The annotations considered to have been made by Haukr Erlendsson" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "The annotations were probably made by Haukr Erlendsson."
 Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The comments randomly mix sentences and non-sentences. List of local nature reserves in Somerset sometimes has the first statement on each site as a non-sentence but all subsequent ones are sentences. I would prefer all comments as grammatical sentences, but you do need to follow some rule about which comments are sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 Y Done. I have gone for all comments starting with non-sentences, with the rest of the text being sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks fine apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: thank you very much for these comments, which have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Brief updateEdit

@Dudley Miles and Reywas92: thank again for your very helpful comments. I have put through almost all of them, and am currently finalizing the comments re adding further description where available. It is taking some time but I am not far from being finished now. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Last set of comments being finalized above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Giants2008Edit

  • Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review—passEdit

  • Sources look reliable
  • Please move unused sources (eg Laor) to a further reading section  Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Add OCLC, ISBN or other identifiers to all print sources  Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems to cover the bases wrt content. buidhe 03:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: thanks for your comments. These have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @PresN: @The Rambling Man: Please note that I've supported already and will not be closing this FLC, so one of you will have to do the honors/honours when the time comes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


I'll give it a brief review but as a minimum the tables need row/col scopes per ACCESS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Scopes added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • c. needs a space after it.
Spaces added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The article lists maps that progressed the cartography of Jerusalem..." according to whom?
The is set out in the sentence immediately prior: “All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here following the cartographic histories of the city, from Titus Tobler and Reinhold Röhricht's studies in the 19th century to those of Hebrew University of Jerusalem academics Rehav Rubin and Milka Levy-Rubin in recent decades” Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Notes in the tables should be consistent in the use of full stops.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " Czech travelogue of Palestine" sea of blue.
Unlinked Czech to remove sea of blue. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Jerusalem].[46][43]" cites in order, check all.
Fixed. I checked others, there were no more. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The map was dedicated to empress Elisabeth Christine" sea of blue and needs citation.
Unlinked empress to remove sea of blue, and added citation Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Which variant of English is used here? I see "catalogued" (Brit) and "categorized" (non-Brit)...
Fixed. There was also both center and centre, and one date was inconsistent. I went with the one that seemed more prevalent, which was British. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Jerusalem;.[52] " no need for both punctuation.
Semi colon removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Page ranges in refs need to be "pp." and should use en-dash not hyphen for range separator.
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Cartography and Cartography by city are nugatory categories as they are super cats of Maps of Jerusalem.
Removed Cartography and Maps of Jerusalem Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a very quick run through. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: thank you. Please could you let me know what “sea of blue” means in two of the comments above? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I figured out sea of blue. I have now implemented all your comments. Thanks again. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for removalEdit

List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater ManchesterEdit

Notified: ChrisClarke88

I am nominating this for featured list removal per discussion here relating to the refactoring and reorganisation of the list. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist for the following reasons:
  • Lead only has one reference
  • All refs are bare urls
  • None of the tables complies with MOS:ACCESS requirements
  • Images require alt text
  • Looking at several different tallest building lists there seems to be no agreed height where the cut off point should be. However, it think that in this case the 50 metres cut off should be increased as the list is currently showing 135 buildings. I would make the cut off 70 metres and this would reduce the list down to 36 buildings.
List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford also lists every building over 50 metres in height so everything is duplicated in the list. I suggest redirecting to this list as well.
Pinging ChrisClarke88, Delusion23 and Quantocius Quantotius who is doing some great work in this area.
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist - the article has not maintained the level required for FL status over the years. Also agree with merging Salford list into Greater Manchester one as they are duplicating work. Provided the ability to sort by borough/city it should be fine. DelUsion23 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A lot of effort has gone in recently to fully update the Greater Manchester and Salford tallest building lists and I hope this effort is reflected. I would agree with merging the Salford list into Greater Manchester as nothing unique will ever be in the Salford list and it is strange that the 'City Of Manchester list is merged but not Salford. I would like to keep the cut off point for tallest buildings in Greater Manchester at 50M however. Central Manchester and Greengate in Salford are where the majority of tall buildings either do or will reside. If we raise the height bar, many areas and boroughs will no longer be listed which I believe will make the information provided weaker. For consistency across cities I would propose London's cut off is at 100 metres, with core cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield have a cut off at 50 metres. Any smaller cities can have a lower cut off - maybe around 30 metres. I plan to make the building lists for these cities in the UK more consistent moving forward to hopefully provide more up to date, useful information. ChrisClarke88 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist (responding to ping) WIAFL is not met at present. The lack of proper sourcing is by itself enough to result in a fail, although the MOS issues compound the problem. I say this with some reluctance, because it's clear that @ChrisClarke88: has been putting a lot of work into this recently, and I have somewhat of a SOFIXIT mindset myself. In fact I'm going to try to go through and try to make sure that all of the FLs in this area are up to date by the end of 2020, if I can find the time as real-life has been getting in the way of me doing anything here. Hopefully, at some point we can get a collaboration together and get this relisted. For the moment I'm going to drop a {{Bare urls}} on it. I almost always prefer to fix the problem myself, but in this case I have it on good authority that there are wikignomes who specialize in this kind of work, and the template will draw them quickly like moths to a flame. As a note to closer, I don't know when I'll next have time to log-in, if this substantially improves prior to close to the point were the FLRC equivalent of The Heymann Standard applies you can disregard the above in it's entirety. As a side note, @Ianblair23: I greatly appreciate the ping. 𝒬𝔔 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Alanis MorissetteEdit

Notified: WereWolf, WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Canadian music

Promoted back in 2009, this one has NOT aged well. Outdated and only 9 references TOTAL, only a few of the mini-tables have refs of their own, nor descriptions like most other lists of this type have. Some awards are centered and others aren't. Also, 2 refs are bare urls. Clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nomination. Hard to imagine how this was ever promoted in the first place. Would need a lot of work to get up to spec. buidhe 09:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist due to significant sourcing issues and the need to convert the mini-tables into one table per current FLC standards. Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventionsEdit

Notified: PericlesofAthens, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Invention, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

The list was well-researched when it was nominated a dozen years ago (how time flies) but since then too many low-quality additions have been made. On the surface the listing may still look polished but when you check the cited sources more closely that are meant to support the claim of a Chinese invention there are too many inexcusable misreadings and misrepresentations. I will limit myself to a few examples:

  • Parachute: A jump with a pair of bamboo hats described by an ancient Chinese historian is supposed to amount to the invention of the parachute. Even if we accept for a moment that the awareness of air resistance slowing down a fall is a sufficient criteria, the entry ignores that the jump never happened but was part of an ancient legend that the writer recounted, a fictitious non-event. By this criteria we could also ascribe Daedalus the invention of heavier-than-air flight and not Otto Lilienthal or the Wright brothers.
  • Umbrella: Typical in that it is doubly misleading. The entry claims the invention of the umbrella as such but then concerns itself solely with collapsible umbrellas. But even these turn out not to be introduced first by the Chinese. The cited source merely opines that in Greece and Rome umbrellas "were not generally collapsible" (Joseph Needham pp. 70). From this, so it seems, the inference was made that collapsible umbrellas were completely unknown to the Greeks and Romans and by extension everywhere else too outside of China.
  • Moveable sails: Here it is — falsely — claimed on the basis of some blog, a feng shui guidebook and a children's book that Chinese sailors were the first to acquire the capability to sail against the wind.
  • Hand fan: The invention of the hand fan is referenced to a décor site that does not even make that claim.

For more examples, check my edit summaries. I had to remove now around twenty entries, about ten percent of the total listed, and I have not even checked the majority of them.

I understand that such lists of scientific discoveries and technological inventions have some intrinsic difficulties as one has to deal in the history of technology with competing definitions, compartmentalized scholarship, and a paucity of evidence the farther one goes back in time. But here too much of the research has been conducted too shoddily to warrant featured status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gun Powder Ma: Hello. Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. It's been a while since I've taken a good look at the article, but you're right that a lot of new additions have been made since I nominated it in 2008. I've just taken a look at the edit summaries and to be honest it seems like you've already removed the majority of newer entries that were arguably quite spurious. I'll take a look at things, but if you could perhaps compile a quick list of further entries that you find to be questionable or cited poorly then I'll see what I can do about rewording or removing them as well. Another alternative, albeit a drastic one, would be to restore the article to its stable state around 2009 to 2010, perhaps as late as 2011-2012. I think that's a better option than simply removing the featured status of a list article that I personally spent at least a solid month working on and that met the high standards of featured status when nominated. Keep in mind that the article saw various improvements after its successful nomination, such as the splitting of material to form the new List of Chinese discoveries article. We also removed all citations by Robert K. G. Temple, as he is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. I think restoring the article to around the time of the split and removal of Temple would be optimal. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: I don't think I removed already the majority of incorrect entries. I am spotting more of them at mere sight. If we are honest, and you acknowledge as much when you suggest to restore the list to some prior point of time, the list has been in a dubious state for a number of years. In 2008, when you successfully nominated the list it had 60 entries. Now it has accumulated over 300. But somewhere along that path it also lost its original quality that elevated it to featured status.
On the other hand, I don't deny that there have been made valid additions in the meantime. To eliminate them together with the spurious rest in order to save the FL star seems to be a drastic move indeed. But the real problem is what happens when this step has been taken but poor entries are added again? In the absence of somebody willing and knowledgable enough to oversee new additions – you say you are semi-retired – we will have the same situation sooner and later again.
My suggestion would be therefore to keep the list as it is now, but delist the article from FL AND put a tag on top of the list that points to the lack of source quality until all the issues are resolved. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gun Powder Ma: Hello. That solution would be more drastic than simply restoring the article to a previous state, especially since a statement exists on the talk page banner shell with the following: "A stable version of this article has been noted on 22 June 2013...As of 22 June 2013 this stable version met the criteria to be classed as a FL-class article." For more info on that, see Template:Stable version/doc. If that is the case, I think a solution that would satisfy everyone would be to restore the article to the state it existed in June 2013 when it was observed as still possessing FL quality material and sources. I had stopped contributing to the article by that point anyway. Delisting the article would be entirely unnecessary if a simple restoration was made instead. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The only edit to the June 2013 version I would make, for that matter, would be the removal of citations and statements attributed to the unreliable source The Genius of China by Robert Temple (1986), as mentioned above. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist is the better choice at this point. Perhaps it will spur editors to improve it. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I think this article can easily be cleaned up and I would be willing to volunteer my time to do so over the next few weeks. Many (but not all) of the dubious entries were the work of a single editor and criticism of their contributions is already discussed at length in the talk page, so I would argue that even a surface-level cleanup should be trivial.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 02:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Khanate General: Hello! Thanks for offering your help, it is sorely needed. I was honestly considering reverting everything back to the "stable" FL-quality version of the article noted in June 2013 as mentioned on the talk page banner shell. I will refrain from doing that if you put in the work to clean up the article and remove the more exaggerated or spurious claims. Once again, many thanks! Pericles of AthensTalk 02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, with conditions: those being that User:Khanate General copyedits and improves the article in a timely manner per his comment above about volunteering his time in these next few weeks. The spurious and poorly sourced material added by a well-known sockpuppet account can easily be spotted and removed in that case. Thanks for all your hard work so far, General! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by MegadethEdit

Notified: Retrohead, WikiProject Metal

Multiple citation tags, many refs are bare urls, few permanent dead links, and it's in the outdated mini table format. In its current state, I don't believe it deserves the star anymore. – zmbro (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per sourcing issues as noted above as well as the need for a rewrite of the prose and the use of a deprecated table format. Cowlibob (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by RadioheadEdit

Notified: User:Gary, WikiProject Alternative music

This list was promoted back in 2008 (when In Rainbows was only a year old) and has aged poorly since. Apart from a six sentence lead (that has zero references), there are only 13 references total. Before I archived 10 out of 13, some of them led to 401 pages. Most of the tables only have one ref that doesn't mention every nomination/win, but rather just one or in some cases only describing the awards themselves. One of the tables also has its own ref col while the rest don't. Also inconsistent grammar and no periods in some spots. Clearly no longer worthy of the star. – zmbro (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist Serious sourcing issues. Lead needs a whole rework. List does not meet current standards. Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)