Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2015

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

The list was promoted by PresN 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2014 Winter Olympics medal table edit

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've recently been working on it and have based its layout on a number of other featured medal tables. I believe it may now meet the criteria for inclusion and will be willing to fix any issues. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Bleacher Report is usually not considered a reliable source based on previous discussions such as this one. Here is an article from The New York Times about Armin Zöggeler that makes reference to his record.
  • Replace Olympic.org with International Olympic Committee in the publishers field since that is the official organization's website and leave the work field blank.
  • Any items in the work field that are not titles of periodicals or related stuff should be removed from the work field and inserted in the publishers field. An example would be Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics (Sochi Organising Committee).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: All done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81

Support: I can confidently confirm my support for this list now that a few more people have proofread the list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30em.
  • Ref 4 has "Olympic.ca. Canadian Olympic Committee." the former in italics, the latter not, while ref 5 has "Olympic.org." not in italics. I would be consistent.
  • Ref 7 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen, but then ref 14 seems to have a spaced em-dash, so either way, some consistency required here.

That's about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All done apart from "an historic tie"; I took a look at this and was unsure. I've cut "Olympic.ca" and "Olympic.org" out, in line with suggestions above by another user. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, I blame my teachers of decades ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no major pressing issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red in the image needs to become something like green. Also, the legend is missing and "eleven" is a joke. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is actionable, what "legend" do you want? What do you mean by "eleven" is a joke? If you'd like to help then please help, otherwise I suggest you don't continue to add such cryptic and unhelpful commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine now, but are there deleted entries in the history of the article after Aug 31? Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I am pretty sure I remember seeing "11" being spelled out in the table, but maybe there was some sort of glitch. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"with a historic tie in alpine skiing." is a bit vague. The historic part was that it was the first time a gold was tied or any medal, or that the fight for the medal was a historic one?
  • Clarified.
  • "medals over six consecutive games" was this at the same event? what discipline?
  • Clarified.
  • "If nations are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically." does not apply here
  • Removed.
  • why you chose the first podium iamge specifically? why not some of the more notable cases mentioned in the text?
  • I deemed podium images containing medals quite fitting to go alongside the table of medals. This is a similar format to the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table list.
The secnd is fine, but the first image seems completely random considering there are more notable options like File:Women's downhill, 2014 Winter Olympics, podium.jpg. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ravendrop 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30em.

Comments by Ravendrop

  • The lead mentions 15 sports, however the main article lists 15 disciplines in 7 sports. Would suggest matching the language used in the main article, i.e. "A total of 2,873 athletes from 88 nations participated in 98 events in 7 sports across 15 disciplines." Or "A total of 2,873 athletes from 88 nations participated in 98 events in 15 winter sport disciplines." The second option is what is used in the 2010 Medal Table and in the 2014 list of medalists.
  • I changed the Men's super-G from a "second" place tie, to the correct "third" place tie for bronze.
  • I support the article. Looks Good. Ravendrop 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed. Remember to review other people's nominations, so that future nominations will run faster! --PresN 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:28, 28 September 2015 [2].

Katrina Kaif filmography edit

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Katrina Kaif is one of the most popular actresses in Bollywood. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian
  • Support Krish!, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The image of Kaif is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here, and both captions are suitable. This list is straight forward, and is in keeping with other featured filmography lists of Indian actors and actresses. The references used are also verifiable and in keeping with Wikipedia's citation formatting guidelines. My only suggestion would be to use "box office" consistently throughout, as I noticed in some places, you've hyphenated the term and in other places, you've left a space. Thank you for your hard work in crafting this list, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • Kaif in 2013 — sounds vague. Make it clear.
  • British-Indian actress? Did she act in any English films made by UK filmmakers?
She is British-Indian as her mother is English and her father is British Kashmiri. Cowlibob (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cowlibob, thanks for responding. Do you think rephrasing it as actress of British-Indian origin would be a better idea? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source in the lead [[3]] uses British-Indian and so does our GA article on her. I must confess that I'm not clear on how nationalities are determined on Wikipedia. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to solve this by adding "British born Indian actress". I don't know if it is grammatically correct.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it okay, but if someone points at it, do not blame me. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure whether Ek Tha Tiger can be called a "thriller".
  • For JTHJ, is it just SRK? What happened to Anushka Sharma here? Also it is a romantic film directed by Yash Chopra, not a Chopra's romance. :)
  • Nothing about the critical and BO reception about Bang Bang! and Phantom is mentioned.
Both films were panned by critics and were moderate successful as both cannot recover their huge costs. She has starred in only four good films (Namastey London, New York, ZNMD, and Raajneeti) and rest were panned. I don't think we can write this. It would look repetitive, but i have tried to maintain neutrality, wherever i could.Krish | Talk 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see one dead link and six redirects here. Kindly fix them.
Fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I require sources that explicitly state the principal photography has commenced in the case of Fitoor, Jagga Jasoos and Kal Jisne Dekha. And, wasn't the last been titled as Baar Baar Dekho?
  • It is Sridhar Pillai for reference 2.
  • Author not mentioned for reference number 8.
  • Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 13 and 17. Why?

Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Pavanjandhyala.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Krish!, I see that these are not yet done.

  • The dead link (reference number 5) isn't fixed yet.
  • Can anyone knowledgeable explain me in brief why Ek Tha Tiger is considered a thriller?
  • Are you sure you want to call JTHJ a Yash Chopra Romance?
  • It is "Sridhar" not "Shridhar" Pillai for reference 2.
  • Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 14 and 18.
  • Fitoor and Jagga Jassoos require sources that filming has begun, like this. Also Baar Baar Dekho's filming has commenced and is not listed here.
Done. Also, we don't link names in references.Krish | Talk 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We will link them. For example if you want to link Charulatha Mani, we will use "| last=Mani | first=Charulatha | authorlink=Charulatha Mani" in the reference. Also, no source has been provided about Jagga Jasoos filming. The source i gave you for Fitoor isn't formatted correctly. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Linked both the authors (Adarsh at first mention). Also, the same source is cited for both films and it says about her juggling between both films.Krish | Talk 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that all my concerns were met by the nominator and now i support this list's promotion to FL status. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you find a way to reword an instance of "a critical and commercial failure" or try to avoid using "commercial" several times?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tweaked the first mention and removed a commercial term from another.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you not rely so much on Bollywood Hungama? Try to replace some with newspaper sources for more variation if you can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we don't have many trusted sites for Indian films as compared to American such as Rotten Tomatoes, MetacritiC, AllMovie and rest of the others. BH is the only site which has a profile of each and every Bollywood film. I don't think citing reviews can help either. That's why.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

  • "Kaif had starred in a series of box-office hits, but her performances in them were generally criticised" What does this sentence mean? Seems out of place.
  • Starring opposite Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan are key to her early career. This isn't really emphasised in the lead.
It's mentioned that Kaif starred opposite Kumar for the first of many films but only the first is mentioned. The majority of films she has starred has been collaborations with these two actors and reading the lead you can't see that. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among these were two of the highest grossing productions" highest grossing of what, year? all time?
  • Have a different image than the main article.
  • According to the BH source she played Indu Pratap in Raajneeti.
  • Rina Kaif / Popdi Chinchpokli? Did she play two characters in Boom?

Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BH source for Blue doesn't specify that Kaif's character was a cameo.
  • The Hindu source for Allari Pidugu doesn't specify that Kaif's character is called Swati.
  • I.V. Sasi -->I. V. Sasi
  • BH Source for Humko Deewana... says her character is called "Jia Yashwardhan"
  • Sify source for Balram doesn't specify her character's name
  • BH source for Namastey London says her character is simply "Jasmeet Malhotra"
  • Could you go through each of the films and ensure that everything is supported by the references including character name. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Krish | Talk 12:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

  • "Ref(s)" should be "Ref." within the tooltip template.
That's because some films are cited with multiple refrences.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name which segment of Bombay Talkies Kaif appeared in, and mention the director of that segment in the main article rather than a footnote. "Multiple directors" appears absurd.
Added about the segment in which she appeared. But, I think as a whole its a four director film. Its same in all other filmographies.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BH sources need not be archived as it's a popular film website, probably satying for the long time. And, the rest, i will do when i have time.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quite well cited list page. — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:30, 28 September 2015 [4].

List of Central Coast Mariners FC players edit

Nominator(s): Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article meets the criteria for a featured list, having being reformatted based on several other similar Featured Lists of football club players such as List of Manchester United F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players. The list was previously Featured in 2007 before this status was removed in 2012. All of the issues raised then have now been fixed. Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
;Quick comment
  • What reference do you use for the position? Presumably not the one listed in the row, as for Damien Brown, that states that he is a Central Midfielder, not a Utility player, and for Shane Huke a Defender, not a Utility player. (They are the only two I have checked.) Harrias talk 07:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I had listed positions based on the players pages, which had resulted in some slight discrepancies between positions as listed and as sourced. I've now changed all positions to correlate with the source used. Cheers, Macosal (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • The lead could do with some references. I know much of it will be covered by the table references, but the formation of the club, first match etc. could do with supporting references.
  • The lead could stand to be expanded a little too possibly, maybe note which goalkeeper has appeared the most, maybe a bit about the captaincy?
  • In the table, "appearances" might look better above "Starts/Subs/Total" rather than below.
  • Use {{abbr|Ref|Reference}} to display Ref in the table header. Harrias talk 11:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed and done on all points. Macosal (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite
  • Could you include an image in the lead?
  • Shouldn't the lead mention the settlement where the club is based, i.e. Gosford?
  • "The club has always played home matches primarily at Central Coast Stadium": "primarily" implies they've played home matches at other grounds. Is this the case? If so, they haven't "always" played home matches there.
  • I feel the lead needs a paragraph that explains what the list includes and how the players are ordered. See this and this to see what I mean.
  • "who has made a total of 262 appearances": take "has" out, as he's retired from playing.
  • Perhaps consider a dedicated Key section, formatted like the lists linked to above?
  • Images are lacking alt text.
  • Per WP:DTAB, a "caption is a table's title, describing its nature". I feel a more descriptive caption for this list would be something like "Table of players, including nationality, playing position and club statistics".
  • I'd change the "Central Coast Mariners career" heading to just "Club career": it's already well established which club we're talking about.
  • I see the lists excludes appearances from Oceania Champions League Qualification matches, which are listed in the references used. Is this not a first-team competition?
  • Nik Mrdja: appears to include his Oceania matches, but not the goals.
  • Don't feel we need commas to separate spells, they're on new lines anyway.
  • Adam Kwasnik: goals differ from ref.
  • Jamie McMaster: nationality differs from ref.
  • Nigel Boogaard: goals differ from ref.
  • Matt Simon: apps differ from ref.
  • Adrian Caceres: nationality differs from ref.
  • Shaun Huke: nationality differs from ref.
  • Chris Doig, a midfielder; really?!
  • Nicholas Fitzgerald: apps differ from ref.
  • Joshua Rose: apps differ from ref.
  • Travis Major: ref doesn't list a nationality. I'd stick in another ref that confirms it.
  • I'm not a fan of including club captains in these player lists, but if you do keep them, I recommend using this format.
  • What makes ALeagueStats.com a WP:RS?

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - most of which is obviously correct/good improvements and I have now incorporated into the page. On the Oceania qualifying comp., I had previously left this out due to the one-off nature of the competition, but I think you're right - ultimately, it was a competitive, first team competition as recognised by WP:RS and so I have now included it. I've also added a few specific references to players' nationalities/positions. Other responses/reasoning where I haven't undertaken changes:
  • Re having a dedicated key: I get what you're saying, but comparing this list to the two you mention, there is somewhat less specific detail involved, which, in my opinion, would result in too small a key to warrant its own section?
  • I don't think it's too small for its own section, and I think having it as a section would make it more accurately labelled, as it technically isn't part of the list of players. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've added in the standalone section for now, although I would be interested to see if others agree/disagree. Macosal (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALeagueStats.com is a highly reliable source - particularly when it comes to appearance statistics. It is one of the few places I have seen on the internet where there is a complete record of all fixtures of A-League clubs (the A-League official website being sadly lacking in its own statistical records) and as such is a highly valuable source for putting together lists such as this.
  • Yes: the site is independent (third-party) and publically available on the internet (published). As for its reputation/accuracy, I would say that I have never known it to be inaccurate, nor have I seen anybody with an opinion other than that the site is reliable and comprehensive. Macosal (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers again and hope that this resolves the issues which you have raised, Macosal (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few more comments: It's recommended we don't wikilink countries, so I'd apply the approach you've used in the Club captains table to the Players table.
I'd move the new refs you've added into the dedicated Ref column. You could explain what the refs are used for by adopting this approach.
Perhaps add a Ref column to the Club captains table? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have followed through on these suggestions. Macosal (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel this now meets the criteria. With regards ALeagueStats.com, it appears error-free, well-maintained and comprehensive, so I'm content with its use on this list. One final suggestion: would the nationalities look better left-aligned? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers. Once again I think I agree - the nationalities do look neater when aligned left (although I couldn't find any MoS guideline on this). Thanks again for your suggestions/feedback, Macosal (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @Daniel: would be interested in commenting on this nomination, as the user who first nominated it in April 2007? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I have a concern about the accessibility of complex tables (grouped columns). I'm not sure there is consensus among accessibility experts on Wikipedia as to whether complex tables pose a problem. I would prefer that the table be simplified (ungroup the three play columns) to guarantee that all screen readers will read the appropriate column headings aloud as their blind user navigates the tables. Thisisnotatest (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get your concern, but I'm not sure that I agree. There are already several featured lists which use this format (see e.g. List of Liverpool F.C. players or List of Manchester United F.C. players). I think the table as you edited it is not particularly neat, with quite wide columns containing only 1-2 digit numbers. I think that's my position. Then again, I do get your accessibility issue and would be happy to see if this is the view of people who would be better informed than myself about accessibility issues. Macosal (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - just spitballing here, but does the word "appearances" need to be included? The subheadings are already comprehensively discussed in the key. If not, then maybe the solution is to remove the word appearances altogether, improving accessibility and keeping the columns tight. Macosal (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like it without the header spanning several columns; I don't think the "appearances" bit is necessary since it's obvious what the meaning of the columns are. If the columns would appear too wide on their own they can be forced to a certain width to be a little narrower for aesthetics, which I don't believe will affect accessibility (although, as I viewed it here, the only column that really seemed wider than it needed to be was the "total appearances" one, and I think just dropping the title to "total" would bring it in without needing to specify a width). GRAPPLE X 15:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macosal (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Macosal: Thank you for fixing the page and I have struck out my comment. Just for the record, in the two pages cited, Appearances appears below the other headings, so "Starts" "Subs" or "Total" would be read aloud by a screen reader when a visitor navigated to those columns further down the table. So keeping or removing "Appearances" on those pages would be a matter of aesthetics. But if someone were to move "Appearances" above "Starts" "Subs" or "Total", it would become a matter of accessibility. Anyway, all sorted. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comments:
    Why is the Hutchinson image alone in using a reference in the caption? The information mentioned is cited in the table so I feel it's unnecessary, and removing it would be more uniform.
    Although the table does list Wilkinson as having the second most appearances, this can't be assumed to mean he was the previous record holder for the club before Hutchinson (they could feasibly both have simultaneously exceeded a previous record before Hutchinson then took the lead, for example, or a previous record could have been beaten by Hutchinson, then by Wilkinson who rose to second). A reference to back up in no uncertain terms that the latter did hold the record would be ideal here.
    Apart from looking at these I'm happy with the overall shape of the article here. GRAPPLE X 08:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers, have removed the reference in the caption and reworded the sentence such that it is now reflected by the sources used. Macosal (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. If you do turn up a source crediting Wilkinson as being the most capped in his time then by all means, the old wording supported with that would be ideal, but as it is now it's also grand. Happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:29, 28 September 2015 [5].

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 Tour de France finished two days ago. This is a list that shows all the teams and the riders who participated. All the riders are shown first, including their placing in the general classification, and are then grouped by team and summarised by nation below.

This is my first attempt at preparing and nominating a featured list – I've never come near this page before. I've mostly followed another FL (List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia) as a guide, but it's fairly old so I don't know how much it reflects modern practice. Your advice and criticism is very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables review - Relentlessly, the tables need "scope" formatting, as explained in MOS:DTT. Also, the table for "By nationality" has no referencing on it. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maile66 and many thanks for the review. I think I've added the scope as required in that page? I've also added some references to the lead section of that paragraph, but all the data in the table replicates content and references from above. Does this address your concerns?
A question, looking at that MOS page, is whether it should be using table summaries (for the "by rider" section) and table captions (for the "by team" section). Could you comment?
Many thanks again for your comments. Relentlessly (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, let me say that I should have given you more clear instructions. There is also scope=row to be done (and more tedious to do each row). I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me about the summaries/captions. But I think FL List of Tour de France general classification winners is a good example of what you are looking for. The cycling FL I find seem to have all been done in 2011. The individual tables aren't referenced as yours are, but in passing FL or FA, consistency is noticed. Consistency is referencing, also, so I'm satisfied with the references you added to the lead paragraph of "By nationality". — Maile (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Maile66. I was going by the footnote on that page that suggests only adding scope="row" to th elements. But I have updated the page with your suggested change (and that's what regex is for!). WRT summaries, I'm wondering whether doing this would be better than what I've done so far? Relentlessly (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm happy to give you the first Support on this nomination. As for your comment about that which might be better - I say, as long as you stay within the MOS and are consistent throughout, take the easiest route. Wikipedia always has several different ways of arriving at the same point. Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "team" part of the title is superfluous since it is pretty obvious this is a list targeted towards cyclists. Also, I believe the final position entry should include the times. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it lists teams and then cyclists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nergaal, thanks for commenting. I didn't create the article, and its name is consistent with other Grand Tour cycling lists. I think "teams" refers to two things: the list of teams at the top (relevant because each cycling race has a different selection of teams entered) and the listings of teams (the "by teams" section). As to the times, I can add them if you think it adds significant value to the article. The trouble is that there is endless data you can add – points, mountain points, other standings. It'll take a little while, but I think it's a reasonable thing to add: I'll get on and do it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • #61 is lacking the time
  • should DSQ-14 be listed above DNF-14?
  • listing riders by their jersey numbers kinda makes sense, but they are already listed in that order in the by team section. would the list look better if they were listed in order of classification?
  • the teams section is missing the nationalities
  • perhaps the likely rationale for wild cards would be useful since this is a "list of teams"
  • the "by x" sections should be merged into a "Cyclists" one, then the "by" part would make sense
  • intro should mention that x nationalities were represented, with France about 20% of the riders
  • isn't this the first time Eritrea was represented?
  • perhaps mention briefly the biggest absentees?
  • Quintana won two jerseys?

Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your additional comments, Nergaal. One by one:
  • Done, thanks.
  • Yes, that's how it appears in ProCyclingStats. He was disqualified during the stage.
  • I can see your point, though I'm not sure it makes much odds, as they are very easy to re-sort! It's a list of the riders, though, rather than a report of the general classification: it's more a start list than a finishing list.
  • The teams' nationalities? They are frequently irrelevant: teams do not represent their countries in any sense, and are often misleading. For example, BMC is registered as American but is based in Switzerland.
  • Added.
  • Agreed, done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I'm not sure who this would be or how it would be phrased without going into OR. Marcel Kittel is the most obvious absentee, perhaps along with Philippe Gilbert, but all the contenders for the overall classification were present. Very happy to think again if you think this is important.
  • Removed the duplicate.
Thanks for your thorough review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support you deleted Quintana's name though. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Tables review
  • In the table, use the template space version of the jerseys ({{cjersey|red number|Super-combativity award|White jersey with a red dossard}}, White jersey with a red dossard) rather than your userspace version. ({{User:Relentlessly/cjersey|red number|Super-combativity award|White jersey with a red dossard}}, White jersey with a red dossard).
  • You need to use the accessible dagger †, rather than the text symbol.
  • Why do DNS and DNF use bold ("Denotes a rider who did not start", "Denotes a rider who did not finish"), but DSQ doesn't ("Denotes a rider who was disqualified from the race")?
  • "Pos. Position in the general classification" Is listed in the key, but the table actually just uses "Position" as the header. Also, you need to explain what the numbers in parenthesis mean.
  • Make the "Ref" column unsortable, and use {{abbr|Ref|References}} to display Ref.
  • You should possibly use {{age|year1|month1|day1|year2|month2|day2}} to sort the age column correctly, so that older 38 year olds sort ahead of younger ones.
  • The "By team" tables also need to comply to MOS:DTT. Harrias talk 21:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Harrias.
  • Done, silly me.
  • Done
  • No idea, sorted.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done, though I don't think this actually works as you suggest in terms of sorting...
  • Harrias Apparently {{nts}} should work like that as well, but it doesn't seem to. I've done something hackish with data-sort-value which seems to work – are you happy with that? Relentlessly (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to happen per your last point? Table captions? Is there anything else they're missing? Many thanks again. Relentlessly (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just in terms of row and column scopes, as in the other tables. Harrias talk 10:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do these tomorrow. Relentlessly (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, I've made the changes to the page. I think it now follows MOS:DTT: can you comment again? Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, thanks for your work, nice list. Harrias talk 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Had the pleasure of witnessing the first two stages in Utrecht, was a fantastic race!

  • "All seventeen UCI WorldTeams were automatically invited and were obliged to attend the race."
  • "France provided the the largest number (41 riders)." sentence needs revising
  • "38 of the riders failed to finish the race, so 160 riders completed the final stage in Paris." I would flip this sentence around, so it states the number that finished first. I feel it will read better as a result
  • "who had also won the race in 2013." -> who won the 2013 Tour.
  • I'm not sure why you use data-sort-value="Nibali, Vincenzo" when we have the {{sortname}} template for that?
  • Should the time be presented as it is in List of Tour de France general classification winners, with apostrophes?
  • No need for the by team tables to be less than 100% font size
  • they also need rowscopes per MOS:DTT
  • Should be no capitals in references, regardless of how they are presented on the web page
  • This page is very long at 142,000 bytes, one solution would be to use this page as a general reference and then cite those riders who didn't finish the Tour in the table. Would help with loading times on the page, as it lags a bit for me

NapHit (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm on holiday and unable to deal with these substantially fit the next two weeks. (I never expected this would take so long...) A couple of points: I'm using data-sort-value because it's recommended on {{hs}}, which was used previously. I programmatically converted it using the DEFAULTSORT value for each page for consistency. I added row scope, but it was removed by another user who I presumed knew more about table formatting. The rest I can't respond to until 20 September, unfortunately... Relentlessly (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing that occurs to me, NapHit, is that the individual citations also support the riders' ages. I don't see how they can be removed. Relentlessly (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, although you could add a note saying to verify a rider's age you can click on the link to their name in the classifications ref? Also make sure the dashes in the refs are en dashes and not normal dashes, I noticed a lot are the latter. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The riders ages and withdrawals can be taken from the team pages (under the "THE RIDERS" tab). BaldBoris 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion, BaldBoris, and I've done it for the rider details, though I've kept the withdrawal citations because they frequently add useful information and 56 citations is perfectly reasonable. Relentlessly (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, NapHit, I'm back. Your comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 are fixed. I'm reluctant to use {{sortname}} because it would have no visible or technical effect. The times could be presented as in List of Tour de France general classification winners, but that would contravene MOS:UNIT. I realise that cycling articles (including mine) have in the past used the apostrophe format; I'm very happy to go to that if you think it's better. Finally, I disagree with your suggestion for indirect referencing because, so far as I can tell, it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies on referencing. I appreciate and look forward to your response! Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've used {{sortname}} for 2012, and it works fine. Some other things I've done differently is put the jerseys on the right side of the rider and the team ones next to the riders, both of which I think look tidier in terms of alignment, and put the team code in parentheses. There are other small things, but nothing major. BaldBoris 11:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BaldBoris. I will indeed use {{sortname}} in future, but it seems pointless to go to the work of changing it here, since the effect would be precisely nil! With your other changes, I agree and, for the sake of consistency I'll change this page over later on today. I'm very happy to do minor tweaks here as well, so as to get a perfect template for future lists, if you have any... Relentlessly (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done some minor fixes to the tables, but there's some others that I think need doing in "By starting number"; center align No. and link DNF/DNS for consistancy with "By teams". BaldBoris 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the withdrawals all need to either be in italics or not, including the legend (as with the 2009 Giro). I'm not too sure what the need for the italics is though? I'd say uninitialised. "By teams" should have the "Rider" header. Is "hr" in the times just your preference? Because I've never seen it elsewhere (apart from the articles you've done). In this case especially, I think it clogs up an already congested space. Lastly, I do understand why "Stage wins" doesn't have a total, but for some reason it just looks odd without. BaldBoris 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BaldBoris, thanks for your detailed comments. I have centred No. and linked DNF/DNS/DSQ. I have deitalicised it (I presume that's what you mean, not uninitialised). I have indeed used "hr" everywhere, because I thought it was normal in English, though I have since noticed the difference from most of Wikipedia. Neither style is recommended in MOS:UNIT, by the way. I'll change it if you think it's important. To reduce the congestion I have separated time out into a separate column. Finally, I have added the total to the table of stage wins and a note to explain why it's only 20. (This confusion was why I didn't include it before.) Any thoughts on these changes? Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that all cycling articles should use the same style. Especially in this case, to match that used in 2015 Tour de France. Position can now be now be changed to Pos., to reduce space, and I think the empty cell should em dash (like GT GC timelines). BaldBoris 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, BaldBoris. Relentlessly (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Is there a reason for the extensive legend which then does not get used? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall I'm happy enough to support this one. I'm not 100% sure that the jersey icons are ideal given that some are different only by colour, but to me I would suppose the mouse-over text alleviates this, so it's not objection-worthy. GRAPPLE X 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks like my comments have been addressed and the list has really improved as a result. Great work. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) edit

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1930–1934. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Its 1st Plenary Session can you link "Plenary Session" somewhere?
    • Its linked in the "Plenums" sections. --TIAYN (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done has been marked in historic literature what historic literature specifically? You need a few citations to support this generalization.
    • Wrote at the end "according to Khlevniuk"
  •  Done Upon Molotov's appointment as SNK what's SNK? You don't abbreviate anywhere before.
  •  Done Can you provide a description of File:КПСС.svg on its file page and on the article, as a caption perhaps?
  •  Done "Apparatus" sort ascending doesn't work; goes from 1932 to 22 July 1930, for instance. Same with "Left office"
  •  Done The "*" and "$" in the table key seem more like footnotes than table functions.
  •  Done Sorry, I meant that these should be converted to notes rather than table symbols, because they only have one individualized application over the tables. Seattle (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Konstantin Gey was born into a Estonian family a → an. Seattle (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: Help me here; where is the template that says copyright expired after 70 years? --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, several of the photos have been released into the public domain by the Russian Government (as owners of the works); if the owner releases it into public domain a US-PD tag is not warranted, is it? --TIAYN (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Seattle: Fixed all the images. --TIAYN (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Colipon:

  • Under "plenums", I don't see it as necessary to have two columns for "Plenum (CC)" and "Joint plenum (CC–CCC)". I am also not sure if it is necessary to capture the number of days in a separate column. In my view, this section should be listed as a set of bullet points rather than a table, but this is my personal preference. A summary of what the significance of each plenum was would also be nice.
    • First, I'll remove the days (no problem). I prefer tableizing it (since everything else is tableized), The reason I have two columns is that the plenary session and the joint plenary session had different powers; the CC–CCC plenums could expel members.. Stalin, early in the 1920s, gained control of the CCC (roughly the Soviet counterpart of the CDIC) and used it to expel members (which could only be done through joint CC–CCC plenums). Its a way to highlight its importance. But I'll remove it. No biggy.... As for a summary of plenary sessions, that's much trickier than you'd think. Unlike the CPC, which has a tendency to issue grand policy statements through the CPC Central Committee the CPSU did it through the PB, the government and sometimes the CC itself—therefore, details on CC sessions vary... In any case, done everything you commanded, and I'll be working on finding short summaries of the CC plenary sessions (but I can't promise you any success)...--TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colipon: I'm unable to find info regarding the CC plenary sessions... --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Under "apparatus", is it possible to consolidate cells for which there are multiple officeholders for the same department? For example, Agitation and Mass Campaign Department, Central Asian Bureau, Secret Department, and so on.
  •  Done My preference for the abbreviation of "candidate member" is actually "PB (C)" rather than "CPB" as "CPB" may intuitively invoke "Central Politburo". Colipon+(Talk) 16:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Colipon: THanks! --TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Object Star of David Unicode symbol may present an accessibility issue as screen readers may not know how to read it aloud. Suggest templating the symbol as an image with appropriate alternate text. Once this has been done and replaced in the article, then this issue can be considered resolved. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I noticed this list lingering towards the bottom of FLC. Because it risks being closed at this rate, allow me to offer a review and maybe we can get this over the line in time.
  • (look below) "and the first congress in party history in which there was no opposition to the party leadership." Is "congress" meant to be capitalized, as is the case elsewhere in the article?
    • That is the only mention of congress in the article not specifying what congress it was (was it the 1st Congress, 17th Party Congress el cetra; it refers to congress in general form and states it was the first without a organized opposition).. --TIAYN (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Comma after "Upon Molotov's appointment as SNK Chairman in December 1930"?
  •  Done Apparatus: "Individuals employed by Central Committee's bureaus". Add "the" before Central?

Overall, this looks pretty good to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I'm comfortable enough to believe that the list meets the FL criteria that I'll recuse myself from closing duties. One of the delegates should be closing the FLC now, but they're both active here so that shouldn't be a problem. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Maile 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...

Comments from Maile

  • Pictures in tables do not need captions... But I will be working on alternate text. --TIAYN (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image of Akmal Ikramov - clicking on it redirects to the main page of Commons.
Apparently, this is a browser issue. Firefox redirects to Commons main page. IE does not, but goes directly to the image on Commons. I'll be reporting the problem at Village Pump. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Maile (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trust Is All You Need, I'm a little confused, based on your comment that the pictures don't need captions, but alts. Kosior is formatted as an alt. The others in that table appear to be regular captions. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: When I think of a caption, i think of this... When I think of alternate text, i think of this... --TIAYN (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I believe I see the misunderstanding.
  • What you have here is one image with the coding for thumbnail, and one without. Thumbnail is different than alt text. Alt text is for screen readers. And just like scope="col" and scope="row", the screen reader isn't going to know it's alt text unless you have "alt=" to the left of the caption. The only place you did that, as far as I can see, is by the The Star of David up at the top. Alt text coding would look like this. File:alt=Andrey Andreyev.
  • However, since this came up, I'm wondering why the captions on the images in the table don't clearly define the image, such as the one above. Why don't the caption identify who this is, rather than a generic "A man with a moustache"? All the captions should define the image, so I think you need to re-do those, please. I hope I've been a little more clear here. Anyone else is free to weigh in on this if they like. — Maile (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66: Fixed? ... Are you suppose to see the alt text? Its not visible with my browsers (Google Chrome or Safari). --TIAYN (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the Alt text. Only the screen readers need to see it. Alt text was taken care of except for:
  • Kosior - you put the alt text in the wiki link for the Communist Party of Ukrain instead
  • Grigory Petrovsky - you put the alt text in the wiki link for All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets
As mentioned above, you need to do something about the generic text of the existing captions (not the alt text in this case). Per WP:FLR and WP:CAP, the captions need to be "succinct" (no needless words) and "Clear identification of the subject". Using a caption that says it's a man with a beard, but doesn't say who the man is, does not identify the subject. Who cares that he has a beard, that he's staring ito the camera? Tell the reader who the image is of. Possibly the easiest way for you to do that, is make the existing captions the same wording as the alt text. For the images that are postage stamps, I would say "(year of issue) postage stamp of (name)".— Maile (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Fixed? --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khatayevich.jpg - Take care of this one, and we're done. The rest are fine. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good job. Thanks for sticking with this. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film) edit

Nominator(s): —Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian biographical sports drama film Mary Kom starring Priyanka Chopra as the eponymous boxer. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a sockmaster. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I can't find anything wrong with the list.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so many supports. I must have done something right. Thank you everyone.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The second sentence of the opening para needs to be rephrased for clarity.
  • Not sure if "while" and "whereas" can be used in the same sentence.
  • "the film was released on 5 September 2014." - where?
    • Is the TIFF held out of the world? —Vensatry (ping) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dont see the issue here? TIFF helds in Toronto? Also release refers to worldwide? What's going on here?Daan0001 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions @Vensatry:?—Prashant 07:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was premiered at the TIFF on 4 Sep 2014 before having a theatrical release (worldwide if I'm right) the next day. —Vensatry (ping) 11:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film received generally positive reviews from critics and was a commercial success" - This needs multiple reliable sources
  • "Best Film and Best Actress for Chopra" Comma needed after Best Film
  • "Dialogue of the Year" - ditto
  • This source, cited in the article, states the film received seven nominations at the 21st Screen Awards whereas the article says eight. Furthermore, 'Best Actress – Popular Choice' isn't verified by any of the sources.
  • See reference number 22. —Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source number 23 clearly verifies it. After adding another source this became 23 as previously it was 22.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but the source doesn't say she won the award. Looks like it lists only the nominees. —Vensatry (ping) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vensatry: The article does not claim her win for Best Actress Popular, she was only nominated and the source verifies it.—Prashant 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. But then, two of the sources which you've used says the film got only seven nominations, excluding the popular choice award. Looks like the category doesn't having nominations. —Vensatry (ping) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vensatry: Popular Awards nominations are declared along with those Jury nominations. It's just that (you know) Indian media does not cover these things. I hope its clear now.—Prashant 11:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is two of the sources doesn't include that cat. in the nominees list. They say the film received seven nominations. —Vensatry (ping) 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes 'Arab Indo Bollywood Awards' and 'Jagran Film Festival' notable ceremonies?
These awards are supported by secondary sources and the latter is even present in this

featured list as well.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Would like to have the opinion of others. —Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Would you like to say something about this?—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at Cowlibob's comments here. I hope its helpful.—Prashant 11:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: I was pinged here. I shall simply state what I said in the other nomination. If the award ceremony is able to be redlinked. Per WP:REDLINK, it needs be verifiable and notable (i.e. meet WP:GNG). If it was covered in depth by reliable sources i.e. not just a rundown of winners and nominees so much that you could build an article on it (which is the reason for redlinking) then it should be included in the table of accolades. I haven't looked at these particular ones but I think if sources could be provided supporting notability then they can be included. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film never won a Bronze Horse, rather was awarded at the Stockholm International Film Festival Junior. This year's ceremony of the Stockholm International Film Festival is yet to take place.
  • Link the first occurrence of all publishers in refs.

—Vensatry (ping) 09:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Done and thanks for your inputs. It really means a lot.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment
  • What makes 'businessofcinema.com' a RS?

—Vensatry (ping) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with a TOI source.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delegates – Highly displeased with the nominator's behaviour, so not willing to continue my review. He first came up with this a week ago after I left my comments here, and now has labelled my review as silly. —Vensatry (ping) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delegates - I didn't labelled his review silly but his one point. The film received 8 nominations at the 2015 Screen Awards, however, this user has an issue—why? 8 nomination are mentioned, and not 7 (according to him). The eighth nomination is cited by another source, and despite knowing that, he was going on and on. The list is perfectly cited by good sources. He even questioned things, which are already present in other FLs, something that is very frustrating. Plus, this user took more than 10 days to review this and was still not clear what he was doing. He could have stretched it to 21st of next month. I tried to resolve his comments politely, but this was the final straw.—Prashant 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot pester somebody to review/re-visit nominations. If you go through the history, it would be quite evident that I wasn't abandoning your nomination. So you cannot offend me for not turning up. Your behaviour towards reviewers in FACs/FLCs is a well-known thing, I'm not surprised. —Vensatry (ping) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk

Generally pretty good, although not enough to warrant the number of supports at the top of this nomination without any reservation.

  • "film" should not be in italics in the image caption.
  • It would be good to see a summary of the number of wins and nominations somewhere. I think many of these style articles have this provided in the infobox, but I don't mind if it is just in the lead, or even a summary table at the bottom.
  • Surely Omung Kumar deserves a red link?
  • Darshan Kumar should be linked in the Star Guild Awards section.
  • "Favourite Actror in Leading Role - Female" Has an obvious typo and should take an endash, rather than a hyphen.
  • "BIG Star Most Entertaining Actor (Film) Debut - Male" Again this should be an endash.
  • The references in the table don't need to be on separate lines, it makes the table render oddly when sorted. Let them all sit on one line. Harrias talk 15:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done.—Prashant 18:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
  • Spaced hyphens should be replaced with en-dash, per WP:DASH, e.g. ref 2.
  • What makes all the redlinked awards notable enough to be included here?
  • The Rambling Man Yes they are notable as these awards are widely covered by the secondary sources and see the above discussion for more informatiion. Thanks.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in Ningbo City" our article just calls it Ningbo, and it's worth pointing out that this is in China.
  • "BIG Star Most Entertaining Actor (Film) Debut – Male" is "BIG Star" part of the name of the award? It doesn't appear in the other BIG Star award titles.
  • "Star of the Year Award – Female" appears to be called "Stardust Award for Star of the Year – Female".

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Please check each one off. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done and let me tell you all retrieval dates use same format. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - Prashant! (now Krish!) left a note on my talk page about this nom that I was replying to, but I thought I should put it here so that everyone can see it. He was asking why this nom is still open after 35 days, when there were 5 supports in the first week:

  • TRM hasn't returned to support or not. 35 days is not that long- while we'd like everything to be done in a month or less, the truth is that many nominations don't get closed until closer to 2 months. Finally, delegates do not just count votes- you had 5 supports in the first week, yes (one struck for being made by a sockmaster), but given that they had no actual review attached to them but were followed by extensive reviews by Vensatry and Harrias (and TRM), the only conclusion that I can reach is that they didn't actually review the list- they skimmed it at best and slapped on a support. I'd count that as more like 2 supports, given that I recognize a couple of them as people who've done actual reviews before. So the nom is really at 3 supports, one reviewer who left, and an unfinished review. And that's if we were just counting supports- which we're not; if all we needed was 4 supports and no opposes with no ongoing reviews, I could code up a bot to do the work for me. We're looking for actual reviews which end in support votes, not just counting bolded words. Bare supports followed by real reviews are not usually useful. Please pass this message along; the two areas we've been seeing this a lot in the past few months are music lists and Indian film lists- bare supports are not helpful when issues are present, even if the reviewer is acting in good faith; please spend 5-10 minutes going through the list in more detail, or else the !vote will likely be discounted. --PresN 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: What's the matter now?—Prashant 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dr. Blofeld
  • Delink China. MOS advises against linking countries like that I believe.
  • Are Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards and Stockholm International Film Festival Junior likely to ever become blue links? If so create them or delink them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Prashant 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards are not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia, remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we will never have a page here. I just can't go and create a page because I'm very busy right now. These awards are widely supported by secondary sources and have enough notability.—Prashant 05:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I think you should make the extra effort to start the missing links. I'd feel happier it was notable if we had an article rather than shutting off the links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll create those articles as soon as I have time.—Prashant 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash edit

Actually that occurs because the category has a large name. National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment see.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. The problem was in the lead, with Indian biographical sports drama, where I unlinked "Indian". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was premiered"? Remove the "was". It only works in cases like "was released".
Seems you have rectified it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there so many red linked awards? That should indicate their lack of notability.
No. someone told me to red link them so that someone could create a page. No problems with the notabilty. It was widely discussed above.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work unlinking them. Someone will create pages for those awards anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ref(s)" should be (in syntax mode), {{tooltip|Ref.References}}.
Refrences are in this syntax mode ({{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}), much like other FLs.—Prashant
It's good now. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does any other awards page FL have something like "List of Bollywood films of 2014"? Kailash29792 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Yes, all Bollywood FLs has that link.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all my comments addressed, this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [8].

Anurag Kashyap filmography edit

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third attempt on it for FL. Because of someone else, I got accused of a sock and this list failed. I can't let that happen again. This list has gone through a PR and now I feel it meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala edit

A decent list overall, but i want these to be fixed by the nominator/concerned within a reasonable time.

  • Please make sure all the links are white here
Will archiving them solve the problem? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links are fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • His next venture was Black Friday (2007), a film on the... — what does a venture mean here? Is it his production, script written or directorial?
Reworded.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 Spetember 2015 (UTC)
  • After making the thriller That Girl in Yellow Boots (2011)... — Again, the same.
Making Indicates he made it, which means he directed it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filmmaking is such a beautiful thing, it may mislead the readers that he did produce it also. So, kindly rephrase it to directed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • he served as the creative director in the Amitabh Bachchan-starring television mini-series Yudh (2014),... — i'm of the opinion that the sentence shall look better if it ends with Yudh (2014) starring Amitabh Bachchan.
Done --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any explanation on the word "presented"?
He helped both the docu's in getting them a theatrical release. If it doesn't looks Important, should I remove it? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helping two documentaries getting a theatrical release! It does not look so trivial however. Let it stay. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, he co-produced two successful ventures NH10 and Hunterrr. — another "venture". Kindly replace it with film.
Done --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is mentioned about Masaan in the lead, even after weeks of its theatrical release.
Mentioning every film he is associated with in the lead will Increase its size. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to do so for the critical acclaim it has received. But, your explanation seems reasonable enough. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, that movie is worth mentioning. So, I have added it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Hoping the best to happen. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#7CB9E8;|contentstyle=border:1px #7CB9E8 solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from Frankie talk|content=

  • I think you should use (and then wiki-link) the word Bollywood as it is more relevant.
Done
  • "Anurag Kashyap is an Indian film director, producer, screenwriter and actor" – how about filmmaker?
Filmmaker in place of director or everything?
In place of the first three. -- Frankie talk 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both films garnered positive reviews" – in the previous sentence you have mentioned three films. Which "both films" are you talking about; the first two or the last two?
Rephrased and removed the critics review section.
  • "In 2013, he made a short film on eve teasing titled That Day After Everyday" – what do you mean by "made"?
Rephrased
  • "he served as the creative director in the television mini-series"
Done.
  • There are some redundant references for example ref 27. Please use sources in the lead only when it's not in the other parts of the article.
Removed
  • Wiki-link Sify in reference 15.
Done.
Should I remove this film? Water (2005)? Coz no source like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or All movies mentions his name in the credits. I seriously doubt if he has a writing credit in the film.
  • Filmfare is a magazine so italicize it in source 72.
Done
  • Wiki-link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 79 and de-link it in ref 101.
Done
  • Ref 18: The Guardian – I think you know what I am asking for.
Its actually not the guardian, not even in the older version.
See ref 80. -- Frankie talk 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Business Times in ref 86 – the same.
Done
  • Is it Mid Day or Mid-day. Write one and stick to it.
Done
  • Video from ref 100 seems to be uploaded by a fan. Replace the source.
Its uploaded by Ashish Ghadiali, who is the co-writer and director of the film. You can see his name in the opening credit.
  • Wiki-link India Today in source 103. -- Frankie talk 19:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After so many nominations, I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. -- Frankie talk 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when I sort the table by "Director", the films he has directed go to the bottom; they should be at the top (same for all the other columns). Name the Bombay Talkies segment he made. For Jayate and Paanch could you give some sort of date in the notes? (approx when it was made, for eg)—indopug (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need in sorting the table but I have mentioned the segment name for Bombay Talkies and Mumbai Cutting. I have mentioned the dates when Jayate and Paanch were supposed to get a theatrical release. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of include a sorting option is that you see your chosen sort at the beginning. It is annoying for the reader to click sort by director and then have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table.—indopug (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for resolving the Issue yourself. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash edit

Just archive the URLs as they are unlikely to last forever. Also, Gangs of Wasseypur has an article containing info on both the films. Fit that somehow here. The article otherwise looks good, and has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived most of the links and added Gangs of Wasseypur. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [9].

Lady Gaga videography edit

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC), GagaNutella, SNUGGUMS[reply]

Another videography from me and Snuggums. I have modeled the list based on Katy Perry videography, an FL I wrote with the help of the aforementioned user. A thanks to the user IndianBio, who has contributed to the article. I reckon we are close to the six FL criteria, but, as always, thanks to those of you, who comment, support, or even oppose. -- Frankie talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to check out, but I have slight reservations about the use of Idolator. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as a reliable source under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Just so you know. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good all day long for GAs, but what makes it a high quality reliable source? The Wikipedian Penguin 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Penguin All replaced. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits; please revert if you don't agree with them.
  • Might be worth listing "Paparazzi" along with "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" in the second sentence – you can't necessarily assume that a reader will already know that the track is a single from The Fame.
  • "committed by Gaga" -> I'm being a little pernickety here, but this makes it seem like she's portraying a fictionalised version of herself in the video, even though the lead also says that the video is a continuation of the one for Paparazzi, where she played a doomed starlet.
  • Why the nbsps in the key for the Television table?
  • A Very Gaga Thanksgiving, The Simpsons and The Sopranos need to sort under V and S.
  • The O2 Arena and "The Edge of Glory" need to sort under O and E respectively.
  • Where is the "How Lady Gaga Keeps Intouch With Her Fans" title sourced from? I can't see it in the Billboard reference.
  • No source available for the title, thus I have removed that.
  • WP:ISBN suggests to use 13-digit ISBNs rather tha the 10-digits ones, which, for Bercken, would be 978-9-4609-2935-9.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Thank you for being kind enough to review it. I have resolved your comments. -- Frankie talk 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you recommended to change some of the sorting? Thanks from me as well for your input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just standard practice on FLs for names that begin with "The" or "A" to sort under their second word. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review A Thousand Doors. By the way, this "sorting" thing also happens on this article, for example the song "The Queen". GagaNutellatalk 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One final thing: The way you've got the second sentence now makes it seem like she played a doomed starlet in all three music videos. I'd recommend saying, for example, "..."Poker Face" and "Paparazzi". In the video for "Paparazzi", she portrays a...", or some other construction, if you don't like the repetition of "Paparazzi". Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johanna edit

Resolved comments from Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Is it standard or something for the top of the infoboxes of these kinds of things to say "video discography" instead of "videography"? If not, change it.
  • Because films, television, and commercials are in the list, they probably deserve a mention in the first sentence.
  • "alleged blasphemy" not "use of blasphemy"
  • Later in the lead, the film and commercials also probably deserve a mention.
  • Just wondering--do these offline sources summarize the music videos? If not, what's the policy on citing that kind of stuff?

That's all I got. Looks like a nice list! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Thank you for your review. About the infobox, that's standard. The "offline sources" are books in which the content is about Gaga's biography. I think FrB.TG can explain it better. Again, thank you. GagaNutellatalk 02:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johanna: I think this has come up before. For the sources regarding the plot, please see this. As for the video discography thing, the template automatically inserts discography that's why it's video discography instead of videography -- Frankie talk 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

Support FrB.TG, GagaNutella, and SNUGGUMS, the prose of the lede is well-written, the lede adequately meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and the lists meet the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The image of Lady Gaga is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore suitable for use here; and the image has both standard and alt captions. All the subsequent images have CC licenses, which also enables them to be included in this list. All other previous concerns have been addressed above. Thank you all for your extraordinary work on this filmography. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond grateful with your comments. Thank you so much! GagaNutellatalk 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed review and support, West Virginian. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [10].

List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton edit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modelled off the similar list for Wayne Rooney which looks as though it will be a FL in the next few days, this does have a few minor formatting variations. Charlton is still England's leading goal scorer, though Rooney looks like taking that record soon. As always, throw whatever you've got at me! Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments nice piece of work, I made a tweak or two, but have the following comments:
  • I avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
  • "of international football, scoring at a rate of a-goal-a-game, culminating with his first hat-trick in international football" repetitive use of "international football" in this sentence.
  • "international hat-tricks, in addition to the one" would use a semi-colon here.
  • Tehelné Pole redirects to a neighbourhood in Bratislava rather than a stadium, perhaps pipe the section which discusses the football stadium?

Otherwise nothing to worry me unduly. Eyes down for the French equivalent, coming to an FLC near you soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, all done I think! Harrias talk 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"...Ballon d'Or winner as world football's player of the year...", as far as I'm aware the Ballon d'Or was a strictly European accolade. Perhaps rephrase to 'Europe's footballer of the year'?
  • Quite right. Got myself confused with how I read one of the articles about him. Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • goalscorer is not hypenated
  • Someone else fixed this, thanks! Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3, publisher is 'Herald & Times Group'
  • Tricky one this. The Herald & Times Group are the publishers now, and as an online source, I guess that works. However, when the article was originally published, the publisher was Scottish Television, as listed. Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher for The Times? (This is for consistency purposes, you could just add it for Ref 4 -- it doesn't have to be added for all the Times sources. Or you just remove the publishers in Ref 2 and 3...)
  • Again, tricky. Prior to 1967, The Times didn't have a "parent company" publisher, it was owned by the Astor family. In 1967, "Times Newspapers Ltd" was formed, so I'm not over sure the best way to approach it. Maybe, as you suggest, simply by removing all the publishers? Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, I'd remove the publishers in that case, locations of the publications are sufficient. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed them from the news sources. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Times link on Ref 6 and 7 (pedantic, I know!)
  • Someone else fixed this, thanks! Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No dead or dabs. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonade51: Thanks for your comments, I (or others) have addressed most, though the publisher issue is a little tricky: do you think it's best just to remove them all? Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on style and structure. Nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite
  • "He is generally regarded as one of the best midfielders of all-time": this claim isn't supported by the ref given.
  • No, and I can't find where it specifically came from. I've added a new reference though. Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sentences in the lead are unreferenced.
  • I think the list would look better if rows for goals from the same match were separate, like at the Rooney list.

I see Harrias is away for another week... will this nomination be left open long enough for them to respond to the outstanding comments? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Thanks for your thoughtfulness; I responded to each of your comments. Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is England's second all-time goalscorer, having scored 49 times for his country": needs an updated ref in light of Rooney breaking the record.
  • Added a brilliant Guardian piece I found on it. Harrias talk 18:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 could be used, but we could do with a better source than the Daily Mail.
  • You could add a "Goals by competition" table, like the Rooney and Henry lists now have. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a similar table, although I've also had to add a note to explain why the numbers don't add up! Harrias talk 18:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the list ought to note that Rooney is now number one, and when he overtook Charlton's record. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Harrias talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "with his first hat-trick in international football" does not seem to be referenced
  • Added ref at the end of the sentence. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final international goal " should mention month/year
  • "successful 1966 FIFA World Cup campaign" I would prefer to have this be more explicit about ENG winning the title
  • "Bloomsbury Publishing plc" shouldn't the latter be capitalized?
  • ref 16 and 45 are missing dates
  • They are not news sources, they don't have dates. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "The Times (55408)" notation
  • The number in brackets is the issue number, it's quite common when referencing The Times, and is part of what they request for citations. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • can't really check much of the refs though
  • more this to notes: England score listed first, score column indicates score after each Charlton goal.
  • I think it is important to make it obvious and clear, rather than hiding it away in the notes. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, aren't these goals the pinnacle of his career? I think you could expand on this sentence and say one goal in the group stage, and both of goals in the 2-1 semifinal win. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Ahh, I see what you mean. Added a bit more in now. Harrias talk 13:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Thanks for your comments, I think I have addressed each of them! Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [11].

Ian Carmichael on stage, screen and radio edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With appearances in 30 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, Ian Carmichael was a consummate character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, including Private's Progress (1956), and I'm All Right Jack (1959). His portrayals on BBC television of with The World of Wooster—in which he played Bertie Wooster—and as Lord Peter Wimsey all added to his renown and credit. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Ian Carmichael page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – perhaps my favorite film of his was School for Scoundrels, so what with the rotten bounder already at FL, I'm glad to see this here too. The lead required very little, but I did notice a bit of repetion with "continued to appear throughout his career". The "throughout his career" was even a bit awkward in a few places as by the time you mentioned it, he was already into his career and paying into his pension pot. I tried to fix it, so you may want to have a look. The lists all look solid with everything linked and reliably cited. CassiantoTalk 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks – much appreciated! Your edits are as welcome as they always are. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Ian Carmichael is a favorite supporting player in the few films I've seen him in.

- Footnote a. for A Midsummer Night's Dream has no citation.
- Suggestion (not a deal breaker) - It would make a cleaner column if you bundled the citations for The Lyric Revue, Say Who You Are, Getting Married and Overheard.
- Spot check of the references show no issues.
- Table formatting is in accordance with MOS:DTT.
- Overall, well done. Wish there were an image for this list, but I've searched the internet and found nothing but the non-free image already on his WP biography article. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Maile. I've added the citation for the footnote (good catch!) My rule of thumb for bundling is three citations, so I'll leave it for the present, if that's OK, but if there is another request for it, I'll certainly do it. Many thanks for your thoughts. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There being no other issues I can see, I'm happy to give my support to this. If you have any time, I could use help with comments on my nomination. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "his death in 2009" -> "his death in 2010"
  • "a robot in R.U.R." -> "a robot in the science-fiction play R.U.R."? No big deal, but I doubt that R.U.R. is a particularly well known play, and it might be good to mention in exactly which genre of play Carmichael made his debut.
  • "On Carmichael's death" -> "On Carmichael's death in 2010", maybe? Might just provide a clearer timeframe for when specifically Barker was writing.
  • Is it "What Goes On?" or "What Goes On"? Or both?
  • "Mr. Dewlip" -> "Mr Dewlip"
  • Be my Guest -> Be My Guest
  • Lord Peter Wimsey is wikilinked throughout the radio table, but not at all in the television table – any reason for this?
  • Speaking of which, the Wimsey stories beginning with "The" should probably sort under their second word, e.g. ''[[Lord Peter Wimsey]]'': ''[[The Five Red Herrings]]'' -> {{Sort|Lord Peter Wimsey: Five Red Herrings|''[[Lord Peter Wimsey]]'': ''[[The Five Red Herrings]]''}}
  • "The Old School Chum" -> "the Old School Chum"
  • "the other Smallwood" -> "The other Smallwood"
  • The Big Money, The Colditz Story and The Lady Vanishes need to sort under B, C and V respectively.
  • "The play closed was RADA was shut down because" -> Is this what you mean to say here?
  • All these Guardian articles from the 60s, 70s and 80s – how have you been able to view them? Do you have the physical newspapers themselves, or is there an online archive that a reader might be able to access?

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, and manythanks for your time and thoughts. In regard to the Guardian question, it's both. The online database is a subscription only one, but some of the references were based on hard copy papers. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I ask is that I see one just called "Untitled". Was this a newspaper article without any kind of headline? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From memory they vary, but include advertisements etc. – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Do we have a precedent for referencing print with no title? It seems to me that putting "Untitled" might confuse a reasonable person into thinking that that's what its title actually was. Perhaps just <ref>''The Guardian'' (London). 7 March 1967. p. 5.</ref> would work as a reference? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats what I was trying to avoid - I had that in a former FAC and was advised to put in Untitled to avoid confusion! Sadly the MoS is no help on this specific point either. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks ATD -as aways your thoughts and comments aremuch appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [12].

87th Academy Awards edit

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2015 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Another brilliant list from Birdie. A sure-shot FL material.Krish | Talk 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "were announced. [14]" remove the space.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and actor Chris Pine [14]" replace the space with a full stop.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best Director is actually Academy Award for Best Directing.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia, Damián Szifrón is actually called Damián Szifron.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Chrome, I get huge amounts of whitespace following the "Films with multiple nominations and awards" heading.
  • Done: It all depends on what browser you use and what screen you view it on. I notice widescreens tend to do this. Anyways, I removed two pictures.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how useful sorting on Role is in that Presenters table, particularly when all the individual presenters sort first, then the multiple presenters sort next... it'd be better to sort this by the award they gave I suspect.
  • Done: So I sorted all the competitive awards alphabetically (for those who presented two awards, the two categories are listed in the order of which was presented first since this table is organized by order of appearance in default). I hope this helps.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neil Patrick Harris hosted the 87th Academy Awards" needs a full stop.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boston Globe is The Boston Globe.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29, NBCUniversal is referred to without the space.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check refs are live, when I reviewed this, e.g. ref 60 was dead.
  • Done: Fixed that link. All links work according to this Checklinks inspection. The filmsite.org external link works when you actually click it despite marked as indefinite.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various WP:DASH violations (e.g. "do it -- light on his feet working the crowd or at center stage without his pants, winkingly self-deprecating, moving-right-along when his prepared material didn't land (which was too often) -- and", "18-49 demo", "Oscar ceremony - bad jokes"...)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*I think it would useful if you wrote a sentence about what the Academy Honorary Award and Jean Hersholt Award are for because we can't wikilink titles. Could you make this a standard for all the Academy Award ceremony pages? Cowlibob (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Okay, but it might take me awhile because I have college financial aid stuff that I have to do before September 8.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it for this list for now and have it in mind for the future as I think it's a good idea for all of them to be standardised. That's what I try to do with my ones, I update even the old promoted ones with new improvements from newer nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob:: Done: I've added sentences explaining reasons according to the AMPAS website as to why each person was recognized for their respective award.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good job. Sorry for the delay in returning. I do reiterate that you should look at standardising the Academy Award ceremonies lists when you have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come you guys could add a criticism section to this but to the previous ones you couldn't? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this specific ceremony, there was a fair amount of coverage regarding the lack of diversity among the nominees that was not pertaining to only film critics (i.e.: being covered in a neutral third person perspective). Usually we do not include what was snubbed at the Oscars for Neutral point of view purposes and objectivity concerns. However, if there is criticism that results in action that affects the production of the ceremony (protests against homophobia at the 64th Academy Awards and protest regarding lack of diversity at the 68th Academy Awards) without being related to any specific film in particular, then it was agreed that it can be included. The criticism was in response to a lack of diversity based on omission of not just one film in particular (you might think it was because of solely Selma, but also other films such as Beyond the Lights, Dear White People, and Get on Up with prominently black actors were overlooked as well). Furthermore this is focusing on a social problem in general rather than a snubbing of particular films. So we won't give focus on film critics whining that Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, or Crash got "robbed" for the sake of objectivity purposes. Those can be dealt at the respective film's articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if they come from respectable sources, that does not mean they should be used. There were many people who thought Fruitvale Station was snubbed for the 86th Oscars or Michael Fassbender in Best Actor for Shame. Every year there will always be perceived snubs. Iget what you are trying to say, but in order to satisfy neutrality, there has to be a rebuttal statement or article defending such choices which is difficult. Snubs and surprises are very arbitrary. Anyways, I suggest you bring this up in the respective talk pages of the ceremonies you think is appropriate. Better yet, ask the FL delegates such as Crisco 1492, Giants2008, or PresN about your inqueries. This FLC should only be devoted to stuff pertain to this specific ceremony.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some actual comments:

  • I don't see the point of having the acronym AMPAS in the intro, nor the start time of the ceremony (they can simply me mentioned only later); "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences " is used twice in the intro.
  • AMPAS is placed in the intro in order to identify the abbreivation. Removed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and used AMPAS to avoid redundancy.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the governors awards stuff from the intro should be trimmed town to half; there is other more important information that can be present in the intro instead
  • Done: Removed the Governors Awards items since they are mentioned below the competitive winners table and seems redundant. Moved the Sci-Tech Awards sentence to first paragraph like most Oscar ceremony lists. That sentence is still important since that is part of the annual awards festivities.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intro should mention all the big five winners
  • Done: Second intro paragraph now is only devoted two winners of Picture, Director, and four Acting Awards. It also has who won most and small mention of ratings.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every nominated film won at least one award" you eman every fo the films nominated in the best film category probably, since not all shorts and documentaries could win
  • Done: Changed to "every Best Picture nominee"
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not have winners in bold?
  • Done: Originally there was a dispute over if bold can be used simultaneously with the dagger because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, screen readers cannot usually detect bold text. The Rambling Man said that the bold text can remain as long as there is a symbol that screen readers can detect (daggers in this case).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the gover nor awards section probably does not need an extra bullet for the explanations; remove the extra bullets or even merge the explanation row with the winner
  • Done: Both award and reason are on same line separated by em-dash
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can probably have "The following 17 films received multiple nominations:" move as table cation with the "|+ [insert caption here]" so you dont have sentences ending in "
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the box office section can probably discuss the oscar bump the movies received (i.e. how much more they made after they were nominated)
  • Done: Large table added with pre-nomination, pre-awards, and post-awards box office figures.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memoriam can probably easily use 3 rows, and I think some people complained about featuring non-film related entries here
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nergaal:: I've addressed all your comments.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nergaal:: Thanks. Could you hide your comments in a bar so that these comments don't make a mess and that the FLC delegates can see your comments have been resolved. Keep the support comment outside the bar.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the former film earning Best Picture honors" → "with the former film earning the Best Picture honor"
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-link the publishers or whatsoever of ref 9, 21 and 47.
  • Done: Publisher of reference 9 is on reference 3. The Wrap Inc. has no link.
----Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, TheWrap. -- Frankie talk 08:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already linked The Wrap on ref 3 (unless you want to link every instance).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not to be in italics in ref 23.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of using hyphen (-), use either endash or emdash in references' titles. -- Frankie talk 19:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DASH advises to use either endash or emdash. They are found in the titles of ref 22, 27, 34, 45, 52, and 58. -- Frankie talk 08:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 25 – an error to fix.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: I fixed almost everything above and responded to your comments swiftly.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very good piece of work. -- Frankie talk 21:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest talk
*Comment: I have a concern about the accessibility of indicating winners. The 87th Academy Awards page currently has accessible double-daggers marking the end of each winner's information. Someone tried to remove it, and someone else restored it because it was up for featured list. My concern is that it will be removed once this list has attained featured status. I tried adding such daggers to the 86th Academy Awards and someone has reverted my edit twice on the basis (apparently) that bolding is the style they use to indicate winners. (I had not removed the bold, I just added the double daggers.) If these lists are to be continually added to featured list, I'd like some affirmation that the lists need to stay accessible to stay featured. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a common issue for all articles of academy award ceremonies, the boldface should simply removed as not allowed by the manual of style, but a lot users just don't care, they claim all other pages has the same format, so this is for some kind consistency, they're 100% commit to this "consistency", manual of style don't matter, editing war also fine with them.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be more of a problem in more recent ceremonies. Earlier ceremonies such as 71st and 79th still maintain the daggers. More recent ones such as 82nd and 84th still have the boldface. I was wondering if both the boldface AND the daggers can exist at the same time. That way, it would meet the accessibility″ requirement since there is a symbol at the end of the winner, and screen readers would be able to detect the dagger.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would see no problem at all with using both. Using just the double dagger would be sufficient, but just using bold is not sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with The Rambling Man; using boldface and dagger is fine but at least include the dagger. It would otherwise be more difficult for screen readers. My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's great news. I've just begun to start returning the boldface back into the text. I just hope the anonymous person is pleased with this.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is some kind of compromise, I still feels the boldface should be simply removed, comply with manual of style.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jarodalien:: There is nothing wrong with having both bold and daggers simultaenously. The Manual of Style says NOT to USE ONLY bold to indicate something. As long as there is a symbol, it is fine whether or not it is bold. By the way, compromise is usually the best way to resolve differences on Wikipedia.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is now ready for FL. I support since my comments have been addressed. Good work once again, Birdie :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Support for same reason. Thank you, Birdienest81 for coming up with a workable solution. I've struck out my concern. Thisisnotatest (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: For clarification, I support the accessibility improvement. I'm not qualified to support or oppose the content itself, as I do not follow the awards. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The following comment by SNUGGUMS was inadvertently included in the above discussion on accessibility. I do not know whether it has been resolved, so I am not comfortable hiding it:

    My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Snuggums is welcome to edit this section, including removal of my comment wrap, to reflect their current concerns. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns left, Thisisnotatest, since the dagger has been implemented and the prose has been adjusted. Reaffirming my support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [13].

List of songs recorded by Azealia Banks edit

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an extensive list of songs recorded by American rapper Azealia Banks. It details her very oldest demo tracks such as "Gimme a Chance" and "Barbie Shit", to her more recent tracks like "Ice Princess" and "Wallace".

Resolved comments from —JennKR
====Comments from JennKR====

Firstly, congratulations on producing such a strong article! As someone quite familiar with Banks' discography, I read over the article wondering whether you would include less well known tracks from Banks' relatively non-mainstream career, so I'm impressed demos and remixes, such as the early incarnation of "Gimme a Chance" and verses for Baauer and M.I.A tracks, appear. Comments are few. —JennKR | ☎ 23:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! I appreciate it, I'm very picky with music and collecting an artists' full works. Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the first instance of demo in the lead—this has a specific meaning in the context.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • "In 2011, Banks self-released the song "212" as the lead single from her debut EP" → remove "the song", we establish it's one when you refer to it as a single.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • You say Fantasea was free, but reading that flagged something in my mind that said it wasn't. I just managed to download it for free from DJ Booth, but I'm not sure whether this is where I got my original copy, or even if that was where it was exclusively released. Although that evidence seems to contradict my initial belief, I would like to see some verification that it was free
The Billboard reference next to each Fantasea track in the table quotes "Click here for the free download." I'm not sure about you, but it'd be the first time I saw Billboard giving out torrent links lol. It wasn't serviced to iTunes or Google Play, and the only commercial release of it I can find is a bootleg CD on Amazon. Azealia911 talk
That's fine—I think you must be right then! It just took me by surprise, but then this was during a period where Banks was using up (literally) millions of Interscope's money. She truly never gave a fuck.
  • The sentence regarding Fantasea needs a source generally, but one shouldn't be too hard to find (hopefully supporting the above).
Does it? MOS states that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Azealia911 talk
That's fine by me.
  • Perhaps a note saying that "No Problems" was originally intended to be released on BWET? (And any other songs for that matter, although I'm not sure if there any any)
Meh, I'm not sure it's really that notable, the only time I ever heard her refer to the song as being from the album was at her Glastonbury performance, where she simply said "This track is also from Broke with Expensive Taste, this is No Problems". Azealia911 talk
Again, fine by me.
  • The version of "Luxury" on Fantasea is different to that on BWET—not substantially, but the instrumentation is quite different. Have you as a consequence considered listing them separately? I'm sure there is a review of BWET that refers to the fact "Luxury" has been revamped and you could use that as a source. If you don't want to separate then (and this is completely pedantic) move Fantasea above BWET under the "Luxury" row to indicate that its first release was on the former.
Seperated. Azealia911 talk
Thanks.
  • The link to "Slow Hands" leads me to an Interpol song and not a Banks song.
It's meant to, it's a cover she did. Azealia911 talk
Doh!
  • Sources are OK—no spot-checks done though.
Thankyou :) Azealia911 talk
  • Support—particularly on criteria 2 and 3 which I looked at in detail when providing my review above. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginia edit

Azealia911, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of your list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I do, however, have just a few comments and suggestions below. I didn't have much more to say in terms of suggestions, as it looks like JennKR has addressed the majority of them. Thank you again for crafting yet another phenomenal list. -- West Virginian (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First and foremost, the image of Banks is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list. It is good to go! As for the caption of the image, there should be a regular caption for view in the article, and a separate alt caption should be included. The alt caption is meant for readers who cannot see the image and summarizes the image's appearance. With an image of Banks in this green outfit, I'm sure you could craft quite a creative description of her appearance for the alt.
Umm, there already is an alt? Azealia911 talk
  • Diss track should be wiki-linked in the lede since it actually has a Wikipedia article.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • I am still new to reviewing lists of song recordings, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I noticed that Azealia Banks is repeatedly wiki-linked under the "Writer(s)" column. Should it be de-linked after its first wiki-link since the column is unsortable?
I'd discourage that. I deliberately didn't link her in any of the artist columns so that her name would only be wikilinked once per entry, if you sort by year, the first result is different to if you sort by album, so I'd have to link 3 or 4 random occurrences of her name, which would look odd. Azealia911 talk

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 11:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead seems to me to be incredibly brief. At under 1500 characters, it wouldn't pass DYK if it were nominated today. Is there nothing else that can be said about the songs that Azealia Banks has recorded? I was still left with questions after reading this article, which suggests to me that comprehensiveness is not as high as it needs to be. What sort of genres does Banks perform? How has her style evolved over the years, if at all? What sorts of things does she rap about? Which producers has she worked with? What have they had to say about her music? How have her songs been received by music critics? Where were the tracks recorded? Anywhere noteworthy? Who does she sample in her songs? Was "212" a success anywhere outside of the British Isles? What's her issue with Angel Haze and Jim Jones? Why was her debut album delayed for so long?
  • There are very few references in the lead. I count nine in total, with four of them being in the final sentence. If you can find some more reliable sources that discuss her songs, and then consolidate what they say into the lead, that should beef it up nicely.
  • Remove from the key the links that don't go anywhere, i.e. K, Q, X and Z.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • When "Blown Away" was first released, was the song credited to GypJaQ or Akhet?
Akhet, it was kinda forgotten about shortly after release. Then GypJaQ was credited in the iTunes and video release. Azealia911 talk
  • It might be a little premature to list "Count Contessa"'s album as Fantasea II – has that even been released yet?
Not yet, but I don't think it's a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it was announced as a track on the project, so until a tracklist emerges to prove me otherwise, I don't think it's a big deal. Azealia911 talk
Done. Azealia911 talk

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors how's it looking now? Azealia911 talk 15:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an improvement. The lead still looks a little brief to me, but, having compared it to similar lists that have already been featured, it seems to be on a par with their lengths, so it's not something that I would oppose over. Might be worth splitting it into two paragraphs though (maybe at "Throughout 2013..."). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Azealia911 talk
  • Artists such as Lana Del Rey, LoLa Monroe and Jimmy Edgar need to sort under their surnames.
Done, that's my first time using the sort template, so if you could take one quick look to see if I've missed any / categorized any incorrectly, I'd really appreciate it! Azealia911 talk
Sorry, I really should've been clearer. The only names that you need to sort by their second word (in general) are the legal names. For example, Paul Oakenfold and Britney Spears are their legal names, so they would be sorted under "Oakenfold, Paul" and "Spears, Britney" respectively. Rocky Business and Styles P are (presumably) not their legal names, so they would just be sorted under "Rocky Business" and "Styles P". Names of groups (such as Major Lazer or Scissor Sisters) are always sorted under their first word (unless that first word is "The" or "A").
Also, for future reference, the {{Sortname}} template is really useful for sorting people by their surnames. So you'd have, for example, {{Sortname|Lana|Del Rey}}<br>featuring Azealia Banks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Chill$" needs to sort under C rather than T.
Done. Azealia911 talk
It's still moving down to T when the Title column is sorted. Give {{Sortname|The|Chill$|nolink=1}} a try instead. You'll also need to move the T anchor down to "Trap Queen". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some real trouble with the last two comments, I've been able to address everything else, but sorting templates is completely new to me. Could you possibly do them for me? I think there's only a couple. I'd really appreciate it. Cheers, Azealia911 talk 14:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much, I owe you one. Azealia911 talk
  • I notice that you've got anchors before every song title. You only need them for the first ones alphabetically, i.e. "Aquababe", "Bad Girls", "Can't Stop Now", "Dark Red Lipstick", etc. All the others can be removed.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • Typographic quotation marks (i.e. “ and ”) and apostrophes (i.e. ’) need to be replaced with typewriter ones (i.e. " and ').
Done. Azealia911 talk

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "None" mean in the Album(s) column? Are they songs that were only released as singles? Were they B-sides? Were they online only exclusives?
That the song was not included on a commercially released album/EP/mixtape, for a variety of reasons. EG, "ATM Jam" was scrapped from Broke with Expensive Taste, while "Seventeen" was released for free on to the internet. Azealia911 talk
It might be worth putting something more intuitive in those cells then, rather than just "None". Perhaps "Unreleased" for the ones that weren't released? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they all were released, just some weren't for commercial sale. None were leaked or anything. I think a blanket 'None' covers it better than splitting hairs on why something wasn't on an album.
Using "None" as a blanket is exactly the problem though, as it creates a level of ambiguity that we need our featured lists to avoid. I'm looking at the table right now, and I'm still confused by it. There are 23 songs on the list that didn't feature on any album, yet apparently only four of them were released as singles. So what about the other 19? I can't find them on either iTunes or Spotify. Were they released exclusively on Banks's Soundcloud account? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some examples as to what you'd want me to replace 'None' with? I was contemplating using something like 'Free download', but free downloads aren't automatically ruled out as not being on an album. "BBD" was originally a free download, and it ended up on Broke with Expensive Taste. I'm not sure how familiar you are with modern rap music and the way it's released, and that isn't meant to be patronizing, but I do see on your user page that you're a big fan of The Beatles and Radiohead. Nowadays, songs are released more and more through services like Soundcloud, Audiomack and Tumblr, or are sent to music reporting sites like Pitchfork Media. Any song that isn't a single, or a remix of a song, that has 'None' as the album was released via one of the aforementioned methods. Azealia911 talk

I guess it depends on how the songs were made available to the public. If all the "None" songs were made available by being uploaded to Soundcloud or some other similar service, then you could just add "None" to the key and explain what it represents. If it varies from song to song (e.g. some tracks were Soundcloud exclusives, while others received a full single release), then perhaps it might be better to replace reach instance of "None" with, say, "Soundcloud exclusive" or "Single release only" or whatever would be appropriate (that's what similar FLs have done; see here, here and here, for example). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors How's that looking? Azealia911 talk 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [14].

List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut edit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket list, we're flooding the nominations list with them at the moment! This one is loosely based on the similar List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut. I have an open nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments
  • Image needs alt text
  • "Players representing all ten of the Test-playing nations have scored centuries on debut" - This needs to be slight rephrased to avoid ambiguity.
  • Changed to "on Test debut."
  • Australian cricketers -> Australia cricketers (to be on the safer side when you think of Kepler Wessels)
  • He was a cricketer representing Australia, so he was an Australian cricketer. On Wikipedia, nationality of sportsmen indicates the team they represented, not the country of their birth. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget about the team which he first played for, he was also a South African cricketer. Also, can you quote the relevant guideline? —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he was both an Australian cricketer and a South African cricketer. I've rephrased to avoid this now though. Harrias talk 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the first Test match played, between Australia and England in March 1877, Charles Bannerman became the first cricketer to score a century on Test debut" - This one reads superfluous, cannot think of an alternative at the moment though.
  • I'm not sure what you don't like about this, so I haven't done anything! Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the first part it's quite understandable that it was the first [ever] Test match to be played, so the rest is obvious. —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could cut the second half of the sentence to "...Charles Bannerman became the first cricketer to score a century in Test cricket."
  • "Rowe, Brendon Kuruppu, Mathew Sinclair and Jacques Rudolph also achieved the feat" -> Rowe, Brendon Kuruppu, Mathew Sinclair and Jacques Rudolph are the others who have achieved the feat (or something like this).
  • I don't see any advantage in the change of wording. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But "are the others who" means the same thing as "also" but is a clunkier construction. Harrias talk 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His double-century is one of five made on Test debut; Rowe, Brendon Kuruppu, Mathew Sinclair and Jacques Rudolph also achieved the feat" Both the parts are fine by themselves. The problem is you say Rowe's double-century is one of five made on Test debut. So the "also" isn't really needed in the latter part. —Vensatry (ping) 08:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded this, how do you find it now? Harrias talk 19:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the flag for Lara Amarnath's entry use the British Raj's?
  • In the venue col. some have cities while others do not.
  • I have not included the city name where the ground name includes it. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need be consistent. Plus, we follow that 'ground, city' pattern in a majority of our lists. —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, on looking at it, it was just a mess. Added some clarification now. Harrias talk 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A secondary sort is needed for the "Score" col. based on time (ascending sort doesn't work).
  • That functionality is already built in. Simply sort by date, then sort by score. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is a personal preference, it could be worth adding a "Result" column.
  • Yes, you're right. I'll add this shortly.
  • I've added a result column in now. Harrias talk 19:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in the table you could note cricketers who actually did not score their debut hundreds in their very first innings.
  • I'm not sure about this myself; the innings column gives a fair indication of this, so adding it would be a little superfluous. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright! —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis does the "Batsman" col. sort?
  • It uses ESPNcricinfo's sorting. Basically, it sorts by last name, except for Bangladeshi and Pakistani players, who list by first name. Harrias talk 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of those seem to go each way. I've clarified by checking the sortkey used in the article. For example, Abbas Ali Baig has {{DEFAULTSORT:Ali Baig, Abbas}}, though ESPNcricinfo does list him as AA Baig. But if you know more about this and can set me right, please do so! Harrias talk 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably add a note above the table with an explanation. —Vensatry (ping) 11:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


—Vensatry (ping) 09:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Could you do me a favour, and cap the comments you're happy are dealt with if you get a chance? I'm struggling to follow what's outstanding! Harrias talk 07:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Think I've covered all the outstanding points now. Harrias talk 19:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm struggling to see any issues with this list. To add to Venastry's comments regarding prose, I think both sentences are fine and should remain as they are. FYI I have two lists here and here that could do with a review, if you're not too busy! NapHit (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Those missing flags are a bit of an oddity to our general readership.
  • " example, (1/3) denotes" the parentheses are not used or needed.
  • Chevrolet Park is piped to OUTsurance Oval which redirects back to Chevrolet Park...
  • New Wanderers is piped to New Wanderers Stadium which redirects to Wanderers Stadium.
  • M. A. Aziz Stadium appears to have spaces and full stops in its formal title.
  • Also worth fixing the Cricket records template so it doesn't redirect to this page, so it points directly to it.

Mainly trivial, good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all sorted! Harrias talk 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good list. Great lead image. Minor comments. It would be good if we could get South Africa onto one line on the Pelham Warner row as it looks awkward. Foster's innings sentence probably needs an "as of". Cowlibob (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "In a match in which no other player scored more than 20 runs in either innings, Bannerman scored 165 not out for Australia." - you probably meant no other player scored more than 20 runs in either innings for Australia ? No other comments. Tintin 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 1:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [15].

Leo Carrillo on stage and screen edit

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I began this list a year ago after seeing a Leo Carrillo mini-film festival on his birthday. All I previously knew was his one television series, and that his name is on parks in California in honor of his environmental and preservationist efforts. Somewhat amazed at the extent of his acting career, I also began creating stubs of his movies, if no article yet existed, to understand the diversity in his career. Leo Carrillo had a long career in starring roles and also character roles. I feel like I uncovered a gem of entertainment history, and believe the subject matter is worthy of FL. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie
...
  • About the hatnote—"This article is about the acting career of Leo Carrillo. For details on his life, see Leo Carrillo."—it is pretty obvious that the article Leo Carrillo "on stage and screen" summarizes his acting career. You don't even need that note. checkY Removed. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leo Carrillo Spanish pronunciation: [Cay-reel-yo][a](1881–1961) was best known to American children" – what was he? First mention his profession, and then what he was famous for. May be like "Leo Carrillo was an American actor, best known..." checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative text (ALT) needed for the file Leo Carillo Pancho Cisco Kid.jpg. checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates like in "Mar 08, 1915" format is not acceptable. Either have the full date, as "March 8, 1915", or just mention the year (which I think is better). checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think references in the table look better in the center. checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables might be given shades to meet MOS:ACCESS.
@FrB.TG:, You got me on this one. I added "wikitable sortable plainrowheaders". On the tables, I already see gray shading on the header rows. I've looked at your Brad Pitt filmography and see column shading on the first column, but cannot see any coding that tells me how you did that. And is that what you are talking about? — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can be given shades with !scope="row". Below are a few more comments I have posted. -- Frankie talk 08:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Los Angeles Times is a magazine, you need to italicize it in ref 3. checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers/newspapers/magazines or so like Los Angeles Time, American Film Institute etc. need to be linked. checkY Although American Film Institute and other publishers only linked once, so as not to add too much size to the article.
  • For references, 20em is a bit too much. Maybe 30em? checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you use the References section as a subsection to Notes. checkY — Maile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you got some spare time and interest, can you comment here (if any)? -- Frankie talk 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, I will have a look at your Brad Pitt FLC, perhaps tomorrow. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the stage section, "Notes" and "Ref(s)" do not need to be sortable. checkY — Maile (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Television's table "1950–1956" should be changed to "1950–56".checkY — Maile (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using rowspan is discouraged (as seen in the Feature films section) by WP:FILMOGRAPHY. -- Frankie talk 08:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC) checkY Undid the row spans completely.— Maile (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your attention to this. If you notice anything else, please let me know. After reading the Brad Pitt filmograhy, it seemed a good visual on Leo Carrillo for me to add align="center"
  • Support – nothing else to quibble about. Good job. -- Frankie talk 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

– prose looks mostly solid, references check out, image is public domain, and the tables meet WP:MoS standards (per comments by FrB.TG). I made some small tweaks, one moving a wikilink earlier and another to add an abbreviation period to mentions of "Lombardi, Ltd", as "Lombardi, Ltd." is the name listed. The concern for prose I have is in regards to this statement: "Over the course of his movie career, Carrillo made over 80 feature-length films...". According to the listed sources, Carrillo was a star in these movies, but they were made (directed/written) by other people. I'm no movie buff so I could be wrong on this part, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "made" to "starred in"? Same concern stems to the "Feature films" section later on with "Feature films of Leo Carrillo". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonebiskit, thank you for the edits. He was the star in his earlier movies, but there were many later movies where he was a character actor or otherwise in lesser roles. So, what I did was change "made" to "appeared in". And I made each section consistent by heading the tables "....credits of Leo Carrillo". Does this take care of your concerns? — Maile (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That covers my concerns, and I'm happy to support this list :) Well done, Maile. Only other outstanding concern is that horse's unyielding and terrifying stare will undoubtedly give me nightmares... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WillC
  • Lead
    • "He was best known to 1950s children's television in the United States as the Cisco Kid's sidekick Pancho" - A bit awkward of sentence. I suggest "He was best known in the United States as the Cisco Kid's sidekick Pancho on 1950s children's television"--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) checkY Done. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For his contributions to the entertainment industry, on February 8, 1960 Carrillo received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." - For flow purposes, I suggest "For his contributions to the entertainment industry, Carrillo received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960."--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) checkY Done. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest killing the horse for it is a demon, from the spawn of hell. Make it into glue and send into the sun before it steals the soul of our beloved children.--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about????? — Maile (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was being funny. The horse in the picture has a stare only Satan would love.--WillC 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stage
    • Sorting of dates is all wrong. It is sorting alphabetically instead of by the actual dates. August 1923 does not come after January 1926. Opening Date and Closing Dates need fixing.--WillC 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY I reworked this so it's only the year, not the months. Sorts like it should now. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Television
  • Film shorts
  • Feature films
    • Role column does not sort like the rest of the columns do.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also
    • I'd probably link to some Cisco Kid stuff here.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY I added a link to the Cisco Kid, but anything else out there doesn't seems that relevant to me for here. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes
  • Citations
    • Looked into them, don't really recognize any of them. I'm just going to take them in good faith. I assume they've been discussed.
  • References
    • Fine with me. I'm iffy on everything that is published whether book or online (considering The Creature from Jekyll Island exists) but I'll take these in good faith.--WillC 02:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links
    • I can't think of anything else that would go here other than some sort of template. Maybe a Cisco Kid template would be relevant enough.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought of a Cisco Kid template, because I've also done the Duncan Renaldo filmography. But one does not currently exist. And the more I look into the individual films and other cultural references, it would be a major deal to research and create right now. The Cisco Kid has been around for a century, since 1907. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, just a suggestion for the most part to make the article better. Most reviewers just check what is already there, I try to think of ideas on what to add to make it more comprehensive.--WillC 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from WillC--WillC 02:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Shahid Kapoor filmography edit

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. This one is about Shahid Kapoor's film, television, and music video roles. As usual, look forward to constructive comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Added templates.
Removed image.
  • I don't see in ref 52 Kapoor's name mentioned anywhere
I'm using ref 52 to cite the release year of the song. Ref no. 51 mentions Kapoor's part in it.
  • a highly successful family drama how was it successful? Critically? Commercially?
Tweaked.
  • Why doesn't Prabhu Deva sort by last name?
His full name is Prabhu Deva Sundaram, or Prabhudeva Sundaram, so the "Deva" is part of his first name.
  • Ref 12 links to "The New Indian Express", while ref 11 links to the "The Indian Express"; why are they listed as the same work, The Indian Express? Seattle (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.
Thanks for the comments, Seattle. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note
The nominator seem to have retired abruptly. If anyone would like to review the list and finds any issues, please let me know. I would like to get this done for and on the behalf of the nominator. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users may add comments, and I will try to solve them all. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: So will I. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2 edit

  • Done
  • Wikilink "caper thriller".
  • Done
  • "proved to be his first commercial success in three years" — Should be four years as Kaminey was released in 2009.
  • Done
@Vivvt: That's about it from me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have resolved all your comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Thanks for resolving them, Vivvt. I support this article's promotion to FL. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Based on what my experience, the list looks fine. I might add more comments, but for now it looks okay.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good list. Found a few minor things to fix but have dealt with them myself. Cowlibob (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:12, 11 September 2015 [17].

List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell edit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Chappell was without a doubt one of the best players of his generation. His statistics would be even more impressive if he hadn't had a spell out of official international cricket to play in the unsanctioned World Series Cricket. This list was previously nominated in 2013, but I have completely overhauled it since that nomination by the now inactive Vibhijain. I have tried a couple of new things out in this list, that differ from previous similar lists. Rather than clutter up the "score" column with symbols, I have moved them into a separate column entitled "Notes", as they don't necessarily directly relate to the score anyway. I have split the Key into two tables to try and eliminate some white space, but this might be an issue on narrower monitors, let me know, and I can change it back easily if needed. As always, all comments and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "played less matches " fewer.
  • "against England." could qualify this with the number of the Test and the Ashes series in question.
  • "he recorded his" last guy you mentioned was Ian, not Greg.
  • I've changed this to "Chappell recorded his", which I realise in this case is still slightly ambiguous, however given that I've only referred to Ian Chappell as "Ian", and Greg Chappell is the topic of the article, hopefully it clarifies it enough? Otherwise I'll have to look at reworking it entirely. Harrias talk 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these series have links, most of the articles they link to are rubbish, but it's probably worth a link just to encourage traffic to them.
  • I've added links where it seems obvious to, but I don't want to make the lead clunky just to fit them in! Harrias talk 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [a] appears to be unreferenced?
  • I didn't really think about it, as it is covered by the same reference as the fact, but I've clarified this. Harrias talk 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor issue, the key seems to be out of order with regard to the table. It's not a major issue but normally it works that the key goes from top to bottom as the table headers go from left to right...

That's all I can see in a first review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've fixed them all as suggested, though I've made notes on a couple. Harrias talk 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reordered it slightly, so if you go down the left table, then down the right, it should be in order? If it's causing more problems than it's solving, I'm happy to merge it back into one long table. Harrias talk 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the fixes, just one thing, the "by over 150 other " shouldn't that be "by more than 150 other"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, fixed. Harrias talk 20:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets the criteria as far as I can tell, nice lead image, albeit not of Chappell but we have to go with what we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Is there any reason The Gabba is piped to the Brisbane Cricket Ground? Seeing as it's commonly referred to as The Gabba and that is the article name it seems strange to pipe it

That is the only issue I can see, so I'm going to Support. Great work. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the key, I believe the brackets around "1/3" in the sentence "(for example, (1/3) denotes the first Test in a three match series)" would more appropriately be quotation marks (i.e. (for example, "1/3" denotes the first Test in a three match series))
  • Again in the key, it might be worth clarifying under the definition of "date" that it refers to the day on which the match was began (tests), or was played (ODIs).

Cheers, Macosal (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As @Harrias: is away until the 14th, I've addressed your comments @Macosal:
Following the resolution of these (minor) issues im happy to support; all looks well in order. Macosal (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film) edit

Nominator(s): Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I recently created the article as a fork from the article Boys Don't Cry (film), which I am working hard at to get to FA status. Even more recently, I did some cleanup on it, mainly looking through archives to find better sources. Checking the article against other similar FLs, I definitely think it can meet the criteria. Thank you to any willing reviewers in advance and I look forward to reading and addressing your comments! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdraw and peer review

List requires a top to toe rework to meet FLC which perhaps could be done outside of the FLC process.

  • The film plot needs referencing. Odd phrasing such as "comrades", "anatomically female", we have to be careful in how we refer to transgender people.
  • You need to mention only the key people in the film. I haven't seen the film but I presume Swank, Sevigny, Sarsgaard, Sexton would suffice as the main roles. With only supporting actors who play a key role additionally being mentioned. It's not clear why Goranson is needed.
  • done Removed.
  • When describing the film's release, start with its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival and then discuss its limited release. Box Office Mojo's domestic isn't always just United States, it can include other North American countries.
  • done It actually premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, but I changed it. :)
The Toronto International Film Festival is not in the source provided. The film premiered at the Venice International Film Festival [[18]]. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't say roughly. You can say over $11 million.
  • done
  • Review aggregators shouldn't be used as a reference for critical acclaim, other sources should be used. You can however say something like this "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 76 reviews and judged 88% to be positive."
  • done I put in a Michael Sragow quote calling the film a "critical knockout".
  • We don't generally mention who the nominee lost to in these type of lists.
  • done
  • Should add alttext for main image per WP:ALT for accessibility.
  • 'done
  • Las Vegas, Online Film & Television, Southeastern awards should be removed as non-notable. There is WikiProject film consensus to not include non-notable awards which don't merit a separate Wiki article. Indeed these three have had their pages deleted for non-notability.
  • done
  • rowscopes have not been added to every award row.
  • done
  • Refs 3, 16, 21 are dead.
  • For what was formerly ref 16 (the Guldbagge Awards) there's a slight problem—it's a database-type source that doesn't change the url when you actually search for the correct listings. What should I do? The other two are done.
  • Refs should have separate column
  • done Let me know how that looks.
  • Recipients column is sortable so each entry should be wikilinked. They should also sort by surname.
  • done I think this should be good now.
  • awardsandwinners.com is not a reliable source
  • Hmm. There's literally no other source I could find that listed the Critics' Choice awards for that year. What should I do?
  • formatting for references is incorrect. For web sources such as Florida Film Critics Circle, National Board of Review, it should be <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref> For news/magazine sources such as Variety or Empire should be <ref>{{cite news|url=|title=|work=|publisher=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref>
  • done There weren't a lot of news publications in this, but I changed them for the ones that are.
Not yet done. Box Office Mojo, BAFTA, Rotten Tomatoes, MTV, Swedish Film Database, Hollywood.com, AFI, the various critics organisations in the refs should be publisher= and use the cite web template shown above. Empireonline should be [[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]. Satyajiray.org.uk should be The Satyajit Ray Foundation
done. But, if I may ask, don't the "publisher" and "work" parameters produce the same result? I did change it though. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BenLinus1214: "Publisher" and "work" are different parameters. Work will italicize the title you input; publisher keeps it normal.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So lots of work to be done. If you feel you with or without someone's help can meet the above points, be my guest and sort them. Although I think it maybe better to sort them out outside of the FLC process in a peer review. You are fortunate that a lot of new FLs have been made in this area so you've got lots of good examples to look at: e.g. List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film) (one of my ones), List of accolades received by Queen (film). Cowlibob (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cowlibob: Whew! I believe that I have addressed all the concerns. Let me know how it looks now and if you have any other comments! :)
Your ping didn't work. Replied partially inline. Also include a column for the date of the ceremony for each award. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "replied partially inline", but I did add a column for the date of the ceremony for each award, modeling my linking after the List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film) article. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenLinus1214: Sorry for the delay. Have struck my oppose for now. Thanks for the improvements you've made thus far. The replied inline was that I have replied to some of the comments in line above such as Venice being the premiere of the film. I shall look at the list later, when I have some more time. Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: It's okay! Look at that…I had never seen that. Added it to both the main article and the list. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Change the date for its premiere, you still have the date when it was screened at TIFF. Also replace ref 3 with the one I provided which actually discusses Venice premiere.
  • done
  • The source used for critical acclaim is enough for saying the film was critically acclaimed but not that Swank and Sevigny were the reason for the acclaim. You can use this one (Los Angeles Times source) [[19]] which at least specifies that Swank performance was acclaimed.
  • Alright, I couldn't find a source for Sevigny, so I'll do that.
  • Instead of the line "Boys Don't Cry has received honors for its writing, directing, and acting,....". how about this as a rephrasing "Boys Don't Cry garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for Swank's performance as Teena, its screenplay and its direction."
  • done
  • You can't say that a film performed poorly. Just simply state the fact that Swank was nominated at the BAFTAs as it's a POV issue.
  • fixed
  • Sevigny is not wikilinked at every occurrence in the table.
  • According to the IMDb, the film was nominated for a Robert Award which is missing from the table. Also received awards and nominations at the Stockholm International Film Festival. Young Hollywood Awards are also missing. Please check these out as often IMDb is right about this and provide a reliable source when you add them to the table.
  • @Cowlibob: That's good but I was unable to provide a reliable source for many: I knew about the Young Hollywood Awards, but I was unable to find a reliable source for this, so I removed it. I also cannot find a source for Swank's award at the Stockholm Film Festival as well as the screenplay award. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no reliable source for the award then it's ok to not include it. I shall do my search to see if I can dig up something on these missing awards. Cowlibob (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Great! thanks. Tell me when you're done looking. I really appreciate this. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look, found this ref [[20]] from Canal Plus. If you google translate it, [[21]]. You can see it supports the Young Hollywood Awards for Best Screenplay and Best Director and Stockholm Screenplay Award. Cowlibob (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Great, those have been incorporated into the article. Do you have any other comments? :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are 2nd place finishes counted in the infobox, are they wins or only nominations? Cowlibob (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Birdienest81 edit

  • Comments: Here is a link to an archived version of the Critics Choice Awards website that lists Hilary Swank's award for Boys Don't Cry. I'll fix the link if you want me to.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Birdienest81: Thank you! It turns out the association which runs the awards had just changed their domain. archive.is is apparently discouraged (there was a big RFC) but I found the url on Wayback Machine. Are you planning on taking a look through the list? :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace ref 7 with this link this one because when I click on the current one you have, nothing appears because the information about the 72nd Academy Awards was derived from a awards search which times out. The one I gave you at least keeps the mention of Best Actress without timing out.
  • Remove Oscars.org from the work paramater, and at "(AMPAS)" after Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the publisher field.
  • done
Otherwise, this list looks promising, so I'll support it. You may want to ask others for feedback because I may not have caught other errors.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gen. Quon edit

Tentative Support

  • The period should go outside the quotation marks in the phrase "critical knockout", per WP:LQUOTE
  • done
  • I would amend the following sentence so that it reads: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 76 reviews and judged 88% of them' 'to be positive." (Or something similar, I just feel hanging 88% there is a little hard to follow)
  • done
  • What I would do for the Guldbagger Awards reference issue is just add a little note at the end of the reference that says something like: "Note: 'Award' and 'Year' must be manually entered", or something like that
  • done
  • This might just be a stylistic preference on my part, but in Ref 1, for instance, you don't have a wikilink to The New York Times, but in the very next reference, you do link The Washington Post. I would either link all of 'em, or link non of 'em.
  • done

@Gen. Quon: Thanks for the comments! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Just a few things. This looks like a very good list!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
    • Why is the image's caption written in small font?
  • done
  • "The film was critically acclaimed, particularly for Swank's acting,[5] with one reviewer Michael Sragow.."
  • done
  • I think you should merge second sentence with third sentence from the second para, as they are too similar. See: "At the 72nd Academy Awards, Swank won for Best Actress, while Sevigny.." and "At the 57th Golden Globe Awards, Swank won for Best Actress – Drama, while Sevigny.."
  • done
  • "as well as her work co-writing the screenplay with Andy Bienen" – something does not seem right with this sentence.
  • done changed "co-writing" to "co-authorship"
  • Wiki-link FIPRESCI in the lead.
  • done
  • Since you have considered the runner-up awards wins, I think you should add a footnote regarding it.
  • Actually, I have considered the runner-up awards losses--where should I put the footnote?
  • Whoops, my bad! In that case you don't need to add a footnote anywhere. -- Frankie talk 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-link the author of ref 2 (as you have linked the ref 1 author).
  • done
  • Fixed
  • .com is not the part of Salon's title (source 6). Also, it's a web source, so it does not italicization.
  • done
  • Sorry for this, but Salon is a news website, so revert it (italicize it). -- Frankie talk 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • done
  • I see MOS:DASH violations in references.
  • It appears that I mostly use en dashes throughout the article, so I changed it to all en dashes--that is okay as long as it's all one type, right?
  • The format for the accessdate of ref 25 should be the same as others'.
  • done
  • Four dead links and a redirected source to fix according to this. -- Frankie talk 11:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four dead links are actually just included in the list because they are original links--all of them were already archived. The changed subdomain does not affect the page.

@FrB.TG: I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Thank you for the feedback!

If ya don't mind, can ya put some comments here? -- Frankie talk 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: I will! Do you think you can support now? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – excellent work on a very good film. -- Frankie talk 14:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:13, 8 September 2015 [22].

List of national nature reserves in Somerset edit

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the inspiration provided by the FLC nomination of List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire. I created this list of the national nature reserves in the County of Somerset largely following the format used in previous nature reserve nominations. Each entry has appropriate pictures, details of area and location, links to maps and details and a description. As ever any comments gratefully received.— Rod talk 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not sure you need one decimal place when you're talking in thousands of hectares, and particularly when the conversion doesn't use the same degree of accuracy.
    • I've changed these to one decimal place when small amounts and no decimal places when large areas.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "surrounded by well established" should be "well-established"?
  • "one of only 3 localities" -> three.
  • "sward. [4]" remove space, and what's a sward?
  • You use NNR in the table but have noted that abbreviation anywhere.
    • Abbreviation added on 1st use.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the National Trust owned" shouldn't that be "the National Trust-owned"?
    • I've added it but unsure on this one.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes in the description you relink the NNR, sometimes you don't.
    • Sorry I'm not seeing this one - could you point to an example?— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ")Cynosurus cristatus" parenthesis fail, and I also don't think they should be italicised either.
    • I turned it to "(" but I thought MOS generally asks for the latin names of plants & animals to be italicised.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, but not the parentheses themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your eyesight must be better than mine - hopefully sorted now.— Rod talk 13:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatively recent change to the way we describe animal species, e.g. Common Blue is now Common blue, Small Tortoiseshell is now Small tortoiseshell etc etc.
    • Every time I look this seems to change. I've attempted to fix them (but always find this a challenge).— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "barbastellus)and" space here.
  • Most of the descriptions for the last two lack inline citations.
    • Don't know how I failed to do this - I've now added references for just about every claim made.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RSPB or The RSPB?
  • Note b is missing a full stop.

That's it on a quick run, I didn't want to see this without a review! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, anything further (from anyone) appreciated.— Rod talk 13:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • I do not like the first sentence. "The ceremonial county of Somerset consists of... two unitary authorities"? The whole paragraph is only tangentially relevant to the article and may be confusing to someone who does not understand the difference between unitary and non-unitary authorities. I would relegate it to a footnote and delete the history.
    • I think it is important to give some context for readers (perhaps not from the UK) about the area under discussion. This paragraph, or versions of it, have been used on lots of FLs to provide the context. I have removed the history about Avon.— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expand the third paragraph. There are many more interesting facts you could mention.
    • What would you suggest?— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • E.g. Bridgwater Bay a RAMSAR site and Ebbor Gorge archaeologically important. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lead image would make the article more visually attractive.
    • As all entries have a pic I wouldn't know which one to choose & I think "more visually attractive" is a subjective opinion which not everyone may agree with. What I've done on some lists is to add a map with red markers for the sites on the list and used this top right, if that would be helpful?— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you say this is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrington Hill. "A total of 74 different species have so far been recorded." Species of what?
    • Added species "of orchid".— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ebbor Gorge. I do not like the use of the term "Devensian", which only British specialists understand. How about [[last glacial period|end of the last Ice Age]]?
    • Thanks I've used your suggestion. I was reflecting what the sources used which I was looking at.— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordano Valley. According to NE at [23] this is only biological, not geological.
    • The SSSI citation sheet says "The peat deposits of the Gordano Valley are of considerable stratigraphic interest. Cores extracted from Walton Moor provide evidence of the vegetational and climatic conditions that prevailed in this part of South West England from late Glacial times until the Romano British marine transgression."— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I saw that but many sites are of considerable geological interest but not geo SSSIs, and Gordano was only notified for its bio interest, so "A biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest" is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hardington Moor is an 8.7-hectare (21.5-acre)" Why repeat a detail in the table?
  • The notes refer to local not national nature reserves.
    • Thanks for spotting this - I reused your wording but have now changed this (particularly the one about the area which is from MAGIC rather than any NE listing).— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth covering access? I deleted the column for it at your suggestion in Hertfordshire LNRs as there is only site with no public access, but I see that there are several in this list.
    • Rather than add another column, this could be added in the description where public access is restricted. (The only one I spotted is the "Somerset Levels NNR", although access to the rest of the Somerset Levels is possible.— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think it matters where it is added but I think it is useful to readers. Other sites are Huntspill and Rodney Stoke (most of site). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did you find the maps? I could only find one map for the whole country for NNRs.
    • I went to MAGIC set up the layers to show NNRs and typed in the names of the reserves.— Rod talk 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate list. A few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:13, 8 September 2015 [24].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neat list, no great shakes but a lovely venue in Godzone with some notable bowling efforts. I've got a few open FLCs but all have at least two supports, and no outstanding comments, so here we are. Thanks, as ever, to everyone who participates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:
  • Sidebottom's haul was in 2008, not 1998.
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead ("Overall, as of August 2015, thirteen bowlers...") is quite complex and could do with splitting into two.
  • The use of "fifer" is colloquial, not professional.
  • It's notable that the list is only linked from {{International cricket five-wicket hauls}} and pages that transclude it. It should be linked from McLean Park at the very least.
  • Is "338" the standard way of noting 8-ball overs in cricket articles? My personal opinion is that the meaning would usefully appear in the key, or, preferably, be included with <ref name=N> etc.
Relentlessly (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff: support. Relentlessly (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you have noted that. Are we allowed to have three nominations open at a time? —Vensatry (ping) 05:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Links to test matches and one day international would be beneficial
  • T20I is abbreviated without telling the reader what it means
  • Morne Morkel is South African not Sri Lankan as the ODI table states

Otherwise very good. NapHit (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I think, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work as usual. FYI I have two lists here and here that could do with a review, if you're not too busy! Cheers. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "It has hosted international cricket matches since the first Test took place in 1979.." This makes it sound like the first Test match ever was in 1979!
  • "..he took 5 for 47 and and 5 for 43.." and and (it would have been easier and quicker to fix this myself, but it's a pretty good article, and I want things to moan about. Harrias talk 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias, I think I've catered for your comments, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments
  • The first bowler to take a five-wicket haul in a Test match at McLean Park was Imran Khan in 1979 for Pakistan against New Zealand; he finished with bowling figures of 5 wickets for 106 runs" Given that we have explained the first international match to be hosted by the ground in the opening para, this could easily be cut down to something like Imran Khan (was the first bowler) took a fifer in the first ever test match played at the venue. After all, both matches are one and the same.
  • Overall, as of August 2015 - As of August 2015
  • As of 2015 - Month needed since ODIs seemed to played here more regularly than Test matches (the last ODI to be played here was in Mar 2015).
  • "Result of the matc" This one has an obvious typo.
  • Not sure if the "One of two five-wicket hauls by the bowler in the match" bit is needed. This could easily be identified through the adjacent date col.
  • "Muralitharan is the only other bowler to take two five-wicket hauls at McLean Park, having taken 5 for 64 in the same match in which Vaas took his two five-wicket hauls." You should mention the format here since you seem to talk only about ODIs upto that point.
  • Danny Morrison bowled 38 overs when he took a fifer.
  • Morkel's entry is wrong.

—Vensatry (ping) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All addressed I think, except the "One of two five-wicket hauls" symbol which is fine. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:13, 8 September 2015 [25].

List of accolades received by The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film) edit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC), and Sock[reply]

The Wolf of Wall Street is a 2013 biopic directed by Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the titular "wolf", Jordan Belfort, a New York stockbroker convicted of securities fraud and money laundering in the 1990s. This list compiles a comprehensive rundown of awards and nominations received by the film. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vivvt edit

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vivvt
  • There are 3 uncategorized redirects, 2 dead link, and one warning for the references.
  • ... Best Actor for DiCaprio and Best Adapted Screenplay for Winter... Add an Oxford comma before Best Adapted Screenplay.
  • Mention award ceremony like 86th Academy Awards for BAFTAs, Golden Globe Awards, Directors Guild Awards, Producers Guild Awards and Writers Guild Awards
  • Add "Portal:Film in the United States" under "See also" section? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: I think I've sorted the above comments. The Monsters and Critics link works but just shows up with a ref error for an unknown reason. Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments from FrB.TG
  • I think you need to add Rotten Tomatoes's review.
  • "The film premiered in New York City on December 17, 2013" – WP:REPEATLINK advises against linking "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions".
  • "As of August 2015, it is Scorsese’s highest grossing film" – hyphenate highest grossing.
  • The same sentence is verified by Box Office Mojo. This film may be Scorsese's highest-grossing film yet the film ranks at 3 in the source. Find another source.
  • "The Wolf of Wall Street earned four nominations at the 67th British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs), including Best Director for Scorsese, Best Actor for DiCaprio, and Best Adapted Screenplay for Winter but did not win in any category" – you don't need to repeat the names of nominees, as you already did in in the succeeding sentence.
  • Names under the "Recipient(s) and nominee(s)" column need to be sorted by their last names.
  • Mention the publisher for The Independent to maintain consistency.
  • Reference 12 for Los Angeles Times – ditto.
  • Why in earth haven't you italicized Billboard in reference 33. Also, its publisher needs to be added.
  • Wiki-link Monsters and Critics in reference 34. -- Frankie talk 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. Have sorted your points, I think. The source does back it up if you scroll all the way down. The rank Box Office Mojo gives on the film page is the film's domestic rank not the worldwide rank.Cowlibob (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! I think it needs more than one source. You might want to use this one. -- Frankie talk 18:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Added another ref from THR. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The screenplay was adapted by Terence Winter from Jordan Belfort's memoir of the same name" – wiki-link the book.
  • User {{Abbr}} for Ref.
  • In Casting Society of America entry, redlink Ellen Lewis, as there are redlinks for other winners but this one. -- Frankie talk 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: All done. Cowlibob (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – all of my comments have been resolved. -- Frankie talk 09:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:13, 8 September 2015 [26].

List of TNA King of the Mountain Champions edit

Nominator(s): WillC 09:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this list twice before. It has mostly failed because of not many reviews. Any body who reviews this I will review a list you have nominated in return. I will most likely be reviewing a couple of lists anyway. In the first nom, the main page was desired to be expanded. I have done that to the best extent possible at this time. Has alot of history and I kept it concise. The main page is a GA on its own. The second nom didn't really have any issues to solve. I've updated it and included some new references. Mostly it is still in the same shape as my last nom so it didn't take alot of expanding, just clean up to get it ready for this nomination.--WillC 09:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911

Sorry it took you so long to get this passed, especially due to lack of input. Here's some comments, if you have time to review this FLC I opened, I'd appreciate it :)

  • The alt of the picture is inappropriate, see the example of Queen Elizabeth II at WP:ALT#Importance of context.
    • I looked at the link but I have an issue. I'm not exactly sure how to address that with this image.
"Why is this non-text content here?" - To illustrate the current champion, the belt, or both.
"What information is it presenting?" - The current champion
"What purpose does it fulfil?" - To give a visual image of the current champion
"If I could not use the non-text content, what words would I use to convey the same function or information?" - Adult white male with a red robe known by the ring name Bobby Roode who is the current King of the Mountain Champion
"An adult white male with short hair and a beard, wearing a black and red robe" is inappropriate due to the mentioning of fashion in a non-fashion article. "Bobby Roode entering a wrestling ring" will suffice fine. Azealia911 talk
Done--WillC 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is currently appearing in both TNA and in Global Force Wrestling (GFW)." Needs citation, for the GFW part anyway.
    • Fixed
  • Remove " ; Names " from above the Key table and add " |+ Names " to the second line of the table.
    • Fixed
  • Ref(s) → {{Tooltip|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}}
    • Fixed
  • Ref. → {{Tooltip|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}}
    • Fixed
  • Try and make the references vertical so they look less squashed in, here's an example.
    • Fixed
  • For listing 12, Eric Young's win, make a note about Impact's name change.
    • Impact actually changed its name during Gunner's reign. I'll try to make a note of that. Fixed.
  • {{reflist|2}} → {{Reflist|30em}} it's more browser friendly.
    • Fixed

Think that's everything I spotted, Azealia911 talk 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll be sure to deliver some comments to your FLC some time this week.--WillC 03:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments being addressed. Good work! Hopefully the last time it'll be nominated. Azealia911 talk 18:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "Reigns that occurred on TNA's television program TNA Impact!, or its later title Impact Wrestling, usually air on tape delay" - I don't like this wording at all. Firstly, the reigns don't occur on tape delay, the title changes do. I also don't like the way the two titles are shown. I would have "Title changes that occurred on TNA's television program Impact Wrestling (known as TNA Impact! until [date]), usually air on tape delay"
      • Done
    • PPV => Pay-per-view (or at the very least wikilink it for those who may not know what "PPV" stands for)
      • Done
    • "as a result of being GFW founder, the title was also featured in GFW along with TNA" - the title was not the founder of GFW - change to "as a result of being his being the founder of GFW, the title was also featured in GFW...."
      • Done
    • "The inaugural champion was Booker T, who unveiled the title belt and declared himself the first champion on the October 23, 2008 episode of Impact" - you basically just said all this in the previous paragraph, no need to state it all again
      • Removed for the most part.
    • "The title was then-known" - no need for the hyphen
      • Done
    • "The title is vacated after Jeff Jarrett becomes TNA General Manager" - this is the only note that is in the present tense, all others are in past tense, be consistent
      • Done, hadn't noticed.
    • "Each wrestler's total number of days as champion are ranked highest to lowest" => "Each wrestler's total number of days as champion is ranked highest to lowest" (the subject of the sentence is the singular word "number")
      • Done
  • That's all I spotted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All concerns addressed, thank you for your comments.--WillC 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I made one tweak to the lead because it would take less time than detailing it here, and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you--WillC 11:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Maile66
I see one issue:
MOS:DTT scope="col" and scope="row" needs to be on every column and row of the tables. I did the first table for you, so you can see. Do you think you could do that on the rows and columns of the tables? — Maile (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind explaining why exactly? I do believe the old format was like that but it was changed for a reason.--WillC 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the old format. But I know it's being required of the current lists. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, can you introduce how it is supposed to go in the first reign box and the #1 in the combined reigns table so I know how to properly add it?--WillC 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I started it for you on each table. It's like this. For the columns ,!scope="col"| is to the left of everything. You only need to do it at the top for each column header:
!scope="col"| if all you have is a plain column header
!scope="col" style="background:#e3e3e3" width=0%| # if you have style information set up
For the rows, |scope="row"| is also to the left of everything. You only need to put it in front of the first item in the row:
|scope="row"|
Good luck. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I went through and added the code. If I've done something incorrectly it is mostly because I'm just not as familiar with tables as I used to be.--WillC 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - You got most of it, and I tidied the small amount otherwise. If you have time, I could use a review of Leo Carrillo. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once I find some free time I certainly will. Thank you.--WillC 21:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [27].[reply]

List of French Open men's singles champions edit

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a lot of cleaning up I believe the list is now close to meeting featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley
  • You say twice in the first paragraph that the tournament is held in May and June.
fixed. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 9 and 33 have harv errors. They use the sfn format which requires ref=harv added to the source.
fixed. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is far too long for a list article. Readers will generally look at the article on the French Open itself when they want to know about the history. One option would be to move the whole section to become a sub-section of the main article. Of course, you would need to move the history section from the list of women's champions as well for balance.
Although not a reason in itself to keep the section, there are precedents for this. See List of Ryder Cup matches, List of Tour de France general classification winners, List of Birmingham City F.C. managers and the recently promoted List of The Boat Race results. The section may be on the long side, but I'm reluctant to do away with it altogether, I could shorten it to four paragraphs, which would probably be more manageable? NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I raised this with FLC delegate SchroCat at User talk:SchroCat#FLC criteria. He suggested cutting it substantially.
I've had a go at condensing the information down @Dudley Miles:, seems a lot more manageable now, to me anyway. NapHit (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should really be "List of French Open men's singles finalists" as it lists the losers as well.
I disagree with this. I feel it is necessary to include the losers as it would be bare with just the champions listed. If there is a consensus to change the title then it should be to finals instead of finalists. I feel more input is needed on this. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can agree to disagree on that.
  • What does a dash mean against the score - runner-up withdrew? If so, you should explain this.
Should be explained now. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Years in italics indicate competitions before 1925, which were only open to French tennis club members and nationals." You say "and nationals" but foreigners did take part.
This should also be clearer now. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The headings General and Specific under Footnotes do not make sense and should be removed. The "General" ones could go below references as "External links"
These are quite common actually in lists. The general ref is for referencing the table and specific relates to inline citations. I think it works well the way it is. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see that as you say this is used in other similar lists. Strange.
  • Some sources such as "French Open Men's champions". SuperSport. Retrieved 15 July 2015." show Fassitt as British, others American as you have him. Is it clear which nationality he was?
It's not perfectly clear. It appears he was American, judging by a few ancestry websites, but no concrete information is available. I could add a note stating this? NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this is necessary. I was just curious as I had put him down as British - based on sources which are now dead links - on another list..
Thanks for the comments @Dudley:, I have addressed and responded to them. NapHit (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks close to FLC now to me. Just needs history section shortened and one other point. " Not considered a champion by the slam" is an odd wording. It is better expressed in the article on the Tournai de France. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • In the lead paragraph "Organised by the Fédération Française de Tennis (FFT )", remove extra bracket space
  • Make sure sources confirm statements. Don't see "[It] was held unofficially under German occupation from 1941 to 1944 during the Second World War" anywhere here
  • "Nadal was beaten in the semi-finals of the 2009 by Robin Soderling..." the 2009 tournament?
  • Caption could read "French Open titles"? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Satisfies criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " with nine. Nadal also holds the record..." -> " with nine. He also holds the record..."
  • Not sure it's clear what the delineation between the Championships and the Open really is here?
  • Andrés Gimeno needs an accent.
  • I would have expected "34 years and nine months old" to be "34 years and 9 months" (comparable quantities).
  • "French players have won the most French Open titles with 38. Spanish players are second with 12 and Australian players are third with 11." reads clumsily to me, especially the second sentence, so maybe merge this and start something like "French players have won the most French Open titles, with 38 victories, followed by Spanish players (12) and Australian players (11)".? Or something different perhaps?
  • Why is it "club members" in the infobox, not "Championships"?
    • That refers to when the competition was just contested by players who were members of French tennis clubs. While internationals refers to when the tournament became an international event in 1925. This and the one below are a bit ambiguous, I personally think just Decugis should be included in the infobox. NapHit (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar query about "internationals" in the infobox, is that "Open"?
  • No appropriate link for Club Stade Français ?
  • There may be some cause for confusion over the alternative usage of the phrase "Grand Slam" one to refer to the tournament, the other to refer to winning all four Grand Slams in a calendar year, perhaps for the Budge fact, be expansive.
  • "became an open.[11] The tournament became an Open in 1968" repetitive, inconsistent capitalisation.
  • "would dominate" used too often, in fact the whole dominance things is a little overused I think.
  • "Robin Söderling" needs an umlaut.
  • When/why did it change from best of 3 to best of 5, 1906? Worth noting?
  • Don or Donald Budge?
  • Second link to "Score in the final" doesn't go the desired page section.
  • "Carlos Moyà" accent incorrect.

That's about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @The Rambling Man:, I've got them all hopefully. Regarding the change of sets from 3 to 5 in 1906, I can't find a source that states that they did change from 3 to 5. I can include it regardless, but I feel it needs to be cited. NapHit (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, it's just an interesting factoid that would be nice to see... I think an old version of the page simply said that "records showed" that it changed format at some point... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this factoid now. NapHit (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm all good with this list, it's a really nice piece of work and it's really nice to work with a nominator who responds positively to my drab and disruptive behaviour! Good stuff, more please! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Why do H. Briggs and Francky Wardan have "BRI" by the flag, but the other British players have "GBR"?
  • Rather than constructions such as "he would be" and "would dominate" can you use a more straightforward past tense, "he was" and "dominated". You've done the latter most of the time, but used the former a few times, try to remain consistent. Harrias talk 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to find that American English is dominated by this style of "he would go on to win" rather than "he won".... it's odd to me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments @Harrias:, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (though there is still a "..by Robin Söderling who would lose to Roger Federer.." Harrias talk 21:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, I've got that one as well. NapHit (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Promoted, congratulations! Remember that reviewing other nominations means that the FLC queue will move faster for your future nominations, and consider nominating this list at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. --PresN 20:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Wolfmother discography edit

Nominator(s): Shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as it was previously nominated in September 2008 (FLC #1) however not all issues were addressed it was subsquently renominated later that month (FLC #2) but failed as some additional issues were not addressed. Shaidar cuebiyar and I have since gone through and made extensive revisions & updates to address all previous outstanding issues and bring it up to FL standards. We have also had a review undertaken by the Guild of Copy Editors. We believe that the article now satisifies all the FL criteria and should be re-considered for promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • Include the music videos they've released in the second sentence.
    •  Doneshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I meant the first sentence, sorry. They already were in the second sentence. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment: @Littlecarmen: Do you mean take it out of the second sentence and add it to the first sentence or leave it in the second sentence and include it in the first sentence. Dan arndt (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done Removed music videos from second sentence and placed them into first sentence.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the band signed with Modular Recordings and in September 2004 released an extended play (EP) Add commas before and after "in September 2004". You can just say EP since you clarified what that is in the first sentence.
    •  Done
  • Whenever you say "In [month year]", add a comma after.
    •  Done
  • , which reached number eight On what chart?
    •  Done
  • You capitalized ARIA Singles Chart in the first paragraph. Do the same in the second. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • five times platinum This doesn't sound right. Maybe change it to "quintuple"?
  • The band's second album, Cosmic Egg, was released in October 2009. -> "October of that year"
    •  Done
  • You forgot a "that". Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • , released before the album, Unnecessary
    •  Done
  • Cosmic Egg‍ '​s lead single, was "New Moon Rising". Remove the comma. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the track "Back Round" was only included on the deluxe editions. This isn't important.
    •  Done
  • The album also peaked at No. 3[3] it received a platinum accreditation from ARIA. You're missing an and. You can also remove the "it".
    •  Done
  • , an iTunes-exclusive live EP,[19] featuring songs recorded at a free show the band performed at a Sydney Apple Store the previous month. Cut this down, it's not that important.
    •  Done Trimmed it down.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trim it down more. Maybe say that they changed their line-up a few times and mention which line-up recorded the album. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "¿Qué?": does this comment relate to iTunes-exclusive live EP above, or does it belong to the next point about trimming the last ¶?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It belongs to the next point. Someone edited the comments. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim the last paragraph. Most of it isn't important for their discography and remove the last sentence completely.
    •  Done
      • I've assumed the further trimming comment applies here. I've trimmed the final ¶ of some of the line-up changes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the country the release dates are for.
  • Make the "(AUS)" in the video albums section small as well. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DL -> Digital download  Done
  • Extend the columns so all titles fit in one line and keep all title columns the same width, if possible.
    •  Doneshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done, they're not the same width. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good spotting: I thought I got all the little tackers.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still not done. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • As far as I can see all Title columns end with the wikicode: style="width:18em;"| Title
            • Tables with multiple columns, e.g. Studio Albums and Singles, compress the Title column. I don't see how this can be redressed. I've checked recent FL discographies and see no consistency in their Title column displays. Can you provide a hint for this?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the references column in the "other appearances" section and just add the references in the album column.
    •  Done
  • Reformat the directors column in the music video section. It looks messy this way. Either keep it all in one line or give each director their own line.
    •  Done
      • Also not done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done now, hopefully this is what you meant. Dan arndt (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why did you choose to list the individual directors' names if they work under a moniker? Their moniker is how they want to be credited so I think you should change it to that. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • iTunes -> iTunes Store. You also don't need to have iTunes installed to view the website.
  • Only link publications the first time you use them. You do this correctly sometimes, but not always.
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • Sometimes you mention a publication's publisher, sometimes not. Be consistent.
  • The Wolfmother category should be last. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only magazines and newspapers should be italicized. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #88: Link DIY. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
  • Organize formats based on how often they appear. EG: in Studio albums, CD is listed in all three albums, yet in the third listing it comes second. It's also alphabetically incorrect the way it is.
 Comment: New Crown was intially released as a DL in March 2014 and then as a physical release in August 2014, which is why the order is as listed. I can provide a note to clarify if required.
  • The Studio albums table doesn't look too compressed as it is, I think an eleventh column for US Rock can be afforded, which would remove the need for the note.
 Comment: WP:DISCOGSTYLE states "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested". All the FL for discographies limit to 10 charts so was just being consistent. The albums actually charted in at least sixteeen countries, so we have already cut it down substantially.
  • No sales information on any of the Studio albums?
 Comment: sales certification provides indication of the number of units sold
Not sure about you, but I don't know what certification indicates what amount of sales, it varies through each country.
Done: I've added a 'sales threshold' link.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use chart provider abbreviations for certifications, as opposed to the current country abbreviations.
 Comment: - The certifications aren't provided by the chart provider but by the Industry Association - which is the link that has been provided.
Sorry, I phrased it wrong, I meant change the word to the industry abbreviation EG. AUS: 5x Platinum → ARIA: 5x Platinum and so on.
Doneshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release date references need to be added to the Studio albums table, like it is for Extended plays table.  Done
  • A country abbreviation needs to be added after every release date in Studio albums and Extended plays, EG, Wolfmothers release date is listed as 31 October 2005, so (US) (or wherever applicable) would need to be added.  Done
  • None of the Singles have references to prove they are singles. – Big no no. I currently have a FLC open (feel free to leave comments) and a delegate asked me why none of the singles were referenced. I explained that they all had independent articles (like the ones here) but was accused of relying on Wikipedia. I strongly advise you source all of the singles.  Done
  • It's generally advised against listing pre-released album material that's featured on soundtracks, like "Love Train", "Joker & the Thief" and any other applicable listings in the Other appearances section.
Nudge
Doneshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some tables feature a Ref. column, while others don't, EG Other appearances does, but Music videos doesn't. Personally, I'd swap the two.
 Comment: previously addressed in Littlecarmen's comments - have removed the reference column altogther as it looks untidy.

That's it for now. Azealia911 talk 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With my comments addressed, I can Support this. I'd appreciate any comments you could give at my FLC. Azealia911 talk 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness, I don't see that the list is missing somenthing essential that prevents it from gaining FA status.--Retrohead (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk 11:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Remove references from the lead that are already covered in the other sections (other than introduction) as WP:LEADCITE advises "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material".
  • Done –shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album also peaked at No. 3[3] and received a platinum accreditation from ARIA" – "No. 3" is not encyclopedic.
     Done Dan arndt (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released; despite little promotion it charted at No. 160 on the Billboard 200" – again, "No. 160" is not encyclopedic.
     Done Dan arndt (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciated your comments here, if you find some time. -- Frankie talk 14:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would info like "Wolf mother's next single, "Back Round", was released as a free download in March 2009" and "The band's second album, Cosmic Egg, was released in October of that year" need so many sources; one should suffice.
  • References are still repeated in the lead, such as ref 20 is in the lead and also seen in the Studio albums section. -- Frankie talk 08:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Frankie talk 11:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - looks good.
  • Infobox has 3 "other appearances" yet 4 are listed.
  • "ARIA Albums Chart[3] and" never keen on these mid-sentence citations, I would be perfectly content to see this at the end of the sentence, after the full stop.
  • "Wolfmother reformed..." citation?
  • Check for WP:DASH violations, e.g. " "Archived Australian Releases - October 2009" in the ref titles.

Otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Rambling Man: all the above issues have now been addressed. Dan arndt (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Promoted, congratulations! Remember that reviewing other nominations means that the FLC queue will move faster for your future nominations, and consider nominating this list at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. --PresN 20:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [29].[reply]

List of colleges and universities in Delaware edit

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth nomination of this list, which is well-sourced and in keeping with the format and style of numerous other featured lists of colleges and universities in U.S. states and districts, including Alabama, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin. I have updated the list's facts with the most recent available data from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education and the United States Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences College Navigator. This list is shorter compared to the states mentioned here due to Delaware's small size, but nevertheless, it is the most comprehensive list of post-secondary institutions of the state available. I welcome the comments, suggestions, and other guidance from editors in order to make this worthy of passage to Featured List status! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG
  • "enrollment, as it had 22,680 students as of the fall of 2014" – I think you can simply refer to it as "as of fall 2014".
  • Per WP:SEASONS "fall of 2014" should be avoided. Late 2014, or a specific month should be used. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, I've changed this to "as of fall 2014," per your suggestion. SchroCat, American educational institutions use seasons in their terminology to distinguish academic terms from one another. The U.S. Department of Education source used the term "fall" for its semester enrollment data, so I've incorporated that wording here. Seasons are also used in the many other featured lists of colleges and universities to identify semester enrollments. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of times I've had my wrist slapped for using British wording in a British article for "local" terms, I strongly suggest you change this. "Fall" is not a universal term. It is a North American term for autumn, and isn't automatically understood by the rest of the English-speaking world. I dread to think what would happen if I went to FAC or FLC with the description of the Michaelmas term I went through at school and university. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bloody poor defence. Next time an American reader comments to me that they don't understand that someone was sent down during the Michaelmas term I shall point them to the culturally inflexible examples above. – SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SchroCat, because I like you, I've changed fall to "late." Please take a look at the article and provide me with additional suggestions when you get a chance. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks WV, and sorry if I came across as grumpy! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delaware previously had two private post-secondary institutions for men and women respectively: St. Mary's College and Wesleyan Female College" – I think respectively should go at the end of the sentence.
  • Usually, a key table is listed above the table which it is referring to. I think you should shift the key table above the List of colleges and universities in Delaware table.
  • FrB.TG, thank you for this suggestion as well! I've moved the key table up in the list per your recommendation. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Defunct institutions section's table, "Notes" does not need to be sortable.

Anyways, the list looks good overall. I expect the nominator to rectify these minor concerns or give an explanation, and prove me wrong. -- Frankie talk 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review! I really appreciate your guidance and recommendations. Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues for me to address. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I don't know why it went through four archives. Hope this is going to be the last. Great job anyway. -- Frankie talk 09:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, thank you tremendously for your thorough review and for your support! The first time, I had to withdraw the nomination because I already had two on here and I was new to the process. The subsequent two just didn't receive enough consensus; here's hoping the fourth nomination is the charm! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a good list, and I'm a bit surprised it's needed four reviews to get through, but hopefully this will be its breakthrough attempt. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SchroCat, thank you for your review and your support and most especially your patience with me throughout this process! As I stated above, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the fourth nomination is the last one! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — No problems found. Nice one.Krish | Talk 16:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Images are freely licensed at Commons. Tables are formatted according to MOS:DTT. Well sourced with good lead. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Promoted, congratulations! Remember that reviewing other nominations means that the FLC queue will move faster for your future nominations, and consider nominating this list at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. --PresN 20:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 Pacific hurricane season featured the fewest number of named storms on record in the eastern portion of the basin. Despite its inactivity, two storms were particularly devastating in Central America and Mexico: Tropical Storm Agatha and Tropical Depression Eleven-E. This list covers the status changes (such as formation, dissipation, category upgrade/downgrade, etc.) of the season's 13 tropical cyclones based on the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center's post-storm reports. The format is based on previous featured hurricane timelines and this particular article should match FLC standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. - did this happen? Afiak, no new storms were added. Otherwise, I love the format, and with clarification, I'm happy to support. Definitely one of the better hurricane season timelines on Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the generic line to mention the subtropical phase of Omeka, which wasn't warned on operationally. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dudley
  • Support. A first rate list. One minor comment.
  • "These dates typically limit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific basin." "limit" does not sound right in this context. Should it be "cover"?
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
  • Cyclonebiskit, this list's lede meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and the list meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The first image is released into the public domain, the second image is licensed CC BY 2.0, and the third through eighth images are released into the public domain, so all are acceptable for use here. I only have one suggestion, and that is all eight images will require "alt" captions explaining the contents of the images, in addition to the standard caption. (See: Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season). I have no other comments, questions, or suggestions, and find that this article is in keeping with other featured lists of hurricane season timelines. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - West Virginian, I added the alt text to the images, which now number 10, to help move this along. I'm adding my support, as I feel this is a well-done list. Would appreciate if anyone has time and can comment on my nomination here. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for covering that! I honestly forgot this was still up at FLC, and my apologies to West Virginian for missing your comments. Thank you both for the supports :) Fair enough for me to return the favor, Maile. I'll take a look at your nomination shortly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Chart needs en-dashes for speed ranges per MOS.
  • What happened to 118km/h?
  • En-dash needed for Saffir–Simpson in the chart as well.
  • And it's now called "Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale".
  • Image captions, things like "(left)" should be "(left)".
  • There seems no real reason to include either of those external links, neither are directly related to this article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: – Cleaned up the errors mentioned above. Any other outstanding concerns? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Passed. Remember to review other nominations so that the FLC process will run faster next time you nominate, and consider submitting this list to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions! --PresN 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [31].[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn edit

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive history and list of the tallest high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. The introduction is a bit shorter than that of the list for New York City, but this can be forgiven as this merely deals with the sole borough of Brooklyn. Any comments, guidance, and assistance to make this a Featured List is appreciated and welcomed! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to reviewers (because it was the first question I had when I saw this nomination): You'd think that this list would be a subset of List of tallest buildings in New York City and thus a content fork, but as that list only has buildings higher than 600 feet, and the tallest building in Brooklyn is 590 feet, there is 0% overlap. --PresN 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks like a good list. Here are my few suggestions:

  • I would remove "proposed" buildings, as this is a list of tallest buildings, not potential tallest buildings that might be built (running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL).
  • The second last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, maybe you could make clear the present ranking of the building in terms of height to help the reader keep track? Otherwise the last sentence "The borough's fourth-tallest" comes out of nowhere (why 4th, what about the other 3?).
  • Mattximus, I've clarified that The Brooklyner and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower are the second and third-tallest buildings in the borough per your suggestion. Please let me know if this current configuration works! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A thumbnail image of 388 Bridge Street would look good to the right of the lead, as it is the tallest building in Brooklyn.
  • Mattximus, I concur with this idea, however, a decent free image of 388 Bridge Street is not yet available on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not in New York at the moment to take a photo. I'm currently working on acquiring one as we speak, but this change may not happen within the timeline of this review. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This list ranks completed and topped out Brooklyn skyscrapers" is an old way of writing that is no longer considered good form for featured lists. It could be changed to "There are 32 completed or topped out skyscrapers in Brooklyn..."
  • "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." could be deleted and your column could be changed to "year completed".
  • City Point Tower II is indicated to be under construction, but is not in the under construction table. This should be made clear.
  • Mattximus, thank you for the catch! I've entered City Point Tower II in the under construction section, as it is still under construction. It was also remain in the main list, since it has been topped out. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this one, I don't think it's necessary to have it in both tables. I would just keep it where it was in the big table and just have a footnote stating "topped out but still under construction" or something like that. Will continue my review later, but it overall looks good.
  • Mattximus, it is commonplace in other Featured Lists of tall buildings to twice-mention a building that is under construction and topped out: once in the list of completed buildings so that the reader can see the building has successfully reached its planned height, and once in the under construction list since the building is still technically eligible for listing there due to its incomplete status. Again, I am flexible with this and if need be, could include a footnote instead. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think having it once in the main list is fine, however I won't oppose the nomination on this little point. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings" I think this is redundant and not needed.
  • Please do not remove equal sign, they are very important! You just don't need to say equal signs mean equal in the paragraph, it's tautological.
  • "An asterisk (*) indicates that the building is still under construction, but has been topped out." This could be done as a footnote as is done in many tables.

Overall a very good article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made a few changes myself, let me know if they are acceptable.
Close to support but a few little points:
  • You mention that there are 32 buildings over 300 feet, but I count 29? You will need a citation for that number, but one of the pages already cited probably has that number in it, just need to add the citation where I put the tags.

Support if these little changes are made. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mattximus, I've recounted and there are 32 buildings. That two pairs of buildings that are the same height, and are therefore, tied. I had removed the equal signs per your request. I've added an inline citation to the Emporis website that lists all the completed buildings. I've also taken City Point Tower II out of the under construction list per your request. It is now listed in the main list only, with an asterisk illustrating that it has been topped out. Thank you for all your guidance and support throughout this process, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve the overall quality of this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just one thing, please return the equal signs as per my explanation above. I guess you counted buildings that are 297 feet as being "over 300", that's where my number discrepancy came from. But it's close enough so I won't quibble over that one. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, I sincerely apologize for my oversight, the list covers buildings at a height of or over 295 feet (90 m). 90 meters was the benchmark here, to be more inclusive since some buildings hover just under 300 ft. I've re-added the equal signs. Take another look and let me know what you think! Also, thank you for your edits and additions, they are greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good. Just caught a little one: "This measurement includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts", the citation doesn't include this information, can it be found somewhere on that site (specifically, where did you get this definition for height)? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, the specific height for each building was pulled from the individual pages. The heights used here use the architectural heights, and not the heights of antenna masts, but this information can only be gleaned from the individual pages. Any suggestions as how to best illustrate this point? -- West Virginian (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This kind of refutes one of Mattximus's points above, but the articles "List of tallest buildings in New York City" and "List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington", both featured lists, does indeed have a "Tallest proposed buildings" section. Provided that these buildings are definitely in the final planning stages and not just one developer's vision for a supertall skyscraper (which would then be violating this policy), a table of proposed builginds can be added to the article.

Also, a consistent reference format is needed; you should use either almost all {{sfn}} (or a variant like {{harvnb}}) or almost all expanded citations like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Genius, per your point, I have reinstated the list of proposed buildings. None of the buildings mentioned are considered visions, and all are slated to begin construction within the next two years. If any of the buildings should become stale proposals, or be cancelled, they will of course be removed. Regarding the sources, it is a common practice to use harvnb format for sources from published books with multiple pages referenced, and to use cite web and cite newspaper for websites and newspaper articles without page numbers. I admit that it does look a bit strange with the two being used side by side. I could repeat the cite book each time with the new page number, but it could become quite cluttered in the citations section. Cogitate on that and let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and for your guidance on the list provided thus far! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with this statement from Epic Genius. A while back I went through many of the featured tallest buildings list, and in nearly every case the "proposed buildings" were almost all never built, with old links from many years ago proclaiming how great this building is going to be. Based on these experiences, I don't believe any of these lists should have speculative proposed buildings. It is not encyclopedic to report on non-buildings. No other (largest/longest lists etc.) have speculative potential entries in their lists. I've tried to remove them from all previous featured lists and met with no resistance (since almost all those proposed buildings were cancelled many years ago when these articles were promoted anyway). The only exception is if the building is actually under construction then we have at least a physical thing to put on this list. Speculative potential ones could end up in an architect's dusty cabinet even if "approved". Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mattximus, I've removed the proposed list pending consensus on the subject. The list can stand alone without the list of proposed buildings. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is best, thanks for making the change, when the buildings are built then they can be added to the list without problem, there is no need to predict the future. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius, did you have any further guidance or comments regarding my responses above? I wanted to ensure that I addressed all your concerns. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius I've modified the references per your recommendation. Please take a look and let me know if you see any other impediments. Thank you again for taking the time to review this list for FL! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie
...
  • De-link New York City in the lead as MoS discourages to link big cities.
  • Images need WP:ALT.
  • "The construction of high-rise buildings in Brooklyn began during the late 19th-century" – I don't think 19th century needs of hyphenating 19th century.
  • Either have a separate column for references and center them or shift them to "Name". It looks so weird to have them in notes especially when they contain nothing, but references.
  • Notes in the table in the Tallest buildings under construction section does not need to be sortable.
  • I see a MOS:DASH violation in ref 12.

Good work overall. -- Frankie talk 09:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in a review of this FLC! I have de-linked New York City, given alt citations to all images within the article, removed the hyphen from "19th-century," removed the column with references in the timeline of tallest buildings, made the notes column unsortable, and corrected the MOS:DASH violation in ref 12. Please let me know if you have any further comments, concerns, or suggestions. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – good work. Any chance you could look at this? -- Frankie talk 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frankie: Forbidding MOS, I don't see why else "New York City" shouldn't be linked. It's a pretty relevant link, and one doesn't need to click through the "Brooklyn" wikilink to get to the NYC page. Might be my personal preference, but I'm just stating that this would be a pretty obvious choice of wikilinks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thanks for your concern. However, I had based my query on WP:OVERLINK, which states "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]", but seeing this article, which is related to NYC, I think there shouldn't be any problem of overlinking (if it's wiki-linked). -- Frankie talk 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius and FrB.TG, thank you both for your support first and foremost! My personal reading of Wikipedia's "overlinking" guidelines is this: linking a place name of a major geographical location is only "overlinking" if you link say New York City for a birthplace mention, place of business mention, or some other secondary or tertiary mention. This is a list of high-rises in a borough of New York City, so it wouldn't hurt if it was linked in this context as these buildings are in New York City. However, I am in agreement with both sides. I would like a solution to be agreed upon by both of you so that this list is free of controversy and can be promoted. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose in this scenario, "New York City" can be linked once, but not "New York" or "United States", as these two linkages go against WP:OVERLINK. Epic Genius (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius and FrB.TG: Alright, then it is settled! I've re-wiki-linked New York City in the lists's lede. Thank you all for your guidance and support for this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Azealia911 edit

  • I'm not seeing an image until I use the page down button, consider an image (maybe the tallest building in Brooklyn) for the main image to situate next to the right of the lead.
  • Brooklyn /ˈbrʊklɪn/ → Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/)
  • Per WP:LEAD#Citations, you can remove citations for things later repeated in the article. EG, you can remove ref #2 from which rises 590 feet (180 m) and was opened in 2014.[2] as it's repeated in the table lower down the page. Do the same for any other applicable lead citations.
  • Consider moving references in tables to a Ref column.
  • Any refs which publisher ends in .com → |website= as opposed to |publisher=

Alls I spotted, a good list! Azealia911 talk 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Azealia911, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I appreciate your guidance and feedback. As there are no decent images of Brooklyn's tallest and second-tallest high-rise buildings, Epicgenius has added an image of the third-tallest high-rise taken from Atlantic Terminal. Under the history section, I added an image of what is considered Brooklyn's "first skyscraper" as it is mentioned in the prose. I also incorporated Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/) into the lede. I also removed the original reference two and three other references similar to it that are mentioned below in the list. As for the reference column, I had originally had one but a previous user recommended I remove it, so I've done so. I've also changed all the instances of "|publisher=" for the Emporis.com sources to "|website=." Please take another look and let me know if I've missed anything. Once again, thank you so much for the review and thoughtful comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Azealia911: Let me know if you have any outstanding questions or concerns regarding this article. Once again, thank you for your review and feedback! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry to be so late....
  • Why is "295 feet (90 m)" considered the cut-off point for inclusion here? Is that a height that's usually considered by other reliable sources as a significant height for buildings? If not, why are we using it here?
  • The Rambling Man, Brooklyn's high-rise buildings are all under 600 feet (180 m) in height, and 295 feet (90 m) was chosen to encompass at least the top thirty high-rise buildings in the borough to allow for an adequate list size. All of the other featured lists of high-rise buildings use arbitrary height limits, and this didn't seem to be a stopping block for them. I am open to making the limit 300 feet (91 m) if that seems more fitting, or any other height that seems more reasonable to you. I'd like to find a solution to this so that this list's progress toward FL status is not derailed at the eleventh hour. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There feels like a little bit of citekill going on here, e.g. "By 1901, the 13-story Temple Bar Building was completed and was the borough's first steel-beam high-rise, its largest office building, and its tallest at 164 feet (50 m).[5][8][9][10]" does that really need four separate sources?
  • A mildly repetitive phrase "high-rise" appears ten times in the three paragraphs of the History section.
  • For a building to have a "Year completed" as "—" without notes, seems a little odd.
  • The Rambling Man, no completion dates are available for those buildings in any reputable sources or high-rise datasets. I am open for suggestions on other ways to illustrate this for the reader. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversion issues: "301 (95)" and "310 (95)" then "315 (96)", just not consistent, the difference between the former and the latter in feet is 14, but in metres is 1, that's just incorrect.
  • The Rambling Man, I've corrected those totals that were transcribed incorrectly or somehow inadvertently changed throughout this long process. To avoid this, I used Wikipedia's convert template for each row. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timeline of tallest building, check out WP:DATERANGE, I thought 1901–1918 should be 1901–18.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to moderators: This featured list candidate has received five supports and one oppose, of which I have addressed each of the points raised. I've left a note on The Rambling Man's talk page notifying him of my corrections. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to moderators: and I will get back to my comments once I get a chance, there is no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man, that's no problem at all! Because this candidate is getting "long in the tooth" so to speak, I was concerned the moderators would shelve it, and so I just wanted to let them know we were still ironing some items out. Thanks again for the review and I look forward to your further comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man, just checking in to see if you've reviewed my responses to your comments and suggestions, which were very helpful in improving the overall quality of this list. Please let me know if you have any outstanding issues, and I will address them in a timely manner. Thank you again for your review. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Passed. Remember to review other nominations so that the FLC process will run faster next time you nominate, and consider submitting this list to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions! --PresN 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/September_2015&oldid=683210362"