Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

List of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC) and 2013 (FLC). The bulk of the work done on the tables was done by Cs-wolves and Ytfc23, I've just identified it as a possible FLC, tidied it up and then add the lead. BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano is an American actor who had a successful music career in Japan in the 1980s and 1990s. I created and expanded the list following the successful promotion of List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano to FLC. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I am still relatively inexperienced with working on a list, and putting something up for FLC so I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and how I can improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Shriya Saran filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Shriya Saran is an Indian actress who works mainly in the South Indian film industry. Having spent a considerable amount of time overhauling the list, I believe it meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • Could you add the year for the infobox image in the caption?
  • For the films that are Tamil-Telugu bilingual films, should the language block have both of the languages rather than just one?
    • Since we have separate articles for both films, I chose to keep them as separate entries. —Vensatry (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh, that makes perfect sense then. I apologize for not noticing that even though it was really clear in the table. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would avoid the phrase "This was followed by" as the word "This" is somewhat vague. I would recommend revising the sentence to avoid "this'.
    • 'It'? —Vensatry (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I think "It" works better. I know it is a small, nitpicky note, but just trying to help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you mean by "to that point", and would suggest revising it to make it clearer.
    • It's the same as "that point in time". It's very much accpetable – see this —Vensatry (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Makes sense to me, this was more of a clarification question on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The "call" in "call centre" should not be capitalized.
  • What do you mean by "special appearance"? Could you clarify this for me? How is it different than a cameo appearance?
    • It's more or less similar to 'Guest appearance'. Cameo is short but a notable one. —Vensatry (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. I agree that "special appearances" and cameo and guest appearances should be kept separate than as they are different from one another. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Great job with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible review my FLC for Alyssa Milano discography? I know it is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have the time or interest of doing this. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments. I'll review your list in the next two days. —Vensatry (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Wonderful job with this list. It was a very enjoyable read and very informative. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Louisiana[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

With the help of many others, I am attempting to create standardised, high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 12th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities, towns and villages within the state of Louisiana. I have modelled this list off of my recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and List of cities and towns in Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support This very nice list is well organized and nicely presented. An Earwig checks show the potential of copyvio unlikely and WC3 indicates no dead links. Referencing is light, but heavy referencing seems unnecessary and everything is correctly sourced in the table headers to RS. The LEDE complies with WP:LEDE and represents an accurate summary of the list. I have an issue with the use of the "%" sign instead of "-percent", however, MOS:PERCENT has always been vague and unclear so will defer on that point. Images are sufficiently illustrative of the article and are all correctly licensed. I found no incidences of spelling or grammar issues. The article is stable with no outstanding disputes evident on the Talk page (last discussion was ~3 years ago) and no substantial, recent edits other than those of the nominator.
This is, overall, an excellent and important list presented in such a way that its expansion following the 2020 census will be fairly easy to accomplish, thereby ensuring its long-term utility to the project. Very nice job, Mattximus. LavaBaron (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! And yes that whole 2000 census column will be deleted and replaced by the 2020 census results since it's already quite out of date. Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Danish Girl (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Danish Girl was a 2015 film which was lauded for the performances of Alicia Vikander and Eddie Redmayne. It received several accolades which are listed here. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis
  • In the introduction, you talk very little about the awards that the film received. Only one third of the introduction is devoted to the summary of awards. You could mention the Oscar nominations, something about Critics' Choice Movie Awards and more bout SAGs etc etc.
  • I'd suggest archiving more links especially for websites for awards shows as they become broken very often. And for refs that are already archived, accessdates probably not necessary anymore.
  • Ref number 8 missing date.
  • Ref number 38 missing author.
  • Ref number 37 missing accessdate. Better to archive it as well.
  • No need for comma in note a. as you list only two things, same with f.

Mymis (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis: Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead to have more award content. Have also hopefully dealt with the other comments. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Yashthepunisher
  • "British-American biographic film", or "biographical film"?
  • You can mention its genre in the opening sentence
  • Full stop missing from the alt text.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks for your comments. Have hopefully sorted them. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Not sure how 9th or 10th place could be considered a "win".
  • Especially when 3rd and 4th places are tagged as "nominations".
  • Messes with the sorting too...
  • "Golden Globes Awards" or "Golden Globe Awards"?
  • Notes are sentence fragments so don't need full stops.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Essex Wildlife Trust[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This list is in the same format as two wildlife trust FLCs, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and London Wildlife Trust. Essex is especially interesting because it has a number of internationally important wetland sites on its coast. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support A very nice FLC, Dudley Miles. The previous reviewer hit most of the core issues so there's not much for me to comment on. Beyond that, as a routine check, Earwig shows low probability of copyvio and W3C finds no deadlinks. All data in table is sourced to RS. Images are (a) lavish, (b) appropriate, and (c) correctly licensed. Layout is compelling, interesting, and easy to follow. Overall a great job! LavaBaron (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi-5 discography[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Hi-5 is a very popular musical group in Australia and they have been prominent in the charts since 1999. I think there is a lot of interesting information to tackle, and therefore I think the article could easily be worked to be listed as a feature list. SatDis (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Notes from Jimknut

If you are going to make the charts sortable then you need to correct the sortabilty:

  • The bottom line ("—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart.) needs to be made so that it stays at the bottom. To do this go to the break line (|-) and add "class="sortbottom"".
  • I suggest changing release dates from "Released: 19 September 2003" (as an example) to "{{start date|2003|09|19|df=y}} (release date)".
  • You may also need to use the start date template for the chart position columns so that the numbers ascend or descend in chronological order.

Other notes:

  • The Reissues chart does not need to be sortable as their is only one entry.
  • Likewise, " the line ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart" is not needed since that one entry did chart. Jimknut (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimknut: Thankyou for your feedback, I have addressed these issues. I might just need clarification/help in your point of using the start date template for the chart position. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The sorting by date still does not work correctly (which indicates a faultiness with the template design and not with anything you have done). If you don't get anymore feedback I would suggest dumping the sorting altogether (most if not all of the Wiki discographies do not use it). Jimknut (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimknut: I have removed the sorting, it was not something I particularly liked anyway. All issues now resolved. SatDis (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results[edit]

Nominator(s): Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is the only article in the Indian Premier League genre of multiple featured lists[1][2][3][4] that consolidates the seasons and results of all IPL seasons till date... I have tried to ensure that the article has engaging prose and lead, apart from being comprehensive and having an easy to read structure. I have only got one Featured List in the past, so am not perfect in this. Please do suggest changes for improvement to enable this to come up to FL standards. Thanks. Lourdes 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned this violates 3b. Most of the lead is similar to the main IPL article, and in fact, there's even more information on the seasons and results in the main article (in the "Tournament seasons and results" section) than there is in this spin-off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks The Rambling Man for the assessment. Comparing the leads of the main article and the list (here's the diff of the comparison), I find that the similarity between the leads is with respect to who organizes IPL (BCCI) and who the winners have been. Do please advise on whether this seems an issue to you. With respect to your second point, the List focuses on differentiating the seasons, while the two tables in the main article you mention Indian Premier League#Tournament seasons and results focus on the team performances and not on season results. Do advise me on whether this seems an unresolvable issue to you. If it does, I'll withdraw this nomination as I respect your views considerably. Thanks again. Lourdes 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    No worries. A quick observation before I dash off for a short while, I think this list would probably benefit from having all three tables spun off into it, and in that sense the stand-alone-ness would be much easier to defend... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    Absolutely brilliant suggestion. Will work on doing this in the coming week. Lourdes 14:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There aren't enough entries in this list to justify it being a separate page, let alone a featured list (I was told 10 entries was the minimum for a standalone list when I tried to get List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches promoted a couple of years ago). Also, I don't believe the column headers should be coloured blue like that; can we not just stick to the default table formatting? – PeeJay 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Ten has never been a bright line, and if there's justification for spinning off an article from a larger one, such as that on the IPL, with appropriate additional and relevant material, it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • By the way PeeJay2K3, that head coach list looks pretty nifty these days, nice amount of detail in the lead sections too. It think it'd be worth nominating! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh! Fair enough then. I might nominate that later. I've also stricken my opposition above. – PeeJay 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm still not a fan of the blue table headers, but it's not enough to completely oppose this nomination. However, I'm not going so far as to support the nomination just yet. – PeeJay 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
        • PeeJay2K3 first of all thanks for striking the oppose. Give me around a week to spruce this up with the brilliant suggestions given by The Rambling Man. Will ping you then and hope you love what comes out. Ty and have a great Wednesday morn. Lourdes 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've made a bold edit to change from the blue/smaller font/shaded table to one which is clean and accessible. It might not be to your taste, so feel to revert, or better still, start with that and embellish it. The other thing I'd say is that you have a number of references, all of which just say "Squads" or similar. It would be better to find a way to differentiate the titles of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Got it! Will do that! Great work on the table! Big thanks. Lourdes 02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Update – I have completed the work on the references titled "squads". They are all differentiated by placing the correct year/season in the title of the references as well as the term "IPL" in front. Hope that makes sense. Lourdes 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man hi again, here's the current update – I have shifted both the tables from the other articles to this spinoff list and have nuked the color background, as well as given appropriate keys and section headings. Tell me if this looks how you suggested it to be. PeeJay2K3, as promised, a ping to you. Do check it out and tell me how it looks. Thanks. Lourdes 05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Also, a friendly ping to Nikkimaria. Wanted your help – if you have time, can you please give a quick look to the logo file used in this article and confirm whether I've used the right non-free-logo use rationale? Thanks so much. Lourdes 12:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • You certainly need to correct the name in the article fair use justification so it reflects exactly the name of the article(s) in which it's used. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Done :) Thanks. Lourdes 13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Thank you and also thanks for dropping by. Good to interact with you again. Lourdes 02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments okay, looking much better, so some comments on the current list.

  • "second-best paying sporting league globally" it's important to note that this is pro-rata, top players in IPL earn about $2m p.a. while top EPL footballers can earn >$20m , it's just that the season is a different length.
  • "The inaugural 2008 IPL season " some redundancy here, I would rephrase to say something like "the inaugural IPL season, held in 2008", or something...
  • Ditto for " the latest 2016 IPL season"
  • "Till now, there have..." normally we'd use "As of December 2016, there have..."
  • "double round-robin format.[16][13] " prefer to see refs in numerical order. See others...
  • " for the playoffs' stage" just "for the playoffs" is fine.
  • " there have been thirteen teams that have" -> "thirteen teams have".
  • "Of these thirteen, five teams..." no need to repeat "thirteen".
  • "won the tournament title till date" do you mean "as of December 2016"?
  • Results table, only the number of teams is explicitly referenced, what about the venue, player of the series etc?
  • Ensure all tables meet WP:ACCESS, per MOS:TABLE, i.e. row and col scopes. Including keys.

That's enough for the moment, hope this helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I have worked and done all suggestions, leave the last one (the mos:table and access). I am not quite conversant with tables, therefore will take a couple of days to ensure all table guidelines including keys are met. Will ping you once am finished with the last suggestion. Thanks for taking this much time out. Lourdes 09:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh that is helpful. Will get onto this. Lourdes 10:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Phew. Finished the row and col scopes for all tables, including keys. Here's the diff of the series of edits in which I did it. Hope this is acceptable? Thanks for the guiding edit. Lourdes 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Latin Grammy Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list based on the successful nomination of the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. Another Believer, who has worked on many Grammy-related lists, provided a quick review and gave me the encouragement to nominate this list. The first nomination failed to due to a lack of activity. Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like just to note that User:AJona1992 supported this list's promotion in the first FLC round. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I, too, support this list's promotion assuming concerns by all other editors are resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Another Believer! Erick (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
And I still do support this nomination, I see no issues for its second run here at FLC. – jona ✉ 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • You use the word "recording" several times in the lead, and I would recommend changing one or two of these instances for the sack of variety.
Two of the instances are for the proper noun "The Latin Recording Academy" and a quote ("early recordings of lasting"). For the third instance, I couldn't think of another word for "recording" so I used "albums and singles". I hope that's alright with you.
No worries, I completely understand. Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not a fan of the way that the Latin Grammy Awards information is phrased in the first sentence. It cuts off the sentence and separates the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences from the quote describing what it does in terms of the Latin Grammy Hall of Fame. The information about the Academy being behind the Latin Grammy Awards should be kept, but it may be better to revise it as the second sentence of the lead instead.
I moved the mentioned of them also being responsible for the Latin Grammy Awards to a separate sentence.
  • Would you need commas around the phrase "such as musicologists and historians"?
Added commas.
  • I am not sure what you mean by "selected from all major categories of Latin music". I am primarily confused by this because I am not sure if this part is connection to your reference to the Latin Grammy Awards, in that the songs are selected from the major award categories, or if you are reference selected from different genres/types of music overall? I would recommend making this a little more clear by saying "award categories" or a similar variation if you are referring to the Grammys here.
Well this one is tricky because the source doesn't really specify. All it says is "Selections are drawn from all major categories of Latin music, acknowledging the diversity of musical expression for which the Latin Recording Academy has become renowned." My guess is that they mean all genres within the Latin music universe.
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would rephrase "The inductions have only occurred six years apart." to "The inductions have each occurred six years apart from one another." or some similar variation as the "only occurred" does not make sense in this context.
Done!
  • Why is the information on the sales/commercial performances of Siembra, Eres Tu, and Amor Eterno necessary for this page? This list is about those inducted into the Latin Grammy Hall of Fame, and the information on the commercial performance seems more appropriate for the page on the artist and their work instead of here.
I have removed all mentions of commercial performances of recordings.
  • While I will not require it for a support vote, I would highly encourage you to archive your references so you do not lose your hard work in the future.
I have checked and ensured that the WayBack Machine has copies for the online sources (physical media like Billboard can be accessed offline as well thankfully).
  • Just as a clarification question, you do have a lot of red links on this page. That is not a bad thing, but red links should only be used when you feel that the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If you believe that all of the red links have potential, that is fine (I do find red links to be helpful for encouraging users to create new pages), but again I just want to draw your attention to this.
From my point of view, if the recordings are deemed to be very important by music historians and musicologists, then they are probably notable enough to have an article about them. They all likely made an impact in the Latin music universe in some capacity.

@Magiciandude: This was a very interesting read! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If you have any questions about my review, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it if you could do a review for my current FLC for the list Alyssa Milano discography, but I understand that it is a busy time of the year, and you have not have the time or interest in doing so. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Hey Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've replied to each of your comments above. Erick (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Wonderful job with this, and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I echo the previous reviewers, nice job Magiciandude. My review found the following: (1) Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, (2) W3C finds no dead links, (3) the lede is concise, relevant, and compliant with WP:LEDE, (4) I did not locate any (uncorrected) spelling or grammar issues), (5) content that is uncited in infobox is cited in body of article, (6) all claims in table are supported by RS, as is the lede, (7), good categorization, (8) article is stable with only the nom doing substantive recent work on it and just a short discussion on the Talk page. It would be nice to see some more images but I don't have any bright ideas of what could be included. It appears, from my own search, that the LGHOF doesn't have a brand logo, for instance. Anyway, I think this is a short and concise, but very well constructed list and good FLC! LavaBaron (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone naming[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... after receiving feedback on it from other members of the project and an updated naming list. I decided that it was time that this was renominated for FLC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Support

  • Since the systems can last a week or longer and more than one can be occurring in the same basin at the same time, the names are thought to reduce the confusion about which storm is being described. - I'd change the structure of the sentence. Start with "The names are thought to reduce confusion in the event of concurrent storms in the same basin." Same meaning, but shorter.
  • "The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back many years, with systems named after places or things they hit before the formal start of naming. " --> "Before the formal start of naming, tropical cyclones were named after places, objects, or saints' feast days." - something like this. The current writing is on the awkward side.
  • The lead should be reorganized. Keep general TC naming info in the first paragraph, then the history bit in the second.
  • The "Tropical cyclone naming institutions" table should be centered, not off to the right (and with text below, not squished to the side)
  • The links to the retired names in each basin should be linked in each basin, not all at once.
  • "Tropical cyclone formation is rare within the Mediterranean Sea and to the east of 120W in the Southern Pacific, as a result there are no naming lists for these areas." - cite
  • Be consistent whether you say "knots" or "kn"
  • Make sure the Papua New Guinea names are left-aligned (like all of the rest of the names)

These are my biggest qualms. It's a good list though, and it won't take much for me to support it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Most of your comments have been dealt with - not sure how im gonna deal with the Med Sea one yet.Jason Rees (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All of your comments have now been dealt with and I decided to remove the part of the Med Sea, as i can not find a source for it and it technically comes under names assigned by FU Berlin.Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Names are assigned in order from predetermined lists with one, three, or ten-minute sustained wind speeds of more than 65 km/h (40 mph) depending on which basin it originates. - to the outsider, they might not see the connection with the first half of this sentence and the second half. Perhaps do something like "Once storms produce sustained wind speeds of more than 65 km/h (40 mph), names are assigned in order from predetermined lists, depending on which basin it originates." I would include the bit about the 1/3/10 minute sustained elsewhere, but not in the lead, as it could be a bit too technical for non-experts.
  • "The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back many years, with systems named after places or things they hit before the formal start of naming." - I'd remove the first half of the sentence. It doesn't add much, and it sounds more concise with just "Before the formal start of naming, tropical cyclones were named after places they hit." Add the saint feast day bit here (I saw it in the lead, couldn't find it elsewhere)
  • "However, standards vary from basin to basin with some tropical depressions named in the Western Pacific, while tropical cyclones have to have a significant amount of gale-force winds occurring around the center before they are named within the Southern Hemisphere." - this should get more explanation (since the wording is similar to the lead). Split it into three sentences and explain sufficiently
    • I have split this into two sentences but am unsure if this is enough or if i need to go further into depth? Jason Rees (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Papua New Guinea National weather Service" - capitalization of "Weather"
    • This has been dealt with in the next comments by removing the sentence.Jason Rees (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "A replacement name is then submitted to the committee concerned and voted upon but these names can be rejected and replaced with another name for various reasons." - is this specifically about PNG? If not, clarify.
    • I have removed the tidbit about PNG names being automatically there, since the SWIO has now sorta started automatic retirement and feel that it would be difficult to clarify otherwise.Jason Rees (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • General qualm about the article - there are 226 usages of "name/named/naming/names" in the article. Try going through and finding ways of rewriting without saying the word so many times.
    • Will give it a go shortly...Jason Rees (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • 12 instances removed by changing Sources for tropical cyclone names to References.Jason Rees (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you explain List E in "Southern Pacific Ocean (160°E – 120°W)"?

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I support then. It is a great list of the current tropical cyclone names, superior even to what the World Meteorological Organization has. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • " Western Pacific Ocean (180° to 100°E)" only heading not to use an en-dash for the range.
  • Table in History section needs to be corrected for WP:DASH violations, and you need to be consistent, spaced or unspaced ranges? (see also "5°N–25°N and 115°E-135°E.
  • What is ₱?
  • " mid October 2016" ->"mid-October"
  • "intensity on early July 2016" -> "in early July"
  • "A — W" etc, "A–W".
  • "on early October 2016" -> "in early..."
  • Category:Human first names given to physical phenomena is going to be deleted...

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

List of New Zealand cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut[edit]

Nominator(s): Lugnuts, Khadar Khani (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This list was created by User:Lugnuts, and I would like to have him as a co-nominator. I expanded the lead and organised the table a bit. I think this is now a very decent list and should have a place in featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo and FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am returning to FLC after a break of a month and a half. I thought I should finish the work on this list with Famous Hobo (who has done most of the work for the list BTW) since I have also written his FA-class biography. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Can't find any major flaws here. Maybe a keener pair of eyes can spot things out, but this list looks solid to me. Just one query though — "played a dual role in a 2006 onstage production of Three Days of Rain" — You didn't mention Broadway there. You actually mention that "Cooper returned to Broadway for the 2014 run of The Elephant Man". Either you can mention Broadway in the first bit or you can simply say "Cooper returned to stage work for the 2014 run of The Elephant Man".  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, Sven. Thank you both for your reviews. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A pristine list. While I was checking the on-screen appearances, I was wondering why the details for A Star is Born (2018 movie) have not been included...[5][6]. Thanks. Lourdes 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that is because filming for A Star is Born has not yet begun. It will be added as and when that happens. Cheers! – FrB.TG (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Lourdes 02:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mymis
  • "although he only played an active role in the" -> what is an "active role"? Maybe "a recurring role" would be slightly more clear?
  • "His performance in the latter in particular was widely praised, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor, among other awards" -> it sounds as "his performance was nominated for the award", but I believe it should be "he was nominated for the award for his performance". maybe change to "...praised, gaining him a nomination for..."
  • Last sentence in the introduction needs a ref.

Mymis (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mymis. I have adapted your suggestions. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Few minor issues: in references, E! -> E! Online, you use screencrush.com twice but with different publishers, and I believe regular dashes (-) should be changed to en dashes (–). Besides that, great job on the article, and you have my support. Mymis (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Also, I just found out that The Daily Telegraph interview was used twice in different instances in the list. This has now been fixed. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. All looks fine, although I think you should give his year of birth at the start. I did wonder whether when you say "x episodes" it would be helpful to say out of how many, but maybe that is not usual. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Room[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Room is a 2015 drama directed by Lenny Abrahamson. It is best remembered for the Oscar winning performance of Brie Larson as an abducted woman forced to live in a small room with her child born while in captivity. The film received many awards which are listed here. As always I look forward to the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Thanks for your comment. I've adjusted the size of the infobox size image so now the table is not cramped. Also moved Academy Awards to fourth para so that the third is only the national awards. Cowlibob (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments
  • "an abducted mother held captive for seven years with her five year old son" - either five-year or five years.
  • I don't think it would be bad idea to combine the second para with the first.
  • "Larson went on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress" - the Academy was just mentioned in the previous line. No need for "Academy Award for".
  • "Larson also received" - using the pronoun will also do.
  • When I sort Recipient(s) and nominee(s) the first one to appear is "Jack's escape and rescue", followed by "Outside" and "Room". I think it is due to the quotation sign.
  • The Golden Trailer is a bit confusing to me; did the film win the same award (Independent Trailer) for "Outside" and "Room"? Are they the titles for the trailers?
  • For the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television Award for Best Achievement in Direction, I think it should read as Best Achievement in Direction not simply Best Direction.
  • The names of the recipients for Casting Society of America's Feature Film Studio or Independent Drama appear in random order. It should be arranged in alphabetical order (last name wise).
  • Ref 15 and 34 - Entertainment Weekly. I think you know what to do.
  • Is News Blaze a reliable source? – FrB.TG (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. The order of nominees in Casting Society of America Awards is per the source which is the press release of the organisation. The about page for NewsBlaze I think provides enough information that it's a reliable source as it shows they have an editorial policy. [[7]] Cowlibob (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Support sorry for the late response. Also, I hope that you can review my and Famous Hobo's FLC for listings of Bradley Cooper's films. Cheers! – FrB.TG (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment First para of lead reads really clunkily to me, lots of very short, almost disconnected sentences. Otherwise this is top notch. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for having a look at the list. I've made some tweaks to the lead, let me know what you think. Cowlibob (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup, a shade better, so I'll support this nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

List of National Defence Academy alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an A-class review from Military history project. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. The list is comprehensive enough to be promoted to FL. Please suggest any improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The sub-sections of this list are quite complicated and not easy to surf. Currently they are divided as Chief of Staffs (A, N, A), Wartime Award Recipients (PVC, MVC, VC), Peacetime award recipients (AC, KC, SC). Can this be revamped to simple three sections as Army, Navy and Air Force? I know it's a lot of work but we would bring down 10 lists to just 3. Opinions of others are welcome on this point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: More section doesn't mean that the list loses its eligibility. Even if divide per the services, how do we differentiate between the chiefs, awardees (peacetime and wartime, each category has one to two awards with the awardee names), sub-section will also be needed then. If we go down with a single list for each service, then it would complicated to find out a specific subject. Anyway, let the community decide. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Winning an award or being appointed on a certain position is not a qualifying factor. After finishing their studies in NDA, what field they joined in or not joined at all should be the more relevant factor of sorting out these people. All the posts they held or awards they received can always go in notes section against each entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: But the list is based the notable alumni only. That's what I am saying, it would complicate to find a subject. I think the present structure will be clearer than the one proposed. I ping PresN and Giants2008 to look over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
All "lists of alumni" are always the "list of notable alumni". We do not include names of all students that have ever enrolled in. Check alumni lists like that of Washington & Jefferson College and University of Central Florida which are generic institutes where the alumni's are sub-listed per the field they went into. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: But this is for one single profession. Let us wait for some other to fall in. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I won't count Army, Navy And Air Force as same professions. Waiting and more opinions are good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I was pinged for my opinion- personally, I don't find the list confusing to navigate. I think that you could change it into three sections (army, navy, air force), but I'm not sure that you could combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column pretty severely to get the chiefs of staff to sort together and the peacetime award recipients to sort together, etc. It would be a lot of work. Also, checking other example FLs, they're not using that single-table format: List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, for example, is basically the "air force" section of this list, but then subdivides all the types of notable alumni into sections. Following that, you'd have to split this list into the three sections, and then have multiple subsections for each- at least 3 (chiefs of staff, wartime awards, peacetime awards). I don't think it would be much benefit, if any, for the work. --PresN 17:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Another advantage of 3 list proposal would be that no two entries will be listed twice (unless someone in rarest case joins both Army and Navy or such). In this format, S. K. Kaul is listed twice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Dharmadhyaksha: But that is the only case. If needed it can be fixed up with the higher order i.e. at Chief of Air Staff. And as PresN said we couldn't combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column. And also it wouldn't benefit much. You need to have separate sections for chiefs, war and peace time awardees. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need to have award-winners and non-award winners separated out. People took admission here, either went into one of three fields or simply contributed to "other fields". That should be the end of categorization as is concerned with this institute's alumni list. How successful they were by grabbing awards or securing positions is immaterial to the alumni list. That's just peacock-y for the institute maybe to highlight the achievements on their website but is of no encyclopedic value much. Take for example following lists with their subsections like filmographies (feature films, documentaries, plays, tv shows, advertisements, webseries, etc.); literary works (novels, short stories, poems, screenplays, etc.); awards (Academy, Emmy, Nobel, Padma, etc.).... Filmographies are not subsectioned as award winning and flops; literary works are not subsectioned as adapted-into-films and non-adapted-into-films; awards are not subsectioned as for acting, for writing, or such.... They all seem to follow a proper categorization which is missing here.
This should be my last comment on this point and if that isn't sufficient enough to hit the point then I give up for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: I see that Nick-D and PresN have made clear that the present format is acceptable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D

  • The article seems miss-titled: this is a list of notable graduates, not all graduates of this institution.
  • All the alumni pages are about notable graduates. I think there is no need to mention that specifically. For examples, see the MILHIS Fls on alumni of institutions.
  • How many graduates have there been in total? (a point in time figure would be OK for giving readers a feel for this if nothing very recent is available)
  • Added.
  • How large and exclusive is this institution? Is it like the Australian Defence Force Academy, which is attended by the great majority of people who go on to become officers in the Australian Defence Force, or is it highly selective? - this is needed to help readers understand why the subject of this list is important.
  • Yes it the same way.
  • The article lists graduates who are notable for being successful. Surely some graduates have also achieved notability for failures? (eg, graduates convicted of prominent crimes, commanders of highly unsuccessful operations, individuals who unsuccessfully ran for election, etc).
  • No such cases of crime have been reported till date, that are notable enough to have an article on wiki.

Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yet the article includes individuals who received awards which were not sufficient for them to be considered individually non-notable. I don't accept that none of this academy's graduates have become prominent for negative reasons: such a claim certainly wouldn't be correct for Australia's much smaller and newer equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that it seems that a very high proportion of Indian officers go through this Academy, the fact that a small sub-set go onto high ranks or are awarded high-level awards isn't surprising: this is exactly the background you'd expect for such people. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Any other comments? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support List is exhaustively sourced to RS; a W3C check shows all links are current (there were several false positives but those were resolved by a manual check). List is lavishly illustrated and all images have alt tags and proper licensing. Earwig indicates probability of copyvio is Unlikely (15.3%). I had to double-check the claim of it being the world's first tri-service academy as I thought that was the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, however, it appears that was only an Army-Navy program so looks good. I am inclined to second the suggestions of others that the list should be observe this is a "List of Notable ..." since it's not a total list, however, Dharmadhyaksha has made the point that all lists of alumni are always lists of notable alumni. Organization is clear and logical and I was unable to find incidences of grammar or MOS errors, though neither of these are my strong suit so I largely relied on the prior reviews of others. The article is very stable with no unresolved discussion on the Talk page and little editing occurring recently other than the nominator and bots. The lede meets the criteria of WP:LEDE and prose and comprehensiveness seem good. All in all I support this as a FL. Very nice job, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. LavaBaron (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


Comments by NitinMlk

  • ref 85 is a user-generated source, which is written by a person named Priya Aurora. Here's her credentials in her own words: "Write, eat and sleep. Repeat.". Also check the social media links provided by her. She is just a common person with no credentials. So, this source should be replaced.
  • ref 54: its About and Disclosure section says that it's a personal blog, which is written by some ramdon blogger named Oldsailor. It also says that "The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers’ own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question." So, it's not a RS.
  • ref 119: only thing we know about this user-generated source is that "the Government of India does not officially endorse this site". There isn't even a hint of editorial control. So, it isn't a RS.
  • ref 120 & 128: allaboutsikhs.com is again a user-generated source with no editorial control.
  • ref 11 & ref 46: these two might have been considered reliable, provided "the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff", as per WP:UGC. But that isn't the case here.
  • ref 7 is yet another user-generated source, as it has no editorial control at all.
  • ref 99: the book is of Kalpaz Publications. Books of this publication are normally mirrors of Wikipedia. For details, please see here. So, they are normally discarded here, although I will leave it to others to decide its reliability. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@NitinMlk: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess you replaced one source & removed the remaining ones. As yesterday I just glanced over the references, I will check it tomorrow whether the existing sources are supporting the content. Unfortunately, I can only spend a little time at wiki today. Meanwhile, you can look below for some more comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacques Rivette filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is accurate, complete and fully cited, but I would love to work with any editors on necessary improvements if needed. Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support good work on my comments. Let's hope some more people show up to review the list! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

List of United States military premier ensembles[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this meets the FL standards. It was previously nominated and got a !vote of support from User:Gonzo_fan2007, but had to be closed by User_talk:PresN due to a total lack of interest from anyone else. I'm renominating it now in hope it will draw new attention. LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, as all of my previous issues were addressed here. Again, nice work Lavabaron! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, all of the previous issues have been addressed from the Wikiproject A-class Review and the previous Featured List attempt. I would suggest adding an ALT description to all of the images, but that is the only issue that I could find in the list. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments Support
  • All the images including two from the prose, and from the columns of table need ALT description i.e. |alt= field in the image insertion module, wherever not mentioned.
  • I suggest adding the garrison column, because it is important for the band.
  • The external links check shows two dead link and one suspicious link.
  • A short summary of the table in section 2 is required, mentioning the history, the oldest and youngest bands, other other note worthy bands etc. Most of the MILHIS FLs do have the thing.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks very much for this thorough review. I'm in the process of making these updates and corrections now and will ping you as soon as they're done. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga I have now finished making all these corrections, except for the "garrison column" as I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean? Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The emblem images are too domination the entire the entire row. Consider reducing them to some extent, also this creates space for the garrison column I am talking about. Garrison is nothing but the headquarters, for example, U.S. Marine Band it is Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., for West Point Band it is West Point, New York. The headquarters need to be mentioned. Also per WP:ACCESS, the colour needs a symbol along with it. For example see 1982 Asian Games medal table. Also the key is never detailed. You assigned green to army bands, white for naval bands and so. But this was never explained prior to the reader. Take help of {{legend}}. If this is done there is no need to mention their service under their title. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks for the feedback. Will get to this shortly. LavaBaron (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - I've added a "garrison" column, added a {{legend}}, and resized each insignia by 1/3. Please LMK if I missed anything. Thanks again. LavaBaron (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Since you have provided the legend, there is no need to mention again the service branch. Remove the service mentioned under the name of each ensemble. As I have said before, a matching symbol is needed along with the colour, see MOS:CONTRAST. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks, I've removed the sub-heads and added numerical symbols to the color legend. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there no article for USAFA Band? If there is one, link it, else make it a red link because it is notable. Also link the services in legend. I am done with this here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks again for your patience, I've redlinked the USAFA Band (no article as of yet, it's on my to-do list) and wikilinked the legend. LavaBaron (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well done Baron. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Quick remark the table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS, there are no row or col scopes, and colour alone is used to designate the units. Also unsure as to why we need such large font in the Ensemble column, nor the over-capitalisation of "DUI, Badge, Emblem, or Logo". And "On Brave Old Army Team" needs a comma after On. Much more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, and since this initial comment has been summarily ignored for four days, I'll have to oppose this list's promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I see that Baron has addressed the comments. Please have a look at the list. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Why do you oppose, may I know the reason? If could come up with some comments, they can be dealt. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as looks well done and very colorful nice job. Sagecandor (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Sagecandor! LavaBaron (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "A premier ensemble is a term used in the United States Armed Forces to refer to a military band that has special status." "special status" sounds vague.
  • "While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands had existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s" I would say "have existed" - "had" seems to imply that they no longer exist.
  • "they are not deployable outside the United States, meaning competition for billets is fierce." I don't think any change is needed, but this seems a surprising comment. Don't some first rate musicians join the armed forces partly because they want to see the world?
  • " other military media collateral". I am not sure what this means.
  • Being colour blind, I find it hard to tell apart the marine and army. It is not crucial as you also use numbers, but could you use a more distinctive colour such as yellow or black for one of them?
  • "active-duty band" What would a non-active-duty band be?
  • Looks fine. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Dudley Miles, I've made these corrections. To your question, "premier ensembles" do occasionally leave the CONUS for military tattoos, and so forth (the U.S. Army Band recently appeared at the Norsk Militær Tattoo in Oslo), but it's not a regular occurrence as they have heavy domestic commitments primarily in the National Capital Region and their service contracts preclude a duty station outside the CONUS. Many foreign performances are handled by the 120 or so "non-premier" ensembles. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Dudley Miles! LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments just a few quick notes on a first brief run-through (oppose still stands).

  • "United States Armed Forces" or "U.S. armed forces", be consistent.
  • Do you really think our readership need "ceremony" to be linked?
  • "There are currently" see WP:ASOF.
  • Lead image caption is a fragment, no period required.
  • And "The" isn't part of the show's title.
  • "While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands have existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s, the idea of forming superior music ensembles posted in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. originated with John Pershing in the early 1920s and formalized with the transition of the U.S. Navy School of Music from a training program for naval bandsmen to a multi-service institute responsible for Navy, Marine Corps, and Army premier musicians in 1951" how many words in this single sentence?
  • "typically attracted the highest-caliber musicians available" really? Do international-quality musicians vie to join the US military? I don't think so.
  • What is EPW?
  • "Eleven of the U.S. military's 137 regular...." MOSNUM.
  • I see no utility at all in the colour scheme and odd numbering of the eleven groups.
  • Instead of all the redirects, it would be better to actually name the key subjects of this list explicitly, i.e. United States Marine Band. Why hide it behind your own abbreviation regime?
  • dead link right now. Along with all other "usarmyband.com" links.... Maybe they'll come back tomorrow.
  • No good reason for the larger font in the table, unless you're aiming for that "high school project" look.
  • You have "Wind bands" as a category, looks to me that these are more than just "wind bands", I see "brass bands" as a minimum... perhaps even "marching bands" and the subsequent refined categories.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed those comments that can be addressed and that don't conflict with consensus input from previous reviewers. I didn't incorporate a few edits I didn't think would improve the list (e.g. standardizing to "U.S. armed forces" throughout since I feel it's more conventional it be written out in the first instance, and abbreviated in subsequent use) or that seemed to represent a personal preference that seemed to conflict with the preference of other reviewers. Sorry you're having trouble with the links! Thanks for the review, sorry you still oppose but respect your decision. Have a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please respond inline to each comment so it's clear what you have and haven't decided to implement. FWIW the dead link(s) now work, so it would be interesting to know how it's an RS, but otherwise fine. "Standardizing" to U.S. armed forces is a capitalisation issue, sometimes you have Armed Forces, sometimes just armed forces, sometimes United States Armed Forces, sometimes U.S. armed forces. Like the "big font", just looks inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The coloured key plus the number is now a bit silly, you might as well have another column for Unit and ditch the maps, considering all but one of those maps shows pretty much the same thing. And it's The Washington Post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Great catch, it appears an IP editor changed to caps [8], I've changed it back. LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

NWA World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  17:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is my second time nominating this for FL, the first time it failed more because of lack of input than any unresolved issues in the list. I came back to this one after taking several other similar lists to FL status such as Mexican National Lightweight Championship, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and List of current CMLL Championships. This list has incorporated all comments and feedback I have received from other FLC, FAC or GAN processes I have been through for Mexican based professional wrestling championships. As always I am looking forward to getting any and all feedback to improve this list.  MPJ-DK  17:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "The promotion had control of the championship from 1946 until, 1996 " - no need for that comma after "until"
    • "up until 2007 where it returned" - should probably be "when" rather than "where"
    • "its holders were determined" - presumably they still are..........?
    • "the title was given the NWA-prefix" - don't think the dash is needed in "NWA prefix"
    • "The championship vacated due after outside interference" => "The championship was vacated due after outside interference"
    • "The championship was vacated by YOSSINO in order to for him to concentrate" - seems a bit mangled at the end...........
    • "The official weight of some of the champions have not been documented" => "The official weights of some of the champions have not been documented"
  • That's it for now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude that you for your input, greatly appreciated. I believe I have addressed all your concerns?  MPJ-DK  21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Some more stuff I've spotted:
    • "its holders are by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition" - missing word there I think
    • "EMLL vacated the championship for verified reasons." - I'm guessing this should be unverified reasons......?
    • Something seems to have gone a bit odd with the row immediately below Chamaco valaguez' reign
    • Also, you have a lot of very short sentences in the lead, and I'd check whether they can be combined into longer sentences which could flow better. For example, you have "In 1996 and 1997 the championship was defended as part of the J-Crown until the J-Crown was broken up into the original individual championships by the end of 1997. The championship was once again inactive after the J-Crown concept was abandoned. The Championship was inactive until over a year later when Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion", which could be written in a much more "punchy" style as "In 1996 and 1997 the championship was defended as part of the J-Crown until the J-Crown was broken up into the original individual championships, after which it was once again inactive until early 1999 when Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion"
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Mississippi[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this article as it is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities, towns and villages within the state of Mississippi. I have modelled this list off of my recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and List of cities and towns in Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated templates into the tables which allows the list to be updated quickly after the next census to keep it the information up to date and to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Wow, this is an incredible list, Mattximus. It is well-referenced, attractively arranged, and well-composed. I support it. LavaBaron (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking good. Only quibble is Mississippi is the 32nd most populous state with 2,968,103 inhabitants but the 31st largest by land area spanning 46,923.27 square miles (121,530.7 km2) of land - the "but" is contrastive, and I don't consider the difference in rank enough to be contrastive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Good catch! Fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
support then...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The largest municipality by population in Mississippi is Jackson with 173,514 residents, and the smallest municipality by population is Satartia with 55 residents." I don't think you need to repeat "municipality by population".
  • Changed
  • I assume CDP means census designated place but it would be helpful to explain it.
Removed acronym, added link to page explaining what it is.
  • The note on Byram says it incorporated 16 June 2009, the incorporation date column 15 June 2009, and the article on Byram in 1870 but surrendered during the Depression. This needs looking at.
Yes it appears the official source from the State of Mississippi is actually wrong, the correct date is 16 June, this is confirmed by the US census and various local news reports. I linked the US census table instead of the local news sources as it seems most official.
  • According to the note on Walls the incorporation date of 12 April 1972 (sorry I use British style dates out of habit), but the note says that this date is for the village of Memphis, and the larger town of Walls did not incorporate until 2003. Should the date not therefore be given as 2003?
This is very confusing to me too. I tried to clarify it in the note. From what I understand, Memphis incorporated in 1972, then later amalgamated Walls (which, since it was larger, the whole lot retained the name Walls), so this corporate entity, though name is changed, is indeed incorporated in 1972.
  • As population figures for two municipalities in 2000 are not available, the total percentage figure for growth between 2000 and 2010 is inaccurate and should be omitted.
Yes I noticed this and have done this on one other list with clear missing data. However in this case, there are indeed new incorporated regions which adds very little to the population total. I suppose we can view this as an "increase in the number of people under municipal government" rather than absolute population growth rate. What do you think? Any alternatives to deleting the percent change? Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can say it is the increase in number under municipal govt as you include the change for Diamondhead, which was only incorporated in 2012. If the missing figures are similar to the 2010 ones, that would reduce the increase from 3.6% to 2.7%, which is significant. I think the only alternatives are to delete the percentages or insert estimated figures for the missing ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable Dudley Miles, removed the percent change to keep it simple. Mattximus (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks fine apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dudley Miles once again for your reviews of my lists! Great catches. I addressed everything but the last one which is absolutely up for debate. If you think strongly there is no alternative, I will just delete it. Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

List of England international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of England international footballers with at least 10 caps, and has been moulded on the already promoted France, Germany, Israel and Scotland lists. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "Despite the first England international match taking place on 30 November 1872, the first player to reach 10 caps for his country was Norman Bailey," => don't see what the first clause is relevant, or what point it's trying to make......?
    • "England's highest scorer in FIFA World Cup finals matches is Gary Lineker, with 10 goals,[8] and the highest scorer in UEFA European Championship finals matches is Alan Shearer, with seven goals.[9]" => both as numbers or both as words, please
    • Players highlighted as in the team that won the World Cup seems to include squad members who didn't play in the final, so you may wish to change the wording in the key
  • Think that's it - ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does englandstats.com meet FA criteria? It's maintained by some random guy who doesn't know the difference between it's and its. I think it would be preferable, if possible, to use the English FA. Looks good otherwise. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Tamannaah filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I created this list in June 2015 and actively reworked on it in April 2016. It has been copy-edited twice: once by Jaguar, and later by Twofingered Typist (GOCE). I have postponed it from nominating because of edit wars. Currently, the article is relatively stable. I'm looking forward for constructive comments, if any. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Maharashtra, WikiProject Mumbai, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and WikiProject Women. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG making a very brief return to FLC. I don't intend to revisit this nominations. Here are a few thoughts you can consider or dismiss:

  • "Tamannaah's breakthrough roles in Telugu and Tamil cinema came with Happy Days and Kalloori" - a respectively is needed here.
  • Done Added.
  • "Tamannaah had five roles in 2009 including:" - I think instead of the colon we need a comma before the word "including". I have not seen colon being used like this not at least in these examples.
  • Done Removed.
  • "one of the most sought-after actresses" - I think popular would do better than sought-after which reads kind of informal.
  • "a nomination in the Best Actress – Telugu category at the 59th" - in a lead consisting of only three paragraphs the usage of the word "category" is very frequent.
  • Reduced the occurrences to two.
  • "She appeared in four films in the following year" - the second "in" is unnecessary.
  • Done Removed.
  • " While Veeram was a profitable venture,[21] Entertainment was only a moderate success,[22] the remaining underperformed at the box office" - "while" is a conjunction used to combine two sentences, not three.
  • Good catch. Fixed it.
  • "Tamannaah played Avanthika, a warrior princess" - we do not need the name of her role unless it is a part of any literature or a character of historic significance. I see that some more are repeated in the next sentences; better leave them in the table.
  • Done as suggested.
  • For some reason, rowspan is discouraged in filmographies.
  • I don't think so. It is harmless enough; i'm able to sort the coloumns with no issues.
  • For bilingual films, I don't think you need to make two rows for them eg instead of Hindi<br>Tamil, you can simply use a comma i.e. Hindi, Tamil.
  • I don't think that it would be helpful. A sortable coloumn, Language may be affected because of this.
  • I think references look better in the center position.
  • Fixed it.

Support Although this needs a bit of work, I don't intend to return to this nomination so this is up to the nominator whether to consider my points or disagree with them explaining why. Overall this is a decent effort which with some work can be brought to FL status. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time and providing some comments. Considering that the reviewer shall not return, i should not expect anything more. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Good list. Although I would prefer if the primary sources were replaced for some awards and films. Cowlibob (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support My comments have been resolved. All the best. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, meets the standards. —Vensatry (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

  • Tamannaah performed an item number in the Kannada-Telugu bilingual Jaguar: "Sampige", but that is the Kannada title. I found that the song was titled "Mandara Thailam" in Telugu, but can a source be added for this? Even a video (but from a verified YouTube channel) will do.
  • Done
  • "Kannada language" redirects to "Kannada".
  • Done
  • I don't know, but is it fine to include her appearance in Jaguar in the lead? I say this due to it being her only Kannada film.
  • Vensatry, would it be better if the lead linked to the languages rather than industries, like this? Tamannaah is an Indian actress known for her work in Telugu and Tamil language films. She made her debut in 2005 at the age of 15 with Chand Sa Roshan Chehra in Hindi. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed —Vensatry (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Changed as per suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and Vensatry: Are you both satisfied with the responses to your comments? --PresN 20:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@PresN:Your take on the first point (under the source review)? Btw, {{ping}} doesn't work anymore. —Vensatry (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Yeah, right now that cite is actually to... the event itself. It's completely non verifiable without a time machine. You need a recording or a 3rd-party reference to refer to. Even a valid broadcast information would work, like Cite TV episode. --PresN 16:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (Oh, and {{ping}} and {{re}} are both just redirects to {{reply to}}, and I got your message, so... pretty sure ping still works (usually).)
Well, if that is the case, i have removed the reference and the content associated with it. And, it is unlikely that i may find something actually fit. So, anything else from my side to be addressed? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You still have three {{cite AV media}} refs. —Vensatry (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: That's because there are no RSs (like Rediff, TOI, The Hindu, Hindustan Times) that show the actors' character names, as well as who the director is. There are reviews from IndiaGlitz (which is deemed unreliable by WP) however.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@PresN and Vensatry: I've provided links from YouTube (obviously from verified publishers). Anything else? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
For YT links, you've used both 'cite AV Media' and 'cite web' templates. —Vensatry (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Rectified on Pavan's behalf.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The publisher/work parameters are still inconsistent. —Vensatry (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Can you be more specific?  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In YT links. —Vensatry (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Just rectified them.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments from Kailash

The source doesn't say so. —Vensatry (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Try using YouTube videos as refs. She's there in the songs "Gama Gama" and "Oru Nanban Irundhaal". Ironic, isn't it? Trishtrashers played Simran's friend in Jodi and here Tamannahspeaks plays Trishtrashers' friend.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I hate this. Any police officer or high court would pass the videos as credible references (even though they are fan uploads), but (scoffs) Wikipedia wouldn't do the same. Now if we say Chand Sa Roshan Chehra was Tamannaah's debut film, it is wrong. But if we say it was her debut in a major role, others will be like, "what did she do before?" and that puts us in limbo. Was Tamannaah credited onscreen in Enakku 20 Unakku 18? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Uncredited. I tried searching for other sources (in both English and Tamil), but none of them seem to say that Tamannah had an uncredited role in the film.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved greatly from when it was demoted. I have read through the concerns of the demoters and tried to address each concern thoroughly. I believe enough work has been carried out to deserve the FL status again. I have also expanded upon some things that weren't mentioned to best fit the format of the other featured lists of the same category; for example, Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: WikiProject Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, and WikiProject Lists.

  • Comment - Shouldn't the "Notes" for Captain EO specify that it is a short film or even an amusement park attraction?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply to Deoliveirafan: Done by Chase|talk 01:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • " at age 5 " five, per MOSNUM
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Jackson had seven of his solo albums promoted with " -> "Jackson promoted seven of his solo albums with..."
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "refer them as "short films"." ref needed.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "released into home video" seems like an odd phrase to me, perhaps "released on home video"?
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Several mentions of "The Jacksons" in the table (all of which need to be wikilinked as it's sortable) but "The Jackson 5" in the lead. Be consistent.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • All linked items in the table should be linked every time as the table could sort in any order.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " Michael Jackson's Vision." should be in italics.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " and was released in 1988" unnecessary as there's a column for this.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The video was released in 1988..." ditto.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Check for other such repeats.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "to name a few." not encyclopedic.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " Munich, Germany " no need to disambiguate Munich.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " ex Living Color" -> "ex-Living Colour".
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " The music video was 4:46 minutes" in duration or in length or long".
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Eddie Murphy caption is complete sentence so needs a full stop.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Amazon Rainforest " no need for capital R.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "with famous Croatian actor" remove "famous"
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "40 Acres & A Mule Filmworks." and, not &.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Vevo" not "VEVO"
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Where is Moonwalker Blu-ray referenced?
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And the last two DVDs?
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Short Film" -> "Short film"
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Be consistent with date formats in the references.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Allmovie ->AllMovie.
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove "See all music videos by MICHAEL JACKSON chronologically ordered here.".
Done --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to The Rambling Man: I hope I have addressed all of your concerns to your satisfaction. --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - before I review it, I should add that the lead is very short. Only five out of God knows how many videos are mentioned. Videos released in 70s, 2000s and 2010s are not at all mentioned. Many of his videos from 80s and 90s are also missing. I don't think that you have modeled the lead based on Gaga or Perry's videographies, 'cause they both have at least three paragraphs and they have been in the game for less than a decade as opposed to Jackson, who was active for over four decades. If you cover them properly, you might end up writing four paras. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to FrB.TG: I did not alter the lead in any way from what it was during its previous status as a featured list. I also didn't model the page after those one's; I just used them as a reference for what I expanded. --Chase | talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I should also add, I mostly addressed the concerns from the article demotion here. --Chase | talk 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you should have. The lead should also be comprehensive and cover the subject in detailed manner. Completeness does not apply only to the list. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

List of first overall WNBA draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the featured list NBA first overall draft pick, it has an engaging lead, and is easy to navigate. Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment hello Pink Fae, and sorry that it's taken two months for someone to at least acknowledge your nomination! I noticed that you're editing infrequently. Are you still interested in pursuing this nomination? If so I'll gladly add a review in the next few days. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The Rambling Man, I still am interested in pursuing this nomination. I don't edit a lot, but I do from time to time. :) Pink Fae (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Melbourne[edit]

Nominator(s): —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is quite engaging with the reader, with interesting graphics and images. Additionally, the content is regularly up-to-date, sources are not simply "Emporis" or "Skyscrapercity" forums (an issue with other FL tallest building lists). Furthermore, list employs a similar style/format to Hong Kong and New York City tallest buildings lists, in that it details the history of skyscrapers within Melbourne, their use, geographical location, etc. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment very thorough list with clearly much effort put into it. I do have the sense that it's a bit too much however, and could be trimmed.
  • First, the table is too wide and won't fit on most computer screens, so there is accessibility issues. The records columns on the far right, for example, can simply be added to notes. As a column they are mostly blank anyway.
  • Featured lists no longer begin with "This list ranks completed and topped out Melbourne skyscrapers"... You can simply start it with Melbourne has X skyscrapers that stand at least 150 metres tall based on standard height measurement"
  • You don't need a section called "Cityscape" if there is no text to go with it. You can just move that picture to be directly above the list, and save a bit of space.
  • I do have a big issue with "proposed" or "approved" or "cancelled" buildings being on this list as many of them will not ever end up being built, running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. And "vision" buildings should not be on the list unless they have their own wikipedia page. Otherwise there is notability issues.
This is just a first pass, hope it helps! Mattximus (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Mattximus: thanks very much for your review.
I'll respond to each point you've made:
  • Table size has been reduced; image sizes have been reduced (120px → 100px); records column has been removed, content (already) merged into notes, per your advice.
  • Lead has been reworded per your advice.
  • Cityscape section has been removed, image has been retained in following section, per your advice.
  • Tricky part: I'll note, such section/s re "proposed" "approved" "cancelled" buildings are included in most tallest buildings featured lists (Hong Kong, Chicago, New York City, to name a few) – Melbourne has the same format. Nevertheless, regarding this list in question: no building listed is unsourced (all projects are verified by reliable sources provided); additionally, re Crystal: this list isn't necessarily aserting that the proposed/approved projects will be built, it's simply displaying information about active projects that have been lodged for planning approval to the State Government. Furthermore: I have been actively creating articles on buildings listed in those sections, whether they be proposed, approved, cancelled or vision.
I hope I make sense. If you would like clarification, please let me know. Again, thank you for taking your time to review this list, I really appreciate it. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • I have some copy editing comments, but these may be just my taste so ignore them if you disagree.
    • @Dudley Miles: two minds are better than one, so I don't mind addressing the concerns of another editor! :) I appreciate your input, and will answer every concern in italics as follows. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it would be helpful to define a high-rise building in the first sentence - presumably one of over a specified height?
    • I've linked high-rises, as to encompass the various definitions of such.
  • I think you need to explain your criteria for inclusion in the article in the lead.
    • It opens with the amount of buildings in general the city comprises, and then it specifies the amount of skyscrapers; the actual list within the page lists only skyscrapers (and it is defined within that section that only skyscrapers are included).
  • "completed and or topped-out". What is the difference?
    • Building terminology present throughout similar lists; topped-out proceeds completion in that the skyscraper or building is architecturally or structurally complete -- but not open. Topped-out is also wiki-linked.
  • "Of the ten tallest buildings in the Australia". The second "the" looks like a typo.
    • Sentence should read "of the ten (10) tallest buildings in Australia", the ≠ ten.
  • "other locations of prominent skyscrapers and tall buildings in Melbourne, include: Carlton, Docklands, Southbank, South Melbourne, South Yarra and St Kilda Road." I would delete the first comma and possibly also the colon.
    • Agree, done.
  • "a western skyline and an eastern skyline. These two skylines are divided by the Yarra River". Suggest "These are divided by the Yarra River".
    • Agree, done.
  • "The western side consists of more density than the east". This sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe "Buildings are more densely packed in the west than the east."
    • Agree, done.
  • "120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" Why "respectively".
    • The sentence in full: "city's tallest buildings–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" – the use of 'respectively' is to suggest that 120 Collins is taller than 101 Collins (they are the "city's tallest", but one is taller than the other, hence the order of the sentence). If you believe it still doesn't make sentence, iit can be removed.
  • "tallest by roof" What does this mean as opposed to just tallest? Excluding the roof? If so, it would be helpful to explain.
    • So, 120 Collins is taller than Rialto because it has a spire that extends past Rialto's roof (which has no spire/architectural feature (as defined by CTBUH)); despite this, the roof of 120 Collins is shorter than Rialto. I have clarified the sentence: "two of the city's tallest buildings to architectural feature–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively".
  • "and whilst it was demolished in 1980," Maybe "which was demolished in 1980;"
  • "Skyscrapers in Melbourne have a long and illustrious history." "illustrious" is POV.
    • Agree, done.
  • "35 collective years" I think "in total" would be clearer than "collective", and you need to specify up to what date, presumably 2016.
    • Agree, done; sentence specifies that Melbourne comprises the most skyscrapers since 2014.
  • "The APA Building (Australian Building) was one of Australia's first skyscrapers and the third tallest building in the world" This repeats what is said above. I suggest deleting the paragraph and merging into the comments about the APA Building above.
    • Agree, done.
  • More to follow, but the detail seems excessive for a list article, as an editor observes above. The 'History and specifications' section might be transferred to the section on skyscrapers in Architecture in Melbourne. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

MelbourneStar there are comments here that have been waiting to be addressed for over a month, are you intending to return to this candidate? If not, or if we received nothing in the next few days, we'll archive this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I've only noticed Dudley's concerns now, as I've had a few busy weeks IRL of recent and without being pinged I have regrettably forgotten about the FA nomination. Nevertheless, I intend to respond to Dudley's concerns within the next few days. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem, just checking that the nomination wasn't dead! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

List of senators in the 14th Parliament of Pakistan[edit]

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, is up to date and is well referenced. Saqib (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Initial comment by Dudley

  • The lead is ungrammatical and unclear. I can have a go at a redraft if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose poorly written lead, poorly formed citations (about fifty or so have the same title!). Needs real work before it's a shout for a candidate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens[edit]

Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, it has the potential of becoming a featured list, i previously nominated this article for FLC, but i was already in the 88th Academy Awards nomination process, so i had to remove this nomination. I firmly believe that this article after minor changes and suggestions will become the featured list. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Birdienest81
  • Ref 34: Empire Awards --> Empire since it is the entity behind the awards and the website you are citing fro.
@Birdienest81: It has always been like that, other articles as well are all linked to only Empire Awards page not Empire Magazine.
  • Refs 3 and 34: Cinema Blend and cinemascandinavia are not really strong, credible sources.
@Birdienest81: Done. Removed 3 and reinstate new and credible source for Bodil Awards. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 2:23, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 of the 4 paragraphs have nothing to do with accolades, and the 3rd is a bit tangential. I recommend rewriting the intro to actually be about accolades. Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Tend to agree with Nergaal above, the lead is a bit bloated and could use trimming to focus on the awards rather than records or film plots... It's not until the second sentence of para 3 that we start talking about accolades.
  • " The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series, and first of three in Star Wars sequel trilogy. It stars" I guess that should be a comma rather than a full stop...
  • I've gone through it twice and count only 30 wins and 98 noms.
  • "$2 billion" etc should use non-breaking spaces.
  • There's one "pending" award (AMA) in the infobox but not the table...
  • Two runners-up in the infobox but five in the table.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Rise Against discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Rise Against is an American rock band, known for their political activism and social justice inspired lyrics. After a peer review, I feel this list now meets FL criteria. Have at it! Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments FYI: This is probably my first time reviewing a discography,
    • The first paragraph of the lead is too short compared to others. That should be avoided.
    • Rise Against's next album would be Endgame in 2011 - "would be" seems too colloquial to me, maybe "Endgame, Rise Against's next album, was released in 2011"
    • most successful album chart-wise to date - to what date? Will this statement be true next year?
Reworded. I removed the part that mentions 85,000 copies sold, as I had only mentioned sales for Appeal to Reason, and no other album.
    • The 2014 album - what album is that? The Black Market? Be more specific
Done. Also, I condensed the lead into two decent sized paragraphs, instead of one decent sized paragraph and two short paragraphs.
    • The lead overall listed the studio albums with a couple of singles and a compilation album. Nothing on documentaries (2) or music videos (17)
Yeah I knew this would be problematic. Most discography pages solely focus on albums and singles, as they reach music charts, while the lesser known extended plays and documentaries, barely sell. I can include the documentaries if you want, but the music videos are almost never put in the lead, even on FL pages.
    • The lead should also mention that the band's former name was Transistor Revolt. I was surprised by that B note.
Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. The band was known as Transistor Revolt for a year at most, and of all the sources I've found, a grand total of two mention their previous name, both of which are used in the list. Almost no one knows there original name. Besides, there are several famous bands that were originally under a different name. For example, Maroon 5 was originally Kara's Flowers, while Nirvana had four different names including Pen Cap Chew, Bliss, and Ted Ed Fred. Neither of those band articles or discography pages (both of which are at FL status) mention the band's original name in the lead.
Maroon 5 discography mentions the old name.Cheetah <small(talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, whoops, I guess I just glossed over it. Anyway, I added the band's original name.
    • The tables are missing captions per MOS:DTT
    • The "notes" should be a separate section
    • Reference from Bundesverband Musikindustrie is not in English
    • Why is the reference for "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" formatted differently?
It's a cite web instead of a cite AV media notes. The ref I used to source The Black Market also mentioned that "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" was the album's first single, so I decided to reuse it
Is "*" really necessary?Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • What do the Media notes mean? What is the purpose of listing that under references?
Media notes are basically another way of saying liner notes for CDs. Since I couldn't find refs for most of the singles to prove they were indeed released as singles, I just decided to cite the CD single itself, which is accepted in discography pages
I've checked three Discography FL pages and none of them have such lines: Maroon 5 discography, Selena Gomez discography, and Evanescence discographyCheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I've been using Azealia Banks discography as a model, but after looking through WP:DISCOGSTYLE, I don't find anything that says that singles need to be sourced. I guess I put myself through more trouble than I needed to. I will remove the single citations, but I'd like to keep the album citations, since that is in almost every discography list.

--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, please, let me strike my comments next time. Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job with the article! I cannot find anything that needs correction. Good luck with getting this promoted. If possible, could you possible review my FLC for Alyssa Milano discography? I know it is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have the time or interest of doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

List of poker hand categories[edit]

Nominator(s): Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was formally featured but got delisted for various reasons but I believe the list is now up to standards. I believe I have addressed all comments in the talk page and delisting discussion, and have generally improved the content and appearance of the article. Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Revise Reference 10 to avoid WP: Shouting.
  • If possible, add ALT texts for the images in the “Hand categories” section. I understand if this is not possible given the structure of the section, but I wanted to double-check on this point.
  • You do not need to repeatedly link the word “poker” after its first use in the article. Please remove any extraneous links to avoid WP:Overlinking. (The repetition in the link primarily occurs in the first line of those subsections discussing the different types of hands.) The same comment applies to the linking of the word “suit” and “high card”. I would advise that you look for other similar examples in the article to avoid WP:Overlinking.

@Hpesoj00: Great work with this article! It was a very informative read, and I will definitely use this as resource as I have grown very rusty with poker knowledge. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. If possible, could you review my FLC? I know that it is very outside of interest field, but it would be great to get input from a new pair of eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47:
  • Fixed the reference ALL CAPS.
  • I initially linked each section as if it were a stand-alone article, but I have received feedback from several people about this now, so I have removed the extra links.
  • I believe that the card images do have alternative text; the images are provided via Template:Card.
  • Thank you! I apologize for missing this during my earlier read.
Thanks for the review. Let me know if your points are addressed. I will check out your article ASAP! Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Thank you for your prompt response. This was a very helpful article, and an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment quick one, it's mildly confusing in the third para of the lead which states "There are nine hand categories ..." and "...when using all nine hand categories." when ten categories are listed. I know one uses a wild card, but that isn't 100% clear. I'll do a proper review in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've tried to clarify. Looking forward to the rest of your review! Hpesoj00 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jnanpith Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) and Vivvt (talk · contribs)

One of the most important literary awards in India. The list has gone through major changes recently and we believe that it follows the required guidelines to be a FL. Hoping to see some constructive comments/criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Quite a few issues with the English, I have to say.....
    • "the award is bestowed only on the Indian writers who have been writing in Indian languages...." => "the award is bestowed only on Indian writers writing in Indian languages...."
      • Done
    • "The first recipient of the award was Malayalam litterateur" - what is a "litterateur"? I am a native English speaker and have never seen this word in my life
      • This is a word with French origin as per Oxford.
        • It must be a super super obscure word. For the benefit of readers not familiar with it, I would suggest using "literary experts" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Done
            • Still being used in two other places in the article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "who was awarded in 1965" => "who received the award in 1965"
      • Done
    • "The rules were revised for the forthcoming years to consider works during the period of last twenty years" => "The rules were revised in subsequent years to consider only works published during the preceding twenty years"
      • Done
    • "As of 2015," - we are now quite close to 2017, is this still true?
      • @ChrisTheDude:Thats correct. 2016 award is not yet declared. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "to start a scheme in literary or cultural field" - I think just "to start a scheme" is sufficient, the fact that it was for a book makes it obvious that it was in the literary field
      • Done
    • "were invited in Delhi" => "were invited to Delhi"
      • Done
    • "Sampurnanand presided the committee" => "Sampurnanand acted as president of the committee"
      • Done
    • "The first Selection Board comprised of" => "The first Selection Board consisted of"
      • Done
    • "The works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered" => "Works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered"
      • Done
    • "translations of the work in Hindi or English" => "translations of the work into Hindi or English"
      • Done
    • "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for all the languages" => "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for each of the languages"
      • Done
    • "The language of the recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years" => "The language of the most recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years"
      • Done
    • "The Selection Board consists of maximum eleven and minimum seven members" => "The Selection Board consists of between seven and eleven members"
      • Done
    • "Having final authority in selection, the recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board" => "The recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board, which has final authority in selection"
      • Done
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I have addressed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. 10:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - apologies for not returning here earlier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Prose comments and source review - spot-checks not included

  • "cash prize of ₹1 lakh (US$1,500)" - I think it might be wise to not use the INRConvert template as it causes a problem for inflation. The date of the amount goes back to 60s and the date of conversion.... well. Besides, it's an international encyclopedia not American/Canadian/Australian...
  • "Malayalam writer G. Sankara Kurup" - I think using the definite article (i.e. the Malayalam writer) is more desirable in BrEng (I might be correct in assuming that it and IndEng are very similar) and should be used here and from herein.
    • Done
  • "chaired by Kaka Kalelkar" - just her last name will do since his name was mentioned in the previous para.
    • Done
  • "which also can be" better as "which can also be"
    • Done
  • Formatting - I personally wiki-link entries on first instance but I think Vivvt thinks another way.
    • Correct. :)
  • Ref 9 - I would remove Asian News International.
    • Done
  • Ref 13 - The Telegraph => The Telegraph (Calcutta). We have other versions too.
    • Done
  • Ref 15 - India Today; italics please.
    • Done
  • Ref 30 - perhaps consider removing Press Trust of India since you are inconsistent when it comes to this.
    • Done
  • Ref 33, 39 - ditto.
    • Done

That is all I could find. My concerns are not very serious and I am confident that the nominators will deal with them properly so I don't see the need for a revisit. Based on that, I am adding my support for the nomination's promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG: Thanks much for your comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
Since this is becoming stale now I have asked for more reviews at the WP Literature, WP India and WP Awards & prizes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

I saw your notice at WP Awards & prizes. My only question is why is this a Featured List and not a Featured Article? If it's a list then the emphasis is on the list of award winners. In which case we normally have separate articles for the award itself rather than trying to fit a full article into the top of a list. See Nobel Prize in Literature and List of Nobel laureates in Literature (Featured). ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Suggest a separate article for the award, move most of the prose content to it, and rename this article List of Jnanpith Award winners. Otherwise what happens is once it becomes enshrined as Featured content in list format, it becomes difficult for future editors to expand the non-list portion without breaking its status as a list article (adding many sub-sections, extended content about controversies, third party reporting about the award on a year by year basis etc..) Once it's featured content, it becomes difficult to break off the list portion into a separate article from the article portion (about the prize) because there is 'community consensus'. Design it from the start around the assumption there will be future expansion about the award itself. -- GreenC 15:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: There never is a clear-cut demarcation of a list and article on Wikipedia, which is always a debatable issue and I suppose it is settled case by case, which also makes sense. Through various observations so far I and @Vivvt: have been deciding on whether it’s a list or article simply based on the encyclopaedic content we can find, look at how it has developed and then seeing the size of prose opt for FA or FL. Dadasaheb Phalke Award is one such FL where it does not have a separate parent article and the list is in it. Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna is similar example of FL, which has more text than DPA and also includes a controversy section at the end to mention some notable incidences. Likewise, Bharat Ratna (current GA) is another joint page but is treated as article for the large amount of prose present. Same is with Geet Ramayan (current GA) which is also basically by nature a huge list of songs but has more prose around it and is hence treated as article. Coming back to our subject topic, the content present now is more or less what will stay with minor changes related to the "most recent recipient". There have been no substantially documented controversies so far since 50 years of this award and any such controversies arising further can very well be documented in few sentences within this current format. But i would say that most of those controversies would not find way here anyways and would need to be removed as case of recentism and sloppy we-brought-it-to-you-first type of gossipy journalism. But as I said, we always have space for few condensed sentences if they really are worth it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It's fine as it stands. There's no need to create a separate article, it just leads to massive duplication and parallel maintenance issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Hornets draft history[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. I have worked on similar lists before, some became featured. This list includes some part of the FL I worked on more than 8 years ago. All comments/suggestions/questions are welcome and will be dealt with. Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo
Resolved

It's a shame this hasn't gotten any attention yet. Anyway, as a sports fan in general, I'll take a look at the list.

  • Is it possible to have lead picture be of a play wearing a Hornets jersey. It looks weird seeing as how the lead picture has Mourning in a Heat jersey, aka not the team discussed in the article. Try Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, or Jeffery Taylor
  • "Two years after the Hornets' departure, the Charlotte Bobcats were established in 2004 as the NBA's 30th team." Why is it important to mention they are the NBA's 30th team? You didn't mention how many teams were in the NBA in 1988, but even so, it's a meaningless statement to the list about the draft picks.
  • "The franchise's name was changed back to the Hornets at the conclusion of the 2013–14 season – one year after the team in Louisiana renamed itself the New Orleans Pelicans." Link 2013–14 NBA season. Also, why the dash? A simple comma would do the trick, as the dash kind of looks out of place.
  • "The franchise's history and records while in Charlotte would also be returned to its original city." This sentence really makes no sense to me. Which team is this sentence talking about, the Hornets/Pelicans, or the Bobcats/Hornets?
  • "In 1989, the NBA agreed with the National Basketball Players' Association to reduce drafts to two rounds, an arrangement that has remained the same up the present time." Link National Basketball Players Association, and remove the apostrophe after Players
  • "Bryant finished his career as ... an eleven-time all-NBA first team..." Link All-NBA Team
  • "Okafor was the only Bobcat voted to the NBA All-Rookie First Team." Source?
  • Why not just combine the Key and Selections sections into one section? Something along the lines of NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award.
  • Perhaps use 30em instead of 50em for the notes section. It separates all the notes into two sections, which is much cleaner than one long list

Good list, just needs some improvements here and there. Would you mind returning the favor and reviewing my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the review, Famous Hobo! I believe I dealt with your comments. Could you please take a second look? --Cheetah (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, even looks good. I'll Support, but note that I don't know too much about properly formatting tables and such. So you might have some other editors point out some mistakes in the format of the table, but regardless, I don't think the lead should give you too much trouble anymore. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • No idea what an "unprotected player" is, needs linking or notes.
    • 1988 NBA Expansion Draft is linked, if anyone needs further information.--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Not good enough, if I don't even know what one is, how do I know what to click to find out more about it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Ok, it's linked separately.--Cheetah (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid that still doesn't tell me what an "unprotected" player is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
            • It is a player who is not protected, I just added a Wiktionary link.--Cheetah (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • First image caption links the specific draft, the second image caption does not link the specific draft.
    • Fixed.
  • Interesting choice of when to and when not to link countries. What makes "Sweden" more exotic than "France"? I'd link 'em all, or not link any of them.
    • There are some weird edits happening throughout Wikipedia of unlinking some country links. Anyway, I unlinked all of them.
  • Club Team -> Club team.
    • Fixed.
  • Sort by Draft then by Round, it's a complete mystery what order it's in... I would expect Pick to be the secondary sort...
    • This page and all similar ones are always sorted by draft, then by round. What mystery do you see in that?--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Do the sort in the order I suggest. What is the resulting sort supposed to be? Perhaps it's a browser issue, but on Chrome the sort results are somewhat... random. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It is sorted as you suggest. By draft first, then if the draft year is same, then by round.--Cheetah (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • MOS:HASH suggests avoiding the use of the hash character to mean number, several instances of this in the Notes.
    • Fixed.
  • Check all publishers/works are correctly formatted, e.g. ref 36 The Charlotte Observer should be in italics.
    • The Charlotte Observer actually published the news, but I changed it to "work" to make it italics. There's no logic in publishers/works formatting because most of the links have the same publishers/works.--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs 14 through 17 use the same ref, just different page numbers, so use a general ref for the URL and just put page number refs in the article.

That's it for a quick once-over. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Grondemar
  • I don't think the key meets our standards for accessibility. Based on past experience, I recommend removing the key and directly linking the positions in each cell in the table (see List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft for an example).
  • To resolve The Rambling Man's issue with sorting by overall pick number, I recommend adding a column "Overall" that shows that information.
    • Are you sure it was his concern? He said, "I would expect Pick to be the secondary sort". Key word is secondary.--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend switching the Position and Nationality columns, since Nationality and School/Club team are more closely associated with each other.
  • Is the table header "Charlotte Hornets draft picks" really necessary? It's essentially the same as the article title.
    • It's required by MOS:DTT, what else would you recommend?--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I find the transaction descriptors next to the player names distracting and confusing. For example: "from Team A" or "from Team A via Team B, traded to Team C via Team D". Is it possible to consolidate this information in the Notes section? Perhaps some kind of color-coding or italics could be used to distinguish the players drafted by the Hornets/Bobcats that never played for the team.
  • Minor comment on the article title: would List of Charlotte Hornets draft picks be better? Draft history implies to be a longer article with a narrative of why the Hornets/Bobcats selected certain players in certain years, and how the picks turned out.
    • That's a big change and should get a consensus at WT:NBA since there are 28 more lists like this.--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel like the lead needs one more paragraph at the very start. It should read something like: "The Charlotte Hornets have selected XX players in the NBA Draft. YY of ZZ picks were with their own picks; the other AA selections were made with picks acquired through trade with other NBA teams. The Hornets, including their time known as the Charlotte Bobcats, have made BB first-round draft picks, CC top-ten picks, and one first-overall pick, Larry Johnson."

Note I highly support your choice of pictures in this article. :-) –Grondemar 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Oh Land[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure that it meets the required criteria for all featured lists. It is detailed, comprehensive, and provides a complete overview of the very talented singer's discography. All help is and would be appreciated. Thank you! Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Change “had” to “has” in the first sentence.
Done
  • This is just my own preference, but would suggest changing the first sentence to something similar to that used in List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus. The dependent clause does not seem that necessary and breaks up the flow. I would revise it to say “Danish singer-songwriter Oh Land had recorded material for four studio albums, X soundtrack albums, and guest features” to keep it short and sweet.
Done
  • I think you should break up the second sentence of the first paragraph into two. It might just be me, but the long dependent clause about Fauna sounds a little awkward to me, and may benefit by just being its own sentence. Plus, the sentence is pretty long and places more emphasis on the second album when the article should have a fair coverage of all of her songs.
Done
  • What do you mean by “and featured contributions from a variety of musicians” as when I look at the album’s page, I do not see any features so what kind of contributions do you mean?
Done
  • The lead appears to have a lot of focus on the second album, and I was wondering what led to this decision. I understand if this is her only successful album or her only album that had successful singles, but I just wanted to point this out to you.
The most information is available for this album, and like you pointed out, it is her most successful album. :) Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would avoid language like “most recent album” as the artist may release more albums in the future, and it is somewhat unnecessarily repetitive as the album’s release date says that by itself.
Done
  • You mention in the first sentence that this artist has recorded material for soundtracks, but you do not discuss this in the lead. Make sure to list this in the second paragraph either before or after the sentences about the guest features to avoid confusion.
Done
  • Is there a reason why you added a citation for Trespassers, but not for The Paper Cut Chronicles II. Also the sentence about Earth Sick needs a citation.
Done
  • @Carbrera: Great job with the list! I have actually never heard of this singer before so it is cool to learn about something new. My comments primarily deal with the lead, as I did not notice any problems with the list itself. I just provided suggestion for stylistic improvements and revisions that you may find beneficial. Feel free to ask me if you need clarification on any of my comments. I will support this once my review is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Sorry about the delay! I'm all done now; thanks so much. Carbrera (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Carbrera: I apologize for the delay in my response. I can now support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Voice (U.S. TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating it for featured list because I do believe that it passes the FL criteria. The article includes a list of various awards and nominations received by popular American singing competition series The Voice aired on NBC. The list was nominated before but failed to attract enough reviewers. Mymis (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • There is an unnecessary repetition of the word “singing” in the third sentence of the first paragraph, and I would change “singing competition” since it was previously used in the first sentence.
  • Something about the phrasing of the second sentence seems strange to me. The show itself isn’t really looking for new talent, as the judges and producers are really doing this. You could be right with this, but I just wanted to raise this point to you.
  • Not sure about the wording with a “panel of four coaches”. Yes, there are four coaches, but that wording and the phrasing “a panel of four coaches who choose…” makes it sound like the judges work together as a single unit to choose and help contestants when they act individually with their individual teams of contestants. I would just say something like “the series features four coaches who choose their favorite…” and in that case, change “guides” to “guide”.
  • @Mymis: Great work with this article. All of my comments are more nitpick-oriented. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this once my review is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I believe I fixed them. Could you take a look again? Thanks! Mymis (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mymis: Awesome job with this article, and thank you for your prompt response. I can definitely support this. If possible, could you review my FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments by FrB.TG
Comments
  • "and guides their selected teams through" - I think it should be guide without the conjugation since we are talking about the four coaches.
Fixed it.
  • Since The Voice is an American show, the winning prize is likely to be in US dollars so I don't think you need to wiki-link $.
Unlinked.
  • "The Voice has additionally been nominated for six Critics' Choice Television Awards (three wins), six People's Choice Awards (three wins), four Television Critics Association Awards, six Teen Choice Awards (three wins for the series) ..." - could we at least name some of the awards? What is the difference between this and infobox then? The awards from Critics' Choice the show has received are very notable categories.
All the awards listed in the sentence are for the show itself as outstanding/best reality series, nothing so much to break it down. I could shorten the sentence: "The Voice has additionally been nominated for six Critics' Choice Television Awards (three wins), six People's Choice Awards (three wins), four Television Critics Association Awards, among other awards", if the paragraph seems to be too detailed.
Yeah, that would be good - you don't need to count every award it has won. Some of them can perhaps be removed without any harm e.g. Teen Choice or Billboard Mid-Year. But still I would like to see at least the awards from Critics' choice to be mentioned. Perhaps instead of saying that the show has won three Critics' Choice Awards, you could say that the show has won three Critics' Choice Television Awards for Best Reality Series – Competition or three Critics' Choice Television Awards in the Best Reality Series – Competition category? FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The coaches of the show have also been acknowledged with nine nominations and three wins" - way too wordy. Perhaps better as "... show have also won three awards from nine nominations".
Paraphrased.
  • Those texts above the tables are quite unnecessary e.g. "List of ADG Excellence in Production Design Awards and nominations received by The Voice", "List of ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards and nominations received by The Voice". It is quite obvious that these are accolades received by The Voice and not Breaking Bad.
Well, they emphasize what a certain table covers. I've seen it in many other articles, do you think it's way too redundant?
All the tables have their sections. I don't think it could any clearer and yes it is redundant. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "recognise" is British. It should be recognize.
Fixed it.
  • I think you might need Levine's full name in the image caption.
Added it.
  • WP:ALT text needed for the images.
Added it.

I will probably check references later. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at my article. I tried to address all the issues. Do you have any more comments? Mymis (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Mymis comments await you! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The total count can perhaps be shifted to the very beginning as it reads more relevant. It can begin with something like, "As of 2016, American reality television singing competition The Voice has won 32 awards from a total of 95 nominations. The show premiered on NBC..."
Well, I don't know, the opening paragraph covers the show itself, with subsequent ones dealing with the awards, it's more organized to mention the sentence in the end.
  • Take a look at the first word of each sentences in the opening paragraph: all beginning with the definite article (or the show's title). Quite repetitive. I would rephrase.
Changed it.
  • I have no issues with sources i.e. formatting and reliability - no spotcheck. That is quite impressive! – FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, do you have any more comments? Mymis (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'd replied to your responses which are yet to be addressed. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, they were. Is there an issue you mentioned that I missed? Mymis (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I had some concerns in my initial review. You disagreed with some which I've replied to - see the first few comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you're following me here: look at my reply to your reply on the third and fifth comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your replies, and I agree with them, and applied them to the article. Sorry I didn't reply directly underneath your replies. Mymis (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Whoopsy daisy! Thanks for addressing them. I believe I can support the list's promotion now. Also, I am pinging the reviewer of the previous nom @Lemonade51:. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I removed the use of the non-free image from the main article as no rationale existed for its inclusion there. Having said that, I'm somewhat flummoxed that you believe there's a justification for its inclusion in this article at all. The main article, perhaps, but not this one, it doesn't bring anything encyclopedic to the article and should be replaced.
I am not aware of its usage in other articles. In this article I don't know, was not sure which picture I was supposed to use. In award list articles, it is usually any picture from an award show featuring show's cast or certain people who have received most awards. In this case, the show itself has won the most awards, so the logo of it would illustrate this article the best. If you think it does not, which picture should I use?
I'm not an expert on fair use images, perhaps Nikkimaria can add some wisdom to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
We're talking about the logo, correct? It would be easier to justify its use on the show article itself rather than here. We certainly could use an award show picture here, such as the one of Levine later in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Adam Levine's picture is not from an award show where won something for The Voice. Even if it was, he has not won any major awards, only a Teen Choice Award which is probably least notable of all awards. It would be misleading to use a picture of him at the top of the page. Almost all the awards were won by the show itself, not by specific people. Logo is the only way to illustrate it that I can think of. Mymis (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Who collected the awards on behalf of the show? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Producers, I suppose, at least for the Emmys. But there are like 20 of them listed as nominees. Mymis (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " thirty one" 31 per MOS.
No, MOS does not say that. Added the hyphen though.
  • "The Voice has been nominated ...The Voice has additionally been nominated..." consecutive sentences, makes for repetitive prose.
Paraphrased it.
  • Order in infobox is different from order in list.
Changed it.
  • "American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers" comma missing.
Added the comma.
  • " six times out of thirty one nominations" 6 ... 31 (or at the very least, thirty-one).
Added the hyphen.
  • "John De Mol " should be "John de Mol" and Jr if you're being absolutely precise.
I copied it from the Emmys website, I suppose they made a mistake. Changed it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you take a look again? Mymis (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite improvements made during the previous nomination, this season article neither attracted any opposes nor supports. I've looked at the feedback given and addressed that which was actionable, and would appreciate either support, or further actionable feedback that I can correct. Thank you for your consideration. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - improvements made since previous FLC; I can't find any reason why this shouldn't be featured Spiderone 08:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - three of the paragraphs in the Production section end without a citation. I am assuming that the very next source in the next paragraphs include the content but you should fix this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll review this. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This has been addressed, with minimal addition of new sources (1), mostly just shuffling around things that were inline citations wlesewhere. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with the previous comment, that it's odd to just reference a couple of sentences in that whole section. Also, I think the lead is sub-optimal with four very short paras. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • What would you like to see different: fewer paragraphs, or more total content? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Absent any specific direction, I've tried to expand the lead a bit with appropriate and proportional content. Let me know if you were looking for something different. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Any reasons why only 5 countries are discussed in broadcast? Was it released worldwide in 2011? Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll look into this. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It was indeed, and I've reworked and expanded the section. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Great job! Support. But please do me a favor and write in words in the awards section the number of how many other noms and wins did the show have besides Emmys. Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, it looks like the expanded info on worldwide broadcasters ran afoul of WP:TVINTL and has been reverted. Still looking into awards, but the challenge there is that the list we have is not exhaustive. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

  • I see several instances of "with ... -ing" sentence structures in the lead alone. Would it be possible to clean up a few of these? This is going to be a heavily read article if it ever appears at TFL, and we want to put our best foot forward. For example, in Production, you have "with the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike possibly delaying the process." That could be "with the process possibly delayed by the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike", which also has the benefit of removing some passive voice from the prose. Consider making this change, and a few more in the lead.
  • Episode 10 summary: Typo in "and helps her escape King' Landing" could use a fix.
  • Casting: A link to Tom McCarthy isn't needed here, since there's one in the previous section. That's a bit of overlinking.
  • Filming: Another link to McCarthy here. That's a lot of overlinking.
  • A minor point, but you could move the Northern Ireland link to the first paragraph of the section, at its first mention. Same goes for Malta.
  • "with the primary locations being the Paint Hall Studio in the Titanic Quarter of Belfast, Northern Ireland." What were the other locations? Or were the multiple locations in the studio? If so, that could be clarified to avoid confusion.
  • Without providing a full source review, I can tell you that there are numerous references that have improper all caps in the titles. I'm seeing them in refs 75, 76, 86, 96, 105, 106, and 111. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll address these over the next day or two. Apologies for the text deterioration since this was originally nominated. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The most well-known male American soccer player of all time, and leader of the scoring charts for the men's national team. As he's just come out of retirement for his club, I thought I would nominate this list in celebration/dread. The format is pretty much based on other FLs on international goals. I tried to vary sources as much as possible to make things interesting. SounderBruce 21:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – I'm confident that the list meets FL standards after the few issues I pointed out were addressed. Nice work on this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support my issues dealt with in a timely fashion, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

List of parrots[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked really hard on this (there are 350 species of parrots so this was really tedious). I based this list off of list of cetaceans, which I've also worked on.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment very nice list! The table needs formatting though because it is way too wide, it doesn't fit on my screen and I don't have a small screen! Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I have a very big screen because the table fits perfectly for me. I'm not sure how to make the table fit onto different sized screens other than shrinking it (which wouldn't fix anything), any ideas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Does this help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope, but I have a similar problem in an older list. If you use chrome, simply zoom in a bit (hold control and scroll mouse wheel) to see what most users see. I could tell right away you have a very big screen, but unfortunately you are probably the 1%. I'm not good with formatting but there should be an easy fix. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll ask at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Found the problem. It appears you are forcing the table to have "width:1645px;" and also force the font size to 0.1%? I think the table normally auto-formats for different screen sizes, but the way you have it, it forces it to be a certain width which is far too large for almost every screen. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If I don't do that then all the tables end up being different sizes left-to-right, so it'll end up like this. The font size thing is just for sorting purposes, you can't actually see the letters at 0.1% font size so I just used it so, when sorted, everything would come in the correct order.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well it fits on my normal screen, and I tried on a smaller screen. I see what you mean about looking weird, but that's a second problem. The first problem of fitting properly on different screens seems to be fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the second problem. Check the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's much better on my tiny work laptop. Do note that all of the single-bird tables are missing the purple border, though, because they don't have the inner table. Will return to review this list later if it doesn't get enough eyes; I definitely want to support broader lists like this. --PresN 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
fixed the border problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • The title 'List of parrots' is unclear. It could mean a list of famous parrots, for example. I would prefer 'List of parrot species'.
If it was a list of famous parrots, the title would be "list of famous parrots"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly - and a list of parrot species should be titled 'List of parrot species'. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Psittaciformes comprise three main lineages: Strigopoidea, Psittacoidea and Cacatuoidea." This repeats the information in the previous paragraph with duplicate links.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "in the Psittacidae". Is this a typo? You appear to be comparing the Psittacidae family with the Cacatuoidea superfamily.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lorikeets were previously regarded as a third family, Loriidae." Third to what?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "assume the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." I would leave out the word "assume".
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "All extinct species listed are recently extinct species, defined as going extinct after 1500 C.E., according to the IUCN.[22] The dagger symbol "†" indicates the taxon as extinct." Perhaps "All extinct species listed went extinct after 1500 C.E.,[22] and are indicated by the dagger symbol "†"."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The following classification is based on the most recent proposal as of 2012." "most recent" is recentism and may become outdated. Proposal by who and does it have any official status?
proposal should be plural (fixed). Also, it says "since 2012" so it's up to date as of 2012 (so it doesn't need to be revamped every year)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You use the word "recent" (or "recently") five times in the article. The word is discouraged as it may become out of date - e.g. if the classifications were revised in 2017 - and no one was then updating the article - it would then become incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The range and picture columns should not be sortable.
I don't think it's possible to have certain columns not sortable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You can make a column unsortable by inserting "class="unsortable" |" before the heading. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether web refs have access dates. I am not sure of the rule, but I think they all should have them.
I don't see any web refs without an access date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are right. I was referring to the journal articles, but I see the guidance does not require an access date for these. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There is some confusion over the Forshaw books. Note 10 gives Forshaw and Cooper with date 1978, but in further reading it is 1981, and harv linked although the note does not link to it. Note 29 is the only harv link in the article and the source is listed under further reading. As you use both the books in further reading as sources, I suggest deleting the further reading section and giving full details of the book in note 29.
That's where all the harv linked refs go – in the Further reading section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that your treatment of refs is correct. 1. You can use what reference style you prefer, but you should be consistent. You cannot have one harv ref (you only have one) and the rest not. 2. The 'Further reading' section (if any) should be for works which you are suggesting to the reader, but which have not been used as a source in the article. If you head the citations section "References", the list of sources would normally be headed "Sources", not "Further reading". 3. You have not replied to the point that you give details of Parrots of the World, 2nd edition, twice with different publication dates. 4. There is no reason to have a separate section for the Forshaw books. You give the details of other books such as ref 12 Sibley and 30 Lendon in the references, and do not repeat them in "Further reading". For consistency, you should treat the Forshaw books the same way. Nikki can you please advise whether these comments are correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1. You can decide to use harv refs for books only and not journals, but it shouldn't be for just one book and not others. 2. Correct. 3. Interesting - the two ISBNs lead to WorldCat records with different publishers. Was that intended? If so, one should be 2nd and the other 2nd revised. 4. See point 1.
Further sources comments: You are inconsistent in how authors are being formatted, whether book publisher locations are included and if so how these are formatted; FN12 should have an ISBN; and book citations should generally include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the ref issues   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a first rate article and an enormous amount of work has clearly gone into it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. I still think that "List of parrot species" would give the reader a clearer idea of the subject of the article, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Review by PresN
  • "regions in the Southern Hemisphere, as well." - no comma
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Strigopoidea were considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species at the base of the parrot tree next to the remaining members of the Psittacoidea, as well as all members of the Cacatuoidea." - "were considered" is missing a time, and the second half is awkward; perhaps "The Strigopoidea were once considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species as their own superfamily next to the Cacatuoidea and remaining members of the Psittacoidea.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Colourful feathers with high levels of psittacofulvin resist the feather-degrading bacterium Bacillus licheniformis better than white ones" - this sentence just pops up in the middle of things without any strong connection to the sentences before or after.
not sure why that was there. Removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, paragraph 3 duplicates the first sentence of paragraph 2- that needs to be fixed.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "if a range map is not available, there will be a description of the bird's range with a citation provided" -> " if a range map is not available, a description of the bird's range is provided" (better tone, and of course there's a citation)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a citation is not provided for this, the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." -> "Ranges are based on the IUCN red list for that species unless otherwise noted."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Tribe Androglossini: seven genera." and "Subfamily Coracopsinae: one genus with several species." - 2 lines out of the Psittacoidea section end in a period, and should not
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ohhh, I really wish all of the range maps were in the same style. Not going to oppose over it, but, ugh.
  • Tables are all missing colscopes - so, "!Common name!!Scientific name!!IUCN Red List Status!!Range!!Picture" should be:

!scope="col"|Common name
!scope="col"|Scientific name
!scope="col"|IUCN Red List Status
!scope="col"|Range
!scope="col"|Picture

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove the sorting option from the range and picture columns (!scope="col" class="unsortable"|Range)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And, you need rowscopes on the first cell of each row in the tables: "|Timneh parrot" -> "!scope="row"|Timneh parrot". This may adjust the formatting to bold the first column; this can be reverted by doing "!scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"|Timneh parrot" instead
*400 parrots later* done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, since it's a bit odd- the reason there's no citation for all of the tables is because the whole thing is cited to that string of cites in "Classification", [6][7][18][24][25][26][27], yes? Except for the ranges, which are to the bit in the IUCN column.
yes (and also the IUCN links)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • --PresN 02:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, sorry about all the work on rowscopes. Still really, really wish there was a consistent image style for ranges, but asking you to make several hundred range maps for this list is a bit much, so... Support. --PresN 03:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to you and some other Wikipedians can create 400 range maps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry you've been waiting so long for further review comments...

  • Why is "Psittaciformes" in bold in the lead, and not "parrots"?!
to avoid bolding a wikilink (someone told me this was against WP:MOS)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • IPA is usually given in parentheses with an IPA link to explain it to non-experts.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " of Psittaciformes until" no point in linking this as it redirects back to the article on Parrot which you've already linked.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • " Nestoridae and Strigopidae." similar comment applies.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see the references inline to each item in the Classification section rather than that list of refs [9][10][17][4][23][24][25]...
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "are the 402 species of birds that make" vs "consists of 387 extant species belonging to 87 genera" - you should make it clear in the lead that not all 402 species are extant.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "18 genera" it's legitimate here to say "Eighteen" since all other numbers are in words in this section, and MOS:NUM would support it in any case.
words for single-digit numbers, numbers for multiple-digit numbers
Per MOS, Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Purely aesthetically, I don't like the way the table formats (i.e. column widths) change from section to section.
I don't think I can fix that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd also prefer to see each parrot referenced inline.
It's the IUCN link. If it was a formal inline citation I don't think you could find much of anything in that mess of a ref section.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's an awful one, for WP:ACCESS we expect each image to have alt text. Ouch.
*screams internally*   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's it for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: We actually haven't been enforcing alt text as a requirement, and I'd argue that it's not helpful in this case- the alt text will always be "A bird. Name: this row's bird" or "a map, with a chunk of x continent filled in". --PresN 12:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, but I would argue that correctly craft alt text wouldn't simply say "a bird". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you give an example of what alt text would look like for African grey parrot (P. erithacus)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Change [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px]] to [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px|alt=African grey parrot]] Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
According to PresN, that kind of alt text wouldn't be helpful at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=754873238"