Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Toolbox
	Disambig links; Edit count; External links; Alt text;

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:

WP:FLC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
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.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
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

edit · history · watch · refresh

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:

Source reviews needed

edit · history · watch · refresh

Nominations[edit]

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:

I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?

Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.

I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Peter Dinklage[edit]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meet the criteria and Peter Dinklage is awesome... AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Baahubali: The Beginning[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Baahubali: The Beginning is a very important film for Indian cinema and the articles related to the film deserves to be in great form. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

"epic fantasy film" - says who? Fantasy, according to me, is a genre that deals with the supernatural and magical, none of which is seen here. Perhaps you could mention somewhere that it is a historical?
"Made simultaneously in Tamil and Telugu" - I think it should be "Telugu and Tamil", considering how much priority the makers give the Telugu version, and the fact that the production company is in Andhra Pradesh.
"At the 63rd Filmfare Awards South, the film won five awards from ten nominations, including Best Film, Best Director for Rajamouli and Best Supporting Actress for Krishnan" - we know it was the Telugu version that won those awards, so please mention.

More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done.Krish | Talk 06:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film and the Best Special Effects" - You could mention that Baahubali was the first ever Telugu film to win in the former category (courtesy, this source). On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if the awards were shared with the Tamil version. Pitiable, since the NFA announcement did not mention the language.
I see that, regarding IIFA Utsavam, both the versions were nominated and won in multiple categories (such as Kattappa winning in Tamil and nominated in Telugu, but Sivagami winning in both). Please mention that.

I guess that's it from me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done (the first one) but I really don't know how to mention the Utsavam awards. It would be too confusing.Krish | Talk 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Then please ask someone. Or write, at the IIFA Utsavam, both the Tamil and Telugu versions won numerous awards, including Best Supporting Actress in both Tamil and Telugu categories, or something like that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done. Let me know if its alright.Krish | Talk 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Do you have anything else to say here?Krish | Talk 14:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Just that I show my support for this and hope it becomes TFL-worthy before Baahubali 2's release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

To the best of my knowledge the list is good, sourcing is nice, alt text and prose are fine. I support this nomination though i have two minor issues with this.

"Grossing gross over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against a budget of ₹1.2 billion, the film became the first South Indian film, and the first non-Hindi film to gross over ₹1 billion in the dubbed Hindi version" -- I suggest you to source this as the claim is quite big.
"At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film,..." -- the Best Feature Film?

That's all from me. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 16:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I do not believe that the "See also" section is necessary as it add much to the article. While looking through other FLs on film accolades, I did not see a similar section.
To the best of my knowledge, you only need to link something in the table on its first mention. For instance, you link Mohan and the film multiple times in the article. Please revise this.

@Krish!: Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Well, many Indian lists include the "See also" section. Coming to your second point, well, the linking is done for the tables. Someone very early had told me that either link all or just the first appearance, I have always chosen the latter.Krish | Talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my points. I am still not certain about the value of the "See also" section, but if it is standardized, then it is okay with me. I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

"the highest grossing film in India and third worldwide" - this can be misleading, you might want to switch to "the third-highest grossing Indian film worldwide".
"Grossing over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against" - That's the third occurrence of grossing in close proximity, you might want to rephrase.
Be consistent with the use of "the" with the awards.
"Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in the both Tamil and Telugu categories" - "Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in theirrespective categories".

Rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Done.Krish | Talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

List of London Monopoly locations[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk)

There are a variety of different Monopoly board sets, but the London one is second only to the Atlantic City original, and every place is independently notable. Yes, even the miniscule Vine Street has seen bizarre tales of erotic asphyxiation and libel charges against Oscar Wilde - what more do you want? It's been played all around Britain and the Commonwealth as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and tourists still come to London to find where the locations on the board really are. For about the past 18 months, I've been going round all of our articles on the real-life London places on the Monopoly board and improving them to good article status. Most of them have now passed a GA review, so to give the final push to a good topic status, we need a suitable list article linking them all together. And that's where this comes in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support, more than happy to support this great list. (If someone wants to find the code, and cap my comments, feel free. I can't find it right now, and have other things to do!!) Harrias ^talk 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Excellent stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Support This list is fascinating, and really well-written and researched. Great work for all the editors involved! --haha169 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Support: This is probably one of the most interesting, comprehensive and well put-together FLCs I've encountered during my last decade on Wikipedia. I had no idea about the vast majority of the facts before I visited the article. If you could take a little time to add to my FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated-- we're just about passed, as well! :) DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: I think everything's you've raised has been addressed one way or another, is there anything else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wiggles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had success with Hi-5 discography and thought I'd give the same treatment to The Wiggles, also a very popular Australian children's group. They have many more releases so much more to dig into.SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work SatDis! My comments are below:

Studio albums table:

fix link to Go Bananas!

Compilation albums table:

link Gramophone record

Singles table:

Make the table the same width as other above
A reference is required for the Christmas single year of release
Is there a reason why the label and the format of the singles is missing?
"—" denotes items which were not released... This can be deleted as both singles charted

Notes:

Could you please add a reference for notes b, c and f
Note h – change Apples and Bananas to Apples & Bananas

References:

Ref 52 – fix display of page 7

Categories:

Extra note:

I noticed that both Pop Go the Wiggles! and You Make Me Feel Like Dancing in their respective articles claim to be 31st album to be released by The Wiggles.

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for the speedy feedback @Ianblair23:. I have addressed the issues as I could. My only troubles are finding a reference for the Christmas Single (however its chart appearance is referenced so I know it existed), and one of the notes: proving the album was not released in Australia (I've proved it existed in the US, but not sure how to go further). As for the extra note, I really haven't been involved in those album articles so I'm not sure! Thanks as always! SatDis (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Norwich City F.C. managers[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dweller and yours truly are nominating this for featured list. We've working across the divide for the first time in a while, this is another in the series of Norwich/Ipswich featured articles/lists that we have collaborated on. The list is almost secondary as the mighty prose preceding it is thorough, well referenced and (the bits that I didn't do) well written. In light of some of the recent managers nominations, we think this is in keeping with the current standard expected of such lists. We are both dedicated to resolving any and all issues as soon as practicable. As ever, our combined thanks to anyone prepared to give up their time in reviewing this list. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Great job guys – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

"but most notably in the 1958–59 FA Cup" - I've just never been happy with "notably" in articles, see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED - I'd normally go for "most significantly" or something like that. The word appears quite a few times through the remainder of the prose too. Any thoughts?

Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"Norwich City was founded as an amateur football club" - what year?

Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"and we know that he spent the summer of 1903" - as "we know" doesn't appear inside a quotation, shouldn't this be something like "it is known" (ie: using third person)

Don't think we need it at all. Deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"remains as one of the truly great periods in Norwich City's history" - though this is a quote, I think a simpler paraphrase like "it is regarded as one of the most successful periods of the club's history" would be better

I think this kind of [what would become] editorialising is far better done as a quote from RS --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but in which case I think it would help to attribute who said the quote - in this case the official history of NCFC (?). The source attributing the quotation is a dead link, incidentally. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Attributed to the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"but bounced back to the top tier the following season after finishing third" - I'm not sure that "bounced back" is particularly encyclopedic

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"The Independent described the win in Munich as "the pinnacle of Norwich City's history"" - the source given is the Eastern Daily Press - I can't see where in the linked article that The Independent is mentioned as attribution for the quote

Great spot. Probably my fault. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"the club's performance nosedived" - "nosedived" - see "bounced back" earlier

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"Norwich's spell in the top flight" - same issue, "top flight"

Not sure, this seems okay-ish to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A very informative list about a longstanding team you don't hear too much about outside the sports columns, despite major success from time to time. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Major success"? I don't think so... thanks for your comments, we'll get to them ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oi. Watch it. ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I think all your comments have been responded to and addressed where appropriate? Thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one issue to follow up, above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 done I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, one more thing is I'm picking up quite a few deadlinks, which are :

I assume most of these can be fixed relatively straightforwardly with a Wayback Machine link. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think, but one or two were already there with archive urls. Could you check again please? Ta. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html is still being reported as dead. I'm going off this script, btw Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that works. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - no more concerns, everything checks out Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Nanjing Metro stations[edit]

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am putting forward this list as a potential FL. I've been working on it since late last year, and I believe it fits the FL criteria. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions on how to improve the article if you disagree. Thanks to all reviewers in advance! haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Looks great, well written article. I made some tweaks to the wording of the lead.
There is an issue with station number. The list has 126 stations but the lead says 139. This discrepancy should be fixed. Also since this article is about stations themselves, we should not count one station multiple times for each line that goes through it. Maybe this is the root of the discrepancy?
Under lines, start date should be opening date. Grand Total should just be Total.
The lines table should only include lines actually constructed (or only the parts that are constructed), and totals adjusted for accordingly.
Again in the stations section, we should not double or triple count transfer stations, since this is a list of physical stations.
The list sorts by line image a bit weirdly, can this be fixed?
No need to include stations in both tables, for example Nanjing South Railway Station is there twice.

Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thank you for your comments! I've gone and fixed them thus:

Regarding the station count discrepancy, I went and compared this list with the official station list at Nanjing Metro's website, and after confusing myself back and forth with math, I think I've finally figured it out. Without counting interchanges, there are 128 stations -- two were mistakenly left off the list and have been added. Counting interchanges, there are 139. I've changed every instance to reflect 128 stations, although the note mentions the 139 figure.
I changed opening date to start date, and grand total to total.
I moved the under construction lines table to the under construction section; does this move satisfy your concern?
The way I've designed the list to sort is, from top to bottom: interchange stations, L1 stations, L2, L3, L4, L10, LS1, LS9, and alphabetical order within each category. I'm open to new suggestions if this is not intuitive.
I've included stations in both tables because not including it in under construction would hide the fact that parts of those stations are currently under construction in order to add platforms for the new line.

Thank you again for your review! I really appreciate it, and it helped me catch an error that I really should have caught before listing this list. Please let me know if my fixes and replies satisfy your concerns! --haha169 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No prob, looking very good. Just a few more little discrepancies. You say the number of stations is 128, which now matches the number of stations in your list, however the next line says "with 105 stations on the system's five urban lines and 25 along its two S-lines" 105+25 = 130? If a station is double counted you can add "and x intermodal stations" or something like that. This occurs twice. Other than that, it's the only problem I can find! I haven't done a source check, but formatting looks in order. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: There's a note after each instance that leads to this sentence: "Discrepancies between these figures are explained by interchange stations. If interchange stations are counted once for each ~~station~~ line they serve, there would be 114 urban line stations, 25 S-line stations, and 139 total stations.". --haha169 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - Thanks for satisfying all my questions, as long as source review passes, this is a great list! Mattximus (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful review! It means a lot! --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that you forgot one of my points. You have strange issues on sorting by line number, I suspect is has something to do with the use of "data-sort-value=" as it is only the interchange stations that are out of order. I see you want to keep the interchanges at the top (I would strongly suggest you just sort by line number, with the interchanges at the top of each line), but if you want your method, at least the interchanges should be in order. Mattximus (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand how you want me to sort the interchange stations. Unfortunately, sorting by line number is messy, not least because of the S-lines, so I came up with the current arrangement, which is to list the interchanges by alphabetical order. Each interchange has at least two lines, so I don't know how I could order by line. Could you please explain your suggestion again? --haha169 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The best would be something like this:

1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ....

or if you want to keep your way and have the interchanges first, they should be in order

1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10.....

Mattximus (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, thank you so much for your helpful suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That is better, I would just switch the order of Gulou and Nanjing South Railway Station, and then it's much more consistent. Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was a mistake on my part. Fixed it! --haha169 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Blue sphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's list of film and television credits, which includes some of my favorites. After completing the article extensively from top to bottom, I'm now confident that this deserves the featured list status. Have at it! Blue sphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Australia Test cricket records[edit]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I present for review this list of Australian cricket records played the oldest and greatest form of the game – Test cricket. Based on the Sri Lankan list which was promoted to featured status back in April 2010, this has just appeared on the Main Page in the DYK section. I look forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of municipalities in Rhode Island[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.

I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and 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. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shruti Haasan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This was never planned. It started off as a small pet project kind-of work intended as a constructive birthday present to User:Ssven2 and remains to be one. But, after finding it potential enough, i am nominating the filmography of this actress for FL status. All constructive comments welcome. Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

She appears only in Telugu, Hindi and Tamil films, so I think "predominantly" is not required. I also suggest you sort the languages in the first sentence in this same order, based on how many films she has acted in each language.

Removed the word.

Although Tamilians don't typically use surnames, I think Shruti uses "Haasan" as such, since it is not a patronymic (just like Rangan is not Baradwaj's surname, but he still uses it as such). But please consult someone before making the change.

Forgot this; i referred to her as Haasan in Srimanthudu too!

In Hey Ram, she plays Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter. But I am not sure if the character is Maniben Patel, or if she was named at all since I haven't seen the film. Do please ask someone on what value to fill in the "Role" column.

Not really sure that she has had a notable appearance in the film. The source mentions her as Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter, though.

Perhaps you could wikilink South Indian cinema since non-Indians may not be aware that Tamil and Telugu cinema are a part of it.

Done.

This ref is missing the publisher/work field.

Good catch. Fixed.

I think this ref can be expanded to comply with Template:cite AV media.

Couldn't do that due to poor internet facilities. Updated it properly now.

Please see that the refs in the table show her characters' names.

Crosschecked them. Except for Hey Ram, at the moment, all set.

Sabaash Naidu is titled Shabhash Kundu in Hindi, so you may have to split the cell (see Oopiri/Thozha in Tamannaah filmography). Also, do please see if the trilingual is still set for release in 2017 since I've been hearing rumours about it's delay.

Thanks for the info; i was unaware of that. Well, the sources say 2017 and we can wait.

You could put {{TBA}} in the cells for those roles that... I guess I don't have to say this.

Got it. Done.

Overall, I'd say this is damn impressive of you to expand the article in just a few days and already make it FLC worthy. Once my comments are addressed, this FLC will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: All addressed. Look forward for your response and further additional comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments. Before I can give this my support, I must ask are you okay with the fact that Ssven has centered all her character names? Because I'm not. But if that is not prohibited in FLs, I'm not gonna oppose it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Removed them. Pavanjandhyala 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason for centering all the names was that in her future films, where her roles are not yet known hence "TBA"", they were all centered, which seemed a bit off, but that's just me. So I figured why not center the roles for her previous films? Hence I centered them. I apologise if I had done anything that I shouldn't have. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No apology is required. :) But do remember that the TBA is a template-text and we cannot base the remaining contents on its structure because the TBA shall not last long. Pavanjandhyala 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Impressive work Pavan. Hope this passes FL within this month. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I too hope so. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I do not believe that the character names in the table should be centered. It looks odd as it is the part of the table that is centered, and I have not seen a table for a FL for an actor's filmography set up in this way before. It should be an easy fix.

Removed them.

I would suggest altering the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph to make it flow better with the rest of the paragraph. I have never heard of this person or seen her films before so right now, the sentence appears like a random fact thrown into the beginning of the paragraph without any context of its importance or relevance. It seems from the chart that this is her first film credit, but I would make the context clearer for an uninformed reader like myself.

I hope that the new additions would serve the purpose.

In the sentence about the film Luck, please specify who she played as a part of the dual role. The sentence appears incomplete by just saying she played a dual role and ending the sentence there.

As per the source, she played a woman who wants to avenge her twin sister's death. I've mentioned the same.

The word "fetched" seems a little too informal and I would suggest revising it with a stronger word.

Opted for earned here. Hope that should be fine.

Something about the phrasing "failed at the box office" also seems a little too informal to me. I would say instead "were commercially unsuccessful" or something along those lines.

Rephrased as suggested.

I am not a fan of the construction "managed to x" and I would suggest removing it completely in the two instance you use and just say "achieved" and "gain" to be more direct and less editorial.

Rephrased as suggested.

The lead seems to be completely focused on the commercial success of the films and the actor's awards and nominations. You only mention the actual performance through the brief reference to a "dual role" in the first paragraph. Would it be possible to include more information about some of the characters she played?

I made it for Premam. For the rest, i didn't find any proper description of those roles (some of those are too harebrained).

@Pavanjandhyala: Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the participation. Looking forward for further constructive comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Pavanjandhyala 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I couldn't find any issues with the sources, and seeing that comments have already been left here I wouldn't have anything else to add. JAGUAR 14:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jaguar. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. :) Pavanjandhyala 05:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Good enough to be an FL. Congrats on your good work, Pavan.Krish | Talk 14:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Krish. Pavanjandhyala 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I am not too familiar with this project but all citations have consistent dates and archives. I think one reference needs a link (riff) but everything else is reliable. I will give it a support. By,I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with the prose review in my FAC, D.Gray-man.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Checked all the references now. Thank you so much for the review. And, i am sorry; i can't help you as i am really weak at prose. Pavanjandhyala 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment another very popular and heavily supported list, within a week of nomination. I'll review this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Unless she collaborated frequently with her parent/s, we don't need her parents' names here. "Born to the prominent Haasan family" can stay though.

She did collaborate with her father in her early stages of career more as a musician (singer, music composer). One of her ongoing projects is directed by that man too.

Beginning with the third sentence, I read four consecutive sentences which start with "she made her".
"full-fledged" is informal.
"She also made her South Indian cinema debut with" so many debuts. "She also appeared in her first South Indian film(s)" might also work.

Fixed all the three. Hope those lines look better now.

"Haasan received her breakthrough" I don't know but receive does not feel sound. Perhaps "Haasan had her breakthrough playing..." (you might want to describe her role in the film).

What can i say about her role in particular? Too vague that shall be. Moreover the sources too would not support that.

"She went on to be a part of few successful Telugu films" since they were successful, you need to elaborate; describing her (types of) roles would also do.

I might sound too judgemental here, but to be honest, those characters are not well-written/fully developed.

" Gabbar Is Back and Welcome Back in Hindi, Srimanthudu in Telugu, Puli and Vedalam in Tamil" an "and" needs to be added after Telugu.

Done

Been a while since I was at FLC. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All addressed. Looking forward for constructive comments if any. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

~~Leaning Oppose~~

I feel that the prose is severely lacking, and the have some concerns regarding the flow of the lead. However, its nithing that cannot be fixed. Here are some early observations :

"Born to the prominent Haasan family, she is the daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur." - born "to" a family? I believe "into" is the word that you're looking for?
"daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur" - isn't Shilpa Thankur an actor too?
"made her cinematic debut at the age of six as a singer with the 1992 Tamil film" - somehow this reads rather awkwardly to me, did she play a singer in the film? if so maybe add a little more (you may want to mention that is was a minor role) as currently it's not very clear as to what her role ware.
"Her South Indian cinema debut happened with Anaganaga O Dheerudu in Telugu and 7aum Arivu in Tamil;" - "happened" might not be the best suited here, also, isn't Hey Ram her "Tamil debut".

The article reads in a very disconnected way up until now and it doesn't seem to get better :

"Haasan received her breakthrough with Harish Shankar's Telugu film Gabbar Singh (2012)." - That sounds like an overstatement; there's no mention as to why this was her breakthrough, also, the lead up until here suggests that her previous roles seem to have earned her repute already, both critically and commercially. Not to say the phrasing is awkward, "receive a breakthrough"?
"of few successful Telugu films" - "a few"?
"Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu award for her performance in Race Gurram" - repetition of the word Award in close proximity.

The second paragraph is better structured, but, still has some issues, most notably the lengthy yet ambiguous entry on Premam, they are a lot of words for an "average grosser". The comments are not exhaustive, will go through it again. You also might need to work on the flow of sentences, in its current state the leads seems to be doing too much in differentiating Tamil, Telugu and Hindi films, and isn't looking good. NumerounovedantTalk 16:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thanks for taking out time to review this candidate. Tried doing what i could, given my limited ability to frame proper sentences. Also, if you believe that Premam was undue, go ahead and remove it. Looking forward to further constructive comments, if any. :) ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, feel free to revert/work around them. I still believe that the lead is not the most comprehensive, it can use some expansion/polishing (her roles and the reception of her performances are largely missing). However, it covers her major roles and doesn't seem to have any more glaring flaws, it's a Weak Support. Also, cross check the refs, some of them are not working in my server. Good luck with nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 09:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll check them in the night. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Editor 2050

Support - looks wholly accurate to me content-wise. I cannot find a reliable source, but this is very much true at the moment [2]. Also this was out today - maybe can have some use [3]. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Thank you so much. As for the links, i have no proper idea of how to use them. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49–72)[edit]

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This list is about the second part of Part II of the manga Naruto. I ask the coordinator if I could have this up, and they approved after it has been two weeks since my first nomination. I hope this can get it's support. MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All references are archived. However, the first citation needs a link to Masashi Kishimoto and a "trans_title" for non-Japanese speakers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Then article passes it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I would suggesting an image to lead as done in the FL for List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48). Maybe the cover of volume 49 would be suitable? This is more up to your personal preference so feel free to tell me if you prefer not to have an image at the top.

@1989: Everything else looks great. I will support it once my comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 15:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Wonderful job with this list! If possible, could you also provide some feedback for my FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Eddie891 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks great, can't find anything major wrong with it that sticks out. Could you if you have time have a look at my FAC? - AffeL (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment lots of rapid supports, I'll do a review of this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this weekend hopefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I've never promoted an 'awards-list' to FL status so far, but I've put a lot of work into this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

Please provide an ALT description for the infobox image.

Done

Be more descriptive than that with your ALT description. "A photograph of Inna" could refer to almost anything related to the singer, and your ALT needs to be more specific to be actually helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done now!

I would remove the dynamic list template from the top of the page as I would assume that this could easily be completed as done with either awards/nominations pages.

Done

I would rephrase the first sentence to the following (Romanian singer-songwriter and dancer Inna has received various awards and nominations.) to keep the focus on her awards.

Done

I have altered this to include the "nominations" part as this list goes to both her awards and nominations, not just her wins. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the structure of the lead for similar lists that have already passed FLC, such as List of awards and nominations received by Adele. The second sentence from the first paragraph should be removed as it is more appropriate for her main article but not necessary for this lead. The same goes for her studies in political science. I would start with her unsuccessful audition for A.S.I.A.

Done Tried to amend this

I would look through the lead again and revise the language. There are many examples of awkward wording and sentence construction. Looking at similar lists that have already passed FLC would be helpful with this. I would also suggest a c/e from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Done Tried to work on lead; I knew it's problematic ;)

I will do a more detailed prose review soon, but I would recommend trying to correct any prose issues prior to putting something up for FLC in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation.

Done

This has not been done. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation to support the "the first time for Romania" bit. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In the brief descriptions with each award section, you do not need to include the references to her wins and nominations as the references are already present in the tables. The references about the awards themselves should stay.

Done I've only left refs for award galas without an own article or if there was any other info mentioned about the award that needed support from a ref.

@Cartoon network freak: You still need to include references for the definitions for the awards even if they have a Wikipedia article so please add those back per my original comment. The lead itself still needs a lot of work and revision and I will provide a more thorough review of its prose later in the day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Good job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through it again. My primary concerns are with the lead, which has several prose and sentence construction issues that need to be corrected/revised. Hope this helps. The actual list itself seems really good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! Please let me know your follow-up thoughts ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I will provide a more extensive review of the prose later in the day if that is okay with you as there still some problem areas in the lead that prevent me from fully support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would organize the lead chronologically to help make a cohesive narrative for the reader. Right now, the first paragraph has information about a 2011 award for a 2010 song. This should be moved down to one of the later paragraphs. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

I would spell out 13 in this context as it looks odd to have that be the only numeral in the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

In the start of the second paragraph, I would include information about her initial record deal if possible. See the Adele example I linked above to see what I mean by this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done I have no source to add this information; sorry :(

No worries. I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "native trio" is very odd. What do you mean by "native"? If you mean "Bulgarian", then just say that for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Remove "itself" in the phrase "the record itself" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Just say "singles" instead of "single releases". "Single releases" is unnecessarily long. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Could you go into more detail about the awards and nominations from her first album. You only devote a sentence to it, and I believe that it should be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done She only received a single nomination for the album at the RRA Awards, so there is in fact nothing to expand.

Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would put the phrase "her second studio album" in front of the album's name for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

I do not know what you mean by the transition "The same year" as you list two years (2010 and 2011) in the previous sentence. Do you mean 2010 or 2011 by this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Could you also expand on the awards and nominations she received for her second studio album? You only have a brief sentence about one award, and this should be expanded if possible to not give undue emphasis on a singular award. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Eliminate "for purchase" in the phrase "made available for purchase" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

Please include any information about the awards and nominations associated with the third and fourth albums in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done She only won awards with her third album

The sentence about "P.O.H.U.I." needs to be revised as it reads awkwardly to me. It also comes out of nowhere following the brief statement about the third and fourth studio albums so a transition would be helpful in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Tried to do both things

I think you should include information about the awards and nominations for "P.O.H.U.I." in the lead, but provide a more comprehensive overview of its awards and nominations. You only include one nomination in the lead, but it was also up for other awards.

Done Included the other award received

This question is not specifically relevant to this review, but do you think that "P.O.H.U.I." is notable enough to have its own article or at least a red link? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I may make an article about it this weekend. It really is notable, you're right :)

Good luck with it. If you put it up for GAN, let me know and I will review it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would move the sentence "Diggy Down" closer to the sentence on its parent album to make the connection clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

In the lead, I would recommend including a sentence or two about the awards and nominations that the singer has receive outside of her music career, such as those for her style or her dancing, to provide a more comprehensive overview of the awards and nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

@Cartoon network freak: I have added additional comments above. Also, remember to address my responses to my original comments. One of my main issues is that there is not enough of an overview of the actual awards and nominations in the lead. It lists the albums and includes one or two notes about its awards and/or nominations, but this needs to be expanded. Please refer to a FL on a similar topic and use that as an example for the expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: The lead is in a MUCH better shape now. Please check it out again! I'm going to add refs for the award definitions tomorrow. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the prompt responses. I have also made some edits/revisions to the lead as well. Ping me once you have added the references for the award definitions and I will look through it again and most likely support this nomination. Thank you for your patience while going through my rather long review. You have done an excellent job. I have to admit that I have never heard of this singer until reading through your work on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've added the sources for the awards. Inna is not big in the US, she's only had a few Dance Airplay hits there ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Thank you for your patience with this review as I know it was rather long and drawn-out. I think the list, specifically the lead, has been improved a great deal and I could support this as a FL. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. players[edit]

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added sources for all appearance info, added photos and some narrative text to give some more context. ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --Pres N 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as other FL lists of SSSIs such as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Passing comment: All Latin species names should be italicized. Example: Juncus inflexus should be Juncus inflexus. Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done thanks. 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw[edit]

This is another impressive list. All entries have pictures links to article and other supporting information as appropriate. Having looked at some of the similar lists I am familiar with the format which we have discussed previously. Random checks of sortable columns all work sensibly. Just a few specific minor comments:

Citing the whole of the first paragraph of the lead to Encyclopedia Britanica could be improved (eg by providing a specific ONS source or similar for the population).

I agree that it is unsatisfactory and I devoted considerable effort to finding a better source without success. I could not find a list by county on ONS and the Cambridgeshire site has figures by administrative county which excludes Peterborough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Here we have "a population as of 2011 of 708,719". Cambridgeshire we see "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 841,200" and Peterborough says "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 194,000" so unless there has been major change between the 2011 census & the mid 2015 estimates (ie an increase to 1,053,000 from 708,719) then something doesn't quite add up. Perhaps the Cambridgeshire article does include Peterborough & the increase has been 708,719 to 841,200 which is more believable.— Rod ^talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have managed to track down sources with the help of List of ceremonial counties of England, which is referenced. For the area you have to add the ONS figures for the 5 districts and Peterborough, which comes to 339,746 hectares. This is 1312 sq mi, slightly higher than the ceremonial counties figure of 1309, and I do not know why there is a difference. ONS for mid-2015 population has 647,238 for administrative Cambridgeshire and 193,980 for Peterborough, total 841,218, which agrees with the ceremonial counties figure. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

~~How is "major river" defined in the lead~~

Not defined so I have deleted "major". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

~~Some of the measurements in the descriptions do not have conversions (eg "more than 20 metres of Upper Oxford Clay" in Warboys Clay Pit)~~

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

~~Should "fossils reptiles" on Ely Pits and Meadows be "fossil reptiles"?~~

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

~~Personally I would wikilink terms such as ancient woodland as some readers may not be familiar.~~

Done - although I do wonder whether all the writers were using the term in the technical sense described in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

On cherry Hinton Pit "British Red List of Threatened Species" is wikilinked to IUCN Red List, whereas on Upware North Pit we have "British Red Data Books" unwikilinked. Are these the same - if so it would be good to be consistent

The British books are different from the international IUCN list and there is no article on the British ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Should the British "Red Book" have an article? I'm sure you could create one as it is mentioned in many articles.— Rod ^talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I think all three Red Book cites are to British reviews based on IUCN criteria, but only one spells out the source clearly. I have added a short section to Regional Red List and linked to it. Is this OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

~~On Holme Fen should "which aims to create a 3,700 wetland wildlife area" be 3,700 acre, hectare or something?~~

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

~~On Adventurer's Land I would link "BP" to Before Present as some may not be familiar with the term.~~

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 21:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, it's suitable to be one. I have made major tweaks to it so that could be the case. If you notice something wrong, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

References 26, 29, 12, 24, 18, 25, 17, 30, 19, 20, 22, 15, 5, 23, 21, 14, 42, 43, 13, 46, 60, 62, and 64 are dead and either need to be archived or replaced with new links.
The image at the top needs an ALT description.
Is this sentence really necessary (Viz had stated the English dub would be released sometime in the near future.) as the release date for the English dub is stated in the next sentence?
You use the phrase “made and broadcast” twice in close proximity; I would suggest having some more variety for this.

@1989: Great job with this list. I will support this after my comments are addressed. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FAC? Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Quick question, did you just give the source review? MCMLXXXIX 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Unfortunately, I do not think that I am experienced enough to do a source review. I also think it would be better to get a new perspective and have a separate user not already involved in the review do it instead. I can say that the Bibliography needs to be revised to remove the error message pertaining to the "|duplicate_archiveurl=" and the "|duplicate_archivedate=". Also, make sure not to SHOUT in your reference titles (putting reference names in ALL CAPS) as done in References 1, 2, 5, and 6. I apologize for not being more help on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done That duplicate thing, I don't know what happened there. I noticed bot edits were made after my changes for some reason. Thanks for your feedback. MCMLXXXIX 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Anytime! The same thing has happened to me several times in the past so I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

Some parts appear to be referenced like "Episodes 1 through 53 were broadcast in 4:3 standard definition fullscreen, while episodes 54 onward were aired in 16:9 widescreen." and some tables that mention the DVDs like the ones from UK. I'm pretty sure "amazon.co.uk" could be used.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, one comment. The list lacks a small premise that could be used in the lead like "It follows the ninja teenager Naruto Uzumaki and his allies in their fights against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the "Tailed Beasts ".Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Done MCMLXXXIX 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by ProtoDrake

Maybe not necessary, but an FA requires all links to be archived, so I think it would be wise to archive them. It will take some time, so it's not urgent to this review.
All the XtraVision links are registering as dead on Checklinks.
The Amazon links all redirect. They need updating.
Refs 3, 9, 10 and 13 lack publishers. Several other links also lack links for publisher/work that have articles on Wikipedia.

That's what I can find and see immediately. I'll do a more thorough look through at a later date once the major issues are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Done ~~I plan to archive everything soon.~~ MCMLXXXIX 11:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking through and rechecking with Checklinks, I think that (provided the archiving does happen eventually) I'll Pass this on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AffeL

Support. Everything looks good, I can't seem to find any problems with this article other than to archive all the sources. - AffeL (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: Thanks! I also have an FAC request open. Could you review it when you get a chance? MCMLXXXIX 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I've come a bit late, but I don't see any problems with this so it should be good to go. JAGUAR 14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: is there a reason why the sources for the English air dates end on November 5, 2011? Eddie891 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891: That was the last episode that aired on Disney XD. MCMLXXXIX 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
OK then, Support Eddie891 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Support: The list looks good. I used to watch Naruto a lot, but lost track of it along the way during the initial stages of Naruto Shippuden. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment loads of quick supports, I'll do a review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'll get to it this weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Here is a comprehensive rundown of all of his work in film and television. As always look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I have made some minors edits (addition of some commas) with these edits. Feel free to revert them if you disagree with them.
Reference 12 is dead and either needs to be archived or replaced with a different source.
The image in the "Television" subsection needs an ALT description. I am also not certain if that image is entirely necessary. The placement of the image has some interference with the gallery (it is cutting through the section) and it doesn't add much to the list as the image at the topic gives the reader an understanding of what Hitchcock looks like and this second image is a little repetitive.
Is the "Gallery" section really necessary? I haven't seen a section like that for other filmographies and I would suggest removing it according to WP:IG as I find it a little shoehorned into the list.

@Cowlibob: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Please ping me when you are finished with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Support: Since the nominator has appeared to have addressed all of my comments, I will support this nomination. Great work with this! Good luck with this list. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

"In 1935 Hitchcock directed spy thriller The 39 Steps" — Shouldn't it be "In 1935 Hitchcock directed the spy thriller The 39 Steps"?
You can mention a little bit about how he went around the production code in Notorious (Grant's kissing scene with Bergman).
"The show made him a household name" — Wasn't he famous before that?

@Cowlibob: That's about it from me. Good work on the filmography of my most favourite director. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for having a look. I think I've fixed the above. He's one of my favourites as well, you could probably make a pretty strong top five Hollywood films of all time just from ones he's directed.Cowlibob (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: I support this nomination. Good luck with your FLC. As for top five Hitchcock films, here it is: Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Notorious and Strangers on a Train. You can even include Rebecca, Dial M for Murder, The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest and Suspicion too. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

Is Hitchcock's birth and death date really necessary here? I don't know, just asking.
Dubbed the "Master of Suspense" - by whom? Or you could write something like Popularly known as the "Master of Suspense".
I believe genres don't have to be linked unless they are uncommon terms.
He collaborated with Grace Kelly on three films - we typically don't begin paragraphs with pronouns.
In 1960 he directed Psycho the biggest commercial success of his career - there has to be a comma after Psycho.
In the table I don't think we have to mention if a film was a remake of another. This applies to The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
"Murder!" redirects to "Murder! (1930 film)". Was it deliberately linked like that in case the article were to be moved to not include (1930 film) in its title?
In the ref column, the refs must be arranged vertically, not horizontally. They make the table look cleaner that way.
After running Checklinks, I saw that all links were working, while two are classified as "Uncategorized redirects". You may archive references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for the review. I have sorted the above comments I think. I mention birth and death dates for articles on deceased people as I think it's standard practice for such article. It probably helps to tell the time period they worked in. eg. Laurence Olivier on stage and screen, John Gielgud, roles and awards, and Gene Kelly filmography. Cowlibob (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I need not say anymore; this has my Support, and I hope it passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dhanush filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792, —Vensatry _(talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the ROW sees Dhanush merely as a Kolaveri boy, he's more than just a singer in the Tamil Film Industry. I've modeled this list based on the existing ones and believe it meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Include an ALT description for the image.

Done —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "debutant director"? It makes me think of debutante, but I do not think you mean that so I am not sure what this word "debutant" means.

Debutant is masculine, while debutante is feminine. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I still find that to be an extremely odd word choice as I have never ran across that word at all before, but I guess it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Be careful about using the following phrase and its variations too much (commercially successful) as it can make this appear too much like a list rather than a cohesive narrative. I would add some variation and be mindful of this.

Fixed, hopefully. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You use the following transition (The same year) twice in close proximity in the third paragraph of the lead so I would change one of them for variety.

Rephrased —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

While it is interesting, is the information about "Why This Kolaveri Di" necessary for a list about his film career? It would seem more appropriate for the article about him or a list directly about his music, but is it appropriate for this list?

You make a good point, but the song was an integral part of the film in which he starred. So I don't think it's out of place. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that it is important, then it is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Great work with the list. Overall, everything looks to be in shape. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:

Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)

Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)

Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.

In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondit created the article, while I cleaned it up a bit, added a lead, and cited all the wins through ESPN's website. Tried to model this after the Featured Lists of List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. All feedback is welcome. This is my first FLC so forgive me if I have a couple of questions along the way. Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101

One of the first things I noticed was that none of your references have archive links. I don't think it's a requirement to get an article upgraded to featured status, but if the websites that you are referencing go down in the future, or if the website admins rearrange the website's content and put the relevant data in a different place, it could lead to a lot of dead links, which could lead to an article's featured status being revoked. This could be an especially significant problem if the ESPN website, from which most of your references originate, rearranges its data. Archive links in your references will prevent this from happening, as it will "freeze" your reference the way it was when you retrieved it. In case you don't know, creating archive links is super easy. Just copy the url and paste it into archive.org/web, then copy the new archive link it spits out and include it in your reference using "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Other that that, your article looks good overall. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: Thanks! I am familiar with this process and will take your suggestions into consideration. ESPN still has articles from over a decade ago that still have workable links, but it's certainly something I'll keep an eye on. Of course, many websites have these race results available; I just used ESPN to be consistent with the other two featured lists. Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to any potential reviewers: I will be on vacation from April 15-24 and will likely be unable to respond to comments until I return. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Hopefully you're not on vacation yet so you can have a look at these:

"Gordon won at least one pole in 23 consecutive seasons, making this a NASCAR record." The "making this" is wordiness that doesn't add anything to the sentence, so you can just cut it to make the writing tighter.
Sprint Cup Series: A comma would be useful before "leaving Kentucky Speedway the only track where he failed to win." Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Suriya filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Suriya is currently one of Tamil cinema's most versatile and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

The addition of the fact that he appeared with Vijayakanth in the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph is a little odd to me. What makes this stand out from his other co-stars in the other two films being listed? Why is this important for a reader to know? As someone who has no idea who either of these two people are, the importance of this mention is not made clear to me. If you feel that it is absolutely necessary to keep this fact in the list, then I would move it outside the parenthesis for the year and find a way to fit it into the sentence more seamlessly.
The phrase "Bala's second collaboration" is a little off as it literally means the director's collaboration with something that is not entirely made clear. Instead, I would say something along the lines of "Suriya's second collaboration with Bala" or "Bala's second collaboration with Suriya".
I am not sure about the (in which he played twins) construction. If you want to include this information, then I would recommend putting this information a little more seamlessly into the sentence.
The "In this" transition in the lead's final sentence is a little awkward. I would remove it and rephrase the beginning phrase "one of the year's highest-grossing Tamil films" as that can be a stronger beginning phrase/transition.

@Ssven2: Great job with this list! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved all your comments. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Support: Great work with this list! I can definitely support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

I think "Ref." looks more formal than "Ref(s)". What do you think?

That's because in case more than one reference is added to support the content in the table I have written it as "Ref(s)" instead of "Ref". — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

All the refs in the table can be centered (type |style="text-align:center;"| before each ref).