Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2015

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:10, 27 July 2015[1]

Audrey Hepburn on screen and stage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn was one of the most iconic actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Hepburn is known for her roles as a runaway princess in Roman Holiday, a café society girl in Breakfast at Tiffany's, a Cockney flower girl named Eliza Doolittle in the musical film My Fair Lady as well as the titular characters in the plays Gigi, and Ondine. This list provides a comprehensive overview of her film, television, and stage career. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Although the article's title is "Audrey Hepburn on screen and stage" her television work is also included. Shouldn't the title be "Audrey Hepburn on screen, television and stage"?

Introduction

Film

Television

  • "Mayerling" is not a television film. It is an episode of the anthology series Producers' Showcase. Thus the series' title should be listed in the column "Title" and the notes should say "Episode: "Mayerling"". Also, make sure the link works correctly and does not redirect.
  • The column named "Channel": This is appropriate for British television whereas it should be "Network" for American television. Since all but the first two of her ten listed TV appearances were in the United States you might consider changing this to "Network".

Stage

That's all for now! Jimknut (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut: Thanks for the extensive review. I think I've sorted most of the points. For filmographies, awards are not present in the notes section as we have consensus not to have them especially as Hepburn has a separate awards page. I've highlighted notable ones in the lead. Gave better intro. The screen bit covers film and television e.g. the big screen (film) and small screen (television). Cowlibob (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Great filmography list once again.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Thanks for the support. I shall look at your list when I can. Cowlibob (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Image Review - All images are properly licensed on Commons, well placed in the article and appropriately captioned. Nice job on the tables layout. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Thanks for the review and support! Cowlibob (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:10, 27 July 2015[2]

List of awards and nominations received by Adele

[edit]
Nominator(s): Another Believer, FrB.TG 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2009, this list was recognized as a featured list, only to be demoted a few months later. After that, the list went through several expansions; however, it never happened to be an FL. After a fair amount of work on List of awards and nominations received by Adele, a 10-time Grammy Award winner, and also the winner of an Academy Award, I and Another Believer reckon we are close to FL status. We promise to fix concerns as quickly as possible. Cheers to all reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT and Another Believer (Talk) 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well SNUGGUMS the list's got four supports (including yours), so it's okay to have another nomination open at least according to FLC Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Anyways thanks for noting it. :) -- Frankie talk 17:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from  — Calvin999
  • Shouldn't the name of this article be List of nominations and awards received by Adele? Because, technically, you receive a nomination before you win an award. Just seems a bit odd.
  • She is the recipient of an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, 10 Grammy Awards, 13 Billboard Music Awards, and 4 awards each from the American Music and Brit award ceremonies. → Considering she is a British artist, I feel like emphasis should be placed on the British awards first, not the American. It's quite US centric, and the BRIT Awards is mentioned last in this sentence.
  • The song won the Academy Award, Critics' Choice Award and Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song, and a Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media. → Again, it won British Single of the Year, but this isn't included. As she is British, I'd like to see it included first.
  • An MBE isn't really an award, per se. It's an honour bestowed on someone and is apart of their title in the United Kingdom. I'm not really conformable with it being included in the lead and table. And I'm really uncomfortable with the MBE table saying "Result - Won", it's not like an awards ceremony whereby only one of five nominees can win.
  • to have won all four of the General Field ("Big four") → What are the big four?
  • Ref 2: BBC News needs linking, first time.

Aside from my comments, I think this is a fantastic list.  — Calvin999 16:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Calvin999. I have resolved your remaining concerns. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cassianto

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

In terms of comprehensiveness, this article is up there with the best of them. The illustrations are good, and the prose, albeit in the wrong tongue, is generally good. However, it is all in AmEng, and not BrEng, as it should be. Generally, the rules are that if the subject is American, then AmEng is the way to go. If the subject is British, then BrEng should be used. I'm not going to oppose just yet (per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1.a) and will allow some time for you to adjust. I would, of course, be willing to help you with this. Here are some thoughts in the meantime:

Lead section

  • "English singer-songwriter Adele..." -- As this is a British subject, the article hould really be written in BrEng. This opening line is the AmEng way of introducing a person. Using the definite article is certainly BrEng and should be used here and from herein.
  • There is no such thing as a "Member of the British Empire Medal award" and it's certainly not an award. I should take you to the tower for that and be cry "orf with his head!!"
  • "Adele signed a contract with record label XL Recordings" -- Definite article.
  • "Adele signed a contract with record label XL Recordings in September 2006, and ultimately won the BBC Sound of 2008." -- Did she win the BBC award as a result of her contract with XL Recordings? If not, I wouldn't use this conjunction as it sounds like she did.
  • "...which also garnered a MTV Video Music Award for Best Choreography nomination." -- plural here.
  • Why plural? It's a single nomination, isn't it?
  • "Adele's second studio album 21 was released in January 2011, and spent 24 weeks atop..." -- atop? Is that an Americanism?

AIM Independent Music Awards

  • Recognize is AmEng. Recognise would be more preferable.

ARIA Music Awards

  • ...again here.

Teen Choice Awards

  • honor → honour

Support -- CassiantoTalk 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cassianto. All sorted now; however, I am not an expert in that American-British thing. If you spot any other American word, feel free to change or mention it here. -- Frankie talk 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, and I even learnt something there; I had no idea "Notes" was an American usage, with References being British. Oh, I copy edited the OBE line a little. For future, this is how it should be described. Could you elaborate as to which list she appeared in? I left a brief tag. CassiantoTalk 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think this was also @Calvin999:'s concern, which has now been resolved. -- Frankie talk 10:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'm not sure you need to use The When saying 'English singer-songwriter' it reads better without it in my opinion
  • I think it sounds more British. Also, it was added per Cassianto's suggestion.
Hmm, I'm not so sure myself, so I'll hold off on this one. If you're going down the British English route though, you'll need to make sure words such as recognize are changed to recognised where applicable. NapHit (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few days before, I had changed them to British, but some were missed, which I have fixed now. -- Frankie talk 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a BT Digital Music Awards" you have a which implies singular and then awards which implies more than one. I assume she has only won one? So you need to change awards to award
  • "4 American Music Awards award ceremonies" not sure what purpose award ceremonies serves at the end of this sentence
  • I would add a bit more about the BBC sound of. Just so the reader can understand the significance of her winning it
  • Why was Hometown Glory nominated at the Grammys three years after its release?
  • Not really sure maybe because it was re-released. Anyway, I have omitted "three years later" to avoid confusion.
  • "Grammy Awards—Song of the Year" dash should be spaced either side not bunched within the text
  • "and the last two songs won Best Pop Solo Performance at two ceremonies of the award." This doesn't read smoothly at the moment. The last two songs is not encyclopaedic. I would make this a new sentence and introduce the two songs at the start, so it's clear what you're referring to. It's unclear what two ceremonies of the award means or refers to. Either way it's bad English and needs to be changed.
  • "In 2012, she released "Skyfall", a song used as the theme tune for a 2012 soundtrack of same name." Well not really. It was the title song of the film of the same name and as James Bond films are culturally well-known I think you should mention this instead of the soundtrack.

NapHit (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thank you for your suggestions. I have addressed them. -- Frankie talk 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • The award ceremonies in the infobox table aren't all listed alphabetically. For example, AIM Independent Music Awards should come before American Music Awards and ARIA Music Awards should come before Arqiva Commercial Radio Awards.
  • The infobox also says that she's been nominated for one ARIA Music Award, but she's been nominated for two.
  • The infobox says she's been nominated for 25 Billboard Music Awards, but it's 25.
  • Maybe recount all awards and nominations.
  • There are some MOS:DASH violations in the references.
  • ref #48: Link Echo Deutscher Musikpreis.
  • ref #120 and 121: Mention that the sources are in Spanish.
  • ref #123: John Mellencamp publishes Billboard?
  • 1 disambiguation link

The list looks great otherwise! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Littlecarmen: I have fixed everything you have mentioned above. -- Frankie talk 10:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:10, 27 July 2015[3]

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for featured list because I have worked on the list for several weeks to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Academy Award for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actor lists and the Daytime Emmy Award acting lists were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments from FrB.TG
  • It's pretty confusing that in the lead you refer to the years the awards were held (e.g. "16th ceremony held in 1944") while you don't do that in the table. At least add a footnote to the table that the you are referring to the years the films released not the awards were held.
  • There already is a sentence at the top of the Winners and nominations section that warns readers, "In the following table, the years are listed as per Academy convention, and generally correspond to the year of film release in Los Angeles County; the ceremonies are always held the following year."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! I didn't see it. -- Frankie talk 15:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oscars.org seems to have changed its domain.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these type of lists, it's enough if we just mention the names of the people in alt text per WP:ALT.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • The von in von Obersdorf is spelled with a lowercase v.
  • Same with Petronella Van Daan, Muzzy Van Hossmere, Lili Von Shtupp and Lillian Van Ornum Farmer.
  • Rose-ann D'Arcy is spelled as Rose-ann D'Arcey in the A Patch of Blue article. Which spelling is correct?
  • The a in Stands With A Fist should be lowercase.
  • With Amber Waves/Maggie, Jane Jones/Alice Ayres and Cassidy/Pam you didn't leave spaces before and after the slash, with Mrs. Clover / The Dealer you did.

These are just small corrections though. The list looks very good otherwise. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Littlecarmen: Done: I resolved everything you mentioned above. I removed the spaces in between the "/" and 'Clover' and 'The' since there is no purpose for it. Also I changed "D'Arcy" to "D'Arcey" using the surnames referred into in print books. I searched the name on Google Books and it came up with "D'Arcey" more often than D'Arcy. Thanks for pointing out the spelling errors.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:10, 27 July 2015[4]

Tabu filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabu is perhaps the one Bollywood actress whose filmography is diverse to the extent of being strange. On one hand, she played the Lady Macbeth character in the brilliant Maqbool and on the other, she played a woman who is raped by a ghost in Hawa. She played the seductive bar dancer in the gritty Chandni Bar and also the coy wife in the regressive melodrama Hum Saath-Saath Hain. Superstar or not, she is the bravest Hindi film heroine from the 1990s. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT
Comments from FrB.TG
  • WP:ALT needed for the image.
  • "Tabu's first credited film role" – surely we know that it was her first credited "film" role as she is a film actress.
  • "After appearing in a series of poorly received films" – which poorly received films I mean mention at least one.
  • "poorly received films" – hyphen needed between "poorly" and "received".
Nope. This is not a hyphenated word.
  • "in Gulzar's Maachis (1996) won her the National Film Award for Best Actress, and proved to be her breakthrough role" – I think breakthrough should come first, followed by the National Film Award.
  • Ref. 8 and 9 should be swapped as the sentence starts with the film Border and it's ref. 9 that talks about the film.
  • "The following year, she starred in Kandukondain Kandukondain, a Tamil language adaptation of Jane Austen's".
  • "Also that year, she played a brief role in the romantic drama Fanaa" – I won't call Fanaa a romantic drama yes it was a romance but it was more of a "crime drama" or "thriller" than a love story.
  • "as a woman romantically involved with a much older man..." → "as a gerontophile.." – not that the former is not good but this is a bit shorter.
  • I think that {{mdash}} (in the table) in center looks better.
  • In the table the first film is Hindi language film – Hindi needs to be linked.
  • Hanuman – ditto.
English language doesn't need to be wikilinked.
  • Like "Notes" and "Ref(s)", "Language" should also not be sortable, reason? The links for languages ain't repeated opposite to "Director(s)", which is also sortable.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
  • Ah, pretty confusing my comment is. I was just asking that the "Language" column should not be sortable as entries there are linked only on first occurrence, but other FLs seem to do it this way. So it is fine and should be the way it is at the present. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. :)
  • Tabu's career is almost 25 years old, and it's (the lead) a bit long to me.
The length is perfectly fine IMO.
  • I think the lead needs a little bit rephrasing as currently the prose is dull with Tabu did this and for xxx Tabu won the xxx award.
It's not repetitive at all for a filmography page.
  • Edinburgh University Press needs to be linked in ref. 18.
  • Ref. 22: Popular Prakashan – ditto.
  • Is OneIndia reliable? Besides it's Oneindia, not OneIndia.
Yes. It is used in FAs, such as Enthiran.
  • Source from YouTube is acceptable when it's from official publisher which is the case here, but there are too many sources from the video-sharing website. If possible (only if available), replace some.
They are all from verified youtube publishers which is acceptable.
  • MSN should be linked in ref. 85.
  • ".com" should be omitted from the publisher of ref. 111.

Tabu is "the bravest Hindi film heroine from the 1990s" — agree. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, FrB.TG. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*After appearing in a series... This sentence can surely be combined in some way with the next sentence. Something about a career turnaround.
Yep, that's why I at the end of the sentence I say that the year 1996 was key for her. It signifies that her career breakthrough came that year.
  • Suggested rephrase. Tabu garnered a second National Film.... so you don't say award twice.
Done.
  • For Namesake maybe specify it was a US-Indian co-production. I think it was anyway.
Mentioned in the notes section.
  • Tabu took on fewer film... Any reason why?
Not really sure. She's famously erratic, and honestly, Indian producers stop offering films to an actress after she turns 35.
  • In terms of refs, what makes the following reliable: Idlebrain, iDream movies (copyvio?), Goldmines movies(copyvio?). Blue Ocean publishers are self-publishing company so that source should probably be replaced.
Idlebrain.com is a leading publisher for Telegu films. The rest are verified YouTube publishers, so no copyvio there.
  • Haven't yet checked if the refs support everything in the table.

That's all for now. Cowlibob (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Cowlibob. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Thanks, Snuggums. Yep, Idlebrain.com is covered by a notable third-party source here and here, so it does seem to meet the reliability criteria. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have reasonable credentials, so I'll support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Birdienest81

[edit]
  • Support: Looks very informative and organized. I may leave a comment if I find an error, but I don't want to repeat any other mistakes pointed out by the previous reviewers.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Birdienest. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

[edit]

Accepted that Idlebrain is a is a leading publisher for Telugu films. But i suggest you to replace a few references with the following ones which are better RS.

Replaced.
Replaced.
Yeah, but these refs don't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 33 does.
Ref 4 just mentions the name of the film. Doesn't say that she had a special appearance in the film, nor does it mention the film's director, which ref no. 41 does.
This doesn't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 51 does.
This doesn't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 59 does.
  • Is number 98 that necessary?
Removed.

Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pavanjandhyala for the better references. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:29, 24 July 2015 [5].

World Fantasy Special Award—Professional

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp, the last nomination didn't get enough responses, so lets try this again with a bit more proactive asking on my part. Here is the 7th World Fantasy Award list, and #33 overall in our perpetual FLC series. I don't like this award. Not that it isn't fine in concept- a catchall award for professionals not covered by the written or artist categories (your editors, publishers, etc.). No, my issue starts with the name (An mdash? Really?) and ends with the utter lack of consistency in the stated reasons- a given person may be nominated one year as "for editing Magazine X", and the next as "for Magazine X". Ugh. Not to mention that a few times companies were nominated instead of individuals- that's just nonsense. I've faithfully transcribed what was awarded, though, so here it all is. As always, this list should look very familiar, since it keeps the standard award list formatting of my other FLs, and comments from prior FLCs have been brought forward here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – your reasoning is pretty unconvincing, but this was a solid list first time around, and it remains thus. Top work! Harrias talk 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your negative remarks towards the award, I wonder what makes you work on it (so hard, of course). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 00:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the formatting of the award is problematic. I'm not going to just not write one out of ten World Fantasy lists because I don't like the way they format the nominations. --PresN 01:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There isn't anything that requires a fix, with the exception of one which needs to be explained: Why both "Entries with a blue background and an asterisk (*) next to the individual's name have won the award" and the key indicator (exactly below that) are there? Both of them explain the very same thing. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • and sometimes since have been given only as for "contributions to the genre". this reads a bit awkwardly; can you reword?
  • for his work at Donald M. Grant, Publisher out of eight nominations, can you move this to the start of the sentence?
  • and Gordon Van Gelder out of six nominations is there something missing here?
  • Slash in "Winner/Nominee" should be avoided per MOS:SLASH; "Winner/Nominee" should be "Winner(s) and nominee(s)", or "Winners and nominees"
  • Avoid slash in reasons such as "writing/reviewing" per MOS:SLASH
  • "Winner or Nominee" should be "Winner(s) and nominee(s)", or "Winners and nominees"
@Seattle: Slash fixed; the "Winner or Nominee" should not have "(s)" because there is only ever one winner or nominee per row- just like how it's "Year", not "Year(s)", because there's only one year per row. "Reason(s)" is plural because some rows have multiple reasons for the same nominee- though if they all did, then it would be "Reasons" instead. --PresN 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: You capped your comments; are you willing to support? --PresN 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see another set of eyes review the list before I revisit. Seattle (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A nicely done and well-sourced list. What I suggest is that you add a link to the World Fantasy Special Award—Professional in the articles of all winners of the prize. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:29, 24 July 2015 [6].

List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on ODI debut

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) , Joseph2302 (talk)

Another fifers list. Joseph2302 created the basic article, I developed the lead and tidied up the table. I have another candidate which has got two supports with no outstanding concerns. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (ping) 12:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I obviously support this. I believe it passes all the criteria, and is an interesting, comprehensive list of information about this topic. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but I believe it's as good, probably better, than some of the other Featured cricket lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: I have included you as a co-nominator. I know the support was made in good faith, yet beware that you cannot support your own nominations. Cheers —Vensatry (ping) 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I wasn't sure, which was why I didn't bold it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "Players from six teams that have permanent ODI status" - I would say "Players from six of the ten teams that have permanent ODI status", it seems clearer
    • "Sri Lanka cricketer Uvais Karnain was the first to take a five-wicket haul on ODI debut. He took 5 wickets for 26 runs against New Zealand in March 1984" - two very short sentences here, maybe try "first to take a five-wicket haul on ODI debut when he took....."
    • "Canada cricketer Austin Codrington's five wickets for 27 runs .... is...." - "five wickets is" doesn't really work, might be better as "Canada cricketer Austin Codrington took five wickets for 27 runs against Bangladesh in the group stage of the 2003 Cricket World Cup, which is...."
    • Notes: "It was South Africa's first ODI when it was re-admitted to international cricket following their ban in 1970" - you have "it....it....their", which doesn't make grammatical sense. Maybe try "It was South Africa's first ODI after the team was re-admitted to international cricket following a ban imposed in 1970"
    • Any reason why the dates are in US format? Pretty sure UK format would be better for a cricket article........
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The "bowler" column should sort by surname.
  • Why does the "over" cell for Kagiso Rabada have "8.0" while no other cell has superfluous decimal points?
  • Can the "bowler" column be made narrower so that the "Batsmen" column can be wider, so that it doesn't have to wrap?
  • You need to include column scopes.
  • "South Africa cricketers...", "Sri Lanka cricketer...", "Australia cricketer...", "Canada cricketer..." in these cases, they should be "South African", "Sri Lankan", "Australian", "Canadian" as it is being used as an adjective.
  • "England, India, New Zealand and Pakistan are yet to have a debutant taking a five-wicket haul." Should use "take" not "taking". Harrias talk 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I've added in no non-breaking spaces and the such to alleviate some of the silly line breaks because of column widths, and it looks good to me now. Harrias talk 16:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but did you notice width of the table? —Vensatry (ping) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "and 11 of these"
  • "South Africa cricketers have performed this feat..." -> South African cricketers achieved this on...
  • In general when referring to a person from a country, you don't use the name of the country. So, South Africa would be South African, Australia Australian. There are few instances of this occurring in the lead.
  • I don't think you need to use cricketer either, it should be obvious from the list that they are cricketers.
  • "Donald received a man of the match..." a should be the
  • "All but three instances where a player has achieved this feat have resulted in their teams' victories." -> Of the eleven occasions a cricketer has taken a five-wicket haul on debut, only three times has his team lost.

NapHit (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it in this edit, so the template links to precisely the correct target, rather than a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:29, 24 July 2015 [7].

Pure Michigan Byway

[edit]
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No content to leave the tourism marketing campaign to just brochures and our license plates, we now have Pure Michigan Byways! With a bunch of work, and a assistance from an intern at the Michigan Department of Transportation, I bring you the only single page that documents the lengths, dates and termini of the byways in Michigan's program. (Really, MDOT never bothered to compile a single list any place even though they're in charge of the program.) Polishing this list will provide a template for other state or national scenic byway programs in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Dead links
  2. five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state. 5, 6, and 5 in both Upper and Lower, or 5, 6, and 5 altogether?
  3. a road must be a state trunkline highway can you link "state trunkline highway" somewhere, or explain it in the text?
  4. The criteria includes "criteria" is plural; includes → include
  5. to sites or districts on the National Register of Historical Places, recreational areas, or scenic landscapes. add "to" before "recreational areas" and "scenic landscapes"; it currently reads like "on" should be placed before both
  6. Working with local communities, organizations, and government agencies, the Pure Michigan Byway Program strives to identify roads that access Michigan's unique natural, scenic, historic, recreational, and cultural resources. The program also attempts to preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors, improve distinct roads in a careful and considerate way, promote a greater awareness of and appreciation for the state's scenic, recreational, historical and cultural resources. this doesn't sound too neutral; can you rework?
  7. new signs are due to be unveiled in 2015. do you have a reference for this? How close are we?
  8. in the southeastern corner of the LP needs a period
  9. The first recreational route ... The last the last recreational route?
  10. As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals are are → were, past tense
  11. touted the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign and can you cut this? This isn't neutral.
  12. "say" → "said" in the same sentence
  13. "Ref" column in the table should be "Ref(s)", as all but one rows have multiple references
  14. After I sort one column, I can't sort another; after I sorted by "name", for instance, I couldn't sort by "Type"
  15. "Length (mi)" and "Length (km)" columns should really be combined; there should be no sorting difference between the two
  16. I don't think the key at the bottom is really necessary if the text is spelled with the color
  17. Do you have a reference for the ineligibility of the National Forest Scenic Byways routes to become Pure Michigan Byways?

For these reasons, I oppose this nomination for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  1. Those "dead links" are in citations that have archived versions in place. There's nothing to fix. The original URLs cannot be removed without breaking the citations.
    1. Michigan: State Program → archived on April 14, 2013
    2. Bay City Receives Historic Heritage Route Designation → archived on December 12, 2008
    3. Monroe Street (M-125) → archived on October 18, 201
    4. M-123 Tahquamenon Scenic Heritage Route Expanded → archived on October 7, 2012
  2. There are 5, 6, and 5 total across both peninsulas.
  3. [[Michigan State Trunkline Highway System|State Trunkline Highway System]] or "State Trunkline Highway System" is linked in the very first sentence.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Added.
  6. Is there any thing specific that leads you to say it's not neutral? It's all based on what the sources say. If I had some idea upon which you're basing your opinion, I'd know what to change, if anything.
  7. The legislation, as noted in the body of article, was signed into law on December 30, 2014. MDOT has a full year from that date to obtain a trademark clearance and design the new signs. Therefore we could theoretically be waiting until December 30, 2015, for the new signs to be unveiled. My inquiries to MDOT about their progress on the signage have been unanswered at the present.
  8. Added.
  9. Clarified that it was the last of any type. (It's actually a scenic one.)
  10. Changed.
  11. No, it is neutral. That is exactly what the backers were saying as part of the justification for the name change. They justified the name change by tying the new name into the tourism ad campaign.
  12. Changed.
  13. I'm not sure. It has worked just fine for me, and it's using the standard coding for sortable tables.
  14. I disagree and point to List of Interstate Highways in Michigan which has separate columns.
  15. It was suggested that I add it before I opened the nomination, and I disagreed with that suggestion. Since you agree with me, I'm removing it. :-)
  16. That's purely definitional. The National Forest Scenic Byways are county roads. Since they're not state trunkline highways, they can't be Pure Michigan Byways.

@Seattle: replies and fixes have been made. Will you follow up? Imzadi 1979 → 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: #13, I found the issue, which was related to something needed for the color key that was removed in #15, so it's fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Can you clarify that this is "altogether" instead of separate in the lead? It currently reads as though 5, 6, and 5 are in both; "five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated... in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state"
  2. I'm sure that's what the sponsors stated; we don't include what the sponsors "touted" of other legislative acts, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the Clean Air Act, as that wouldn't be neutral.
  3. "say" should still be "said" in that sentence.
  4. Other than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why do you think that miles and km shouldn't be combined? Seattle (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  1. Tweaked to add "in total" after the counts and before the mentions of the peninsulas. (Because of various things, it's pretty standard to make sure readers know that a program applies to both peninsulas; we have separate state championships by peninsula in some high school sports, and firewood from the LP can't be brought into the UP, among oddities.)
  2. But in this case, what they said is the reason why they replaced an otherwise perfectly good name ("Michigan Heritage Route") with "Pure Michigan Byways". If It was just a change in federal regulations requiring them to use the word "byway", they could have renamed them "Michigan Heritage Byways" or even "Michigan Byways". You need both aspects, the federal regulation and the tourism campaign, to explain the full change to "Pure Michigan Byways". It's all interconnected, so I can't cut it out, sorry.

    I think you need to read the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the policy on neutrality: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That doesn't mean we have to excise all opinions. Rather, we include those that are pertinent, and to comply with the other key policies (WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), we have to attribute them with citations. We also have to include opposing viewpoints in proportion to their occurrence in the appropriate literature. In this case, there just aren't dissenting viewpoints; the bill passed 105–3 in the House and 37–0 in the Senate. According to the press release from the Governor's office, "The bill builds on the success of the state’s “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign." Unless someone finds some dissent mentioned in the news, and I've looked, there isn't one to list.

  3. Changed, sorry I missed that before.
  4. Ok, first off, if we combined them into a single cell, it would complicate or break sorting by length. It would also mean that either "miles" or "mi" would appear in every cell in that column as would "km". By using two columns, which is a standard option using |disp=table in {{convert}}, then the unit is dropped and moved to the header. This is just a very standard way to handle things, and I could give you dozens of examples that use two columns like this. Also, by using this formatting, the numbers are right-aligned. For columns of numbers, this promotes legibility, and because the level of precision is consistent, the decimal points line up.

@Seattle: replies made and a few additional changes done to the article, so once again it's back to you. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the NPOV issue, why not just prefix the statements with "According to X"? --Rschen7754 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: those "magic words" would only hand in-text attribution (in addition to inline footnotes). The text already has in-text attribution by saying, "Sponsors of the bill touted..." to attribute the "the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign..." as what they touted. WP:NPOV only requires that the viewpoint be attributed, which the current text does, not that we use some magic formula. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from my reading I can see the point that the text seems a bit promotional. For example, "preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors" implies that there are "unique" and "irreplaceable" qualities of those corridors. "These actions provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism" is also a bit problematic as it is presented as a statement of fact, and it coming from sources that are perhaps a bit too closely related to the subject leaves me a bit uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being left as is. --Rschen7754 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: you're talking about something else then than what is being discussed down here. We're discussing the sentence about the name change in the history section, which complies with the NPOV policy as written. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources use the words "unique" and "irreplaceable", and definitionally, if they weren't "unique" or "irreplaceable", they wouldn't be listed as PMBs by MDOT. After all, it's not just any old roadway in the state that can be listed. That being said, I did play with the language a bit in that section. Imzadi 1979 → 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made are good for me. --Rschen7754 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned that section in my original comments, and I agree that those changes look good. Can you do the same for the "sponsors touted" section? Sortability wouldn't be affected. This is an example of what the table would look like– readable and concise, to me. Seattle (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: policy requires us to attribute in text any opinions, and the current text does that already, so no changes are required to comply with WP:NPOV.
As for your change, I reject that. The existing formatting right-aligns each number, roughly lining up the decimal points. This enhances legibility of numbers. Ever notice how spreadsheets normally right-align numbers? Or how old-fashioned ledgers (even check book registers) align columns of numbers to the right or by the decimal?
The current formatting also eliminates the redundancy of the word "miles" and the symbol "km" from appearing in every column. As I noted on your FLC, you don't restate the word "County" in every row when the heading implies that, and you don't include the unit name of "people" for every row of the table in the population column, so why must I repeat the word "miles" when the heading can handle that? Sorry, I reject that change as decreasing the quality of the table, not increasing it.
If you don't want to repeat "mi" and "km2" after every entry, add |abbr=values to {{convert}}. If you want text to be right-aligned, add |disp=br() to {{convert}}. There's no reason why these two columns couldn't be combined. I'm not withdrawing my oppose until you change this inferior table to its more concise alternative. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any outstanding issues, besides the formatting of the lengths that prevent you from striking your opposition? If so, can you let me know so we can resolve them and move on? Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "touting" of supporters and the superfluous table column keep me from supporting this article as a featured list. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think combining the columns decreases readability, due to the decimal issue, and because it makes the column look more crowded. --Rschen7754 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus formed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 to combine the "Miles" and "KM" columns; both appear to be acceptable. I'm striking the combination rational from my oppose, as it appears to be a matter of personal preference. Seattle (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can use a synonym for "touted", but that would be inaccurate. "To tout" means to "peddle", "sell", "hawk", etc, and that's exactly what the sponsors were doing; they were offering reasons to persuade others of their position and the need to change the name to include "Pure Michigan" not just the word "byway". It is the concise and accurate description for what they were doing, therefore it is the neutral choice. "Touted" doesn't make a value judgement on whether or not they were correct as it does not have that implication in its meaning. The text on the page would not be neutral if it implied that they were correct or not, but it is neutral because it simply states what they touted as their reasons.
I won't change the columns to a format that I feel is inferior. Dozens of FAs on highways use two columns for the mileposts (and their metric conversions) and the other FLs on highways do as well, so there is ample precedent for the format. The proffered suggestions still collapse separate values, granted for the same measurement, into a single column and decrease legibility in the context of a table. Given that there is no requirement to make that change, I trust the delegates can weigh your oppose accordingly as a matter of personal preference, not one that enhances legibility. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Floydian

[edit]
Prose
  1. "in total" is redundant
  2. "state. Another three have been proposed." - I believe a semi-colon is more appropriate here
  3. "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, and is a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." - "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, in reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." or "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, as a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign."
  4. "To be listed as a Pure Michigan Byway, a road must be a state trunkline highway, and it must be nominated through a two-stage process." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both those commas are unnecessary.
  5. "These actions also provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism." - I think after the "also" in the previous sentence that this one should be removed.
  6. "Staffers for State Representative Peter Pettalia of Presque Isle..." would sound better as "Staffers for Presque Isle State Representative Peter Pettalia", YMMV
  7. At the end of the Program section, you mention that the MDOT director presents a report to the legislature. Do they have to approve this report or?
  8. In Types and requirements, the style I usually see would place the first citation after the colon in "The Legislature defined these types to be:", rather than the placement here. I'm unsure if there is a MOS guideline to provide clearance here.
  9. In other sections, you place a comma before "and" in lists of three or more items, but in this section you do not. This should be consistent throughout the article.
  10. "All routes are given specific termini points with a reasonable length." - define "reasonable length"
  11. "These sites need to be visible from the route of the byway, or in the case of historic districts, a "substantial portion of the district must lie adjacent to the highway"." - I believe that there should be a comma after "or" here.
  12. I feel that the final four paragraphs of this section could be one paragraph. YMMV.
  13. In the history section, I want to point out that I think linking the abbreviations UP and LP here is a great idea, as they haven't been used since the lede.
  14. "As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals were active." - since this is cited to an annual report, is the specific date even significant?
  15. "The bill passed the House in March 2014,[5] and it passed the state Senate during the lame duck session in December 2014." - two things: a) I think the proper language would be "in the state Senate" and "in the house"; b) "it passed" is redundant here.
  16. I'm not sure about "touted"....... just joking ;)
  17. "and to unveil the new signage bearing the new program name." - one of those "new"s needs to be dropped.
List
  1. I'm not sure whether the s in parenthesis is necessary in the "Ref(s)." column header.
  2. Can the km column be made sortable?
  3. As I mentioned to you at one point, I think the table colours should match the infobox/map colours, or a legend should be included for MOS:COLOR compliance.

Everything else looks good. Unfortunately my DNS is out temporarily, so I can't spot check, but I'm not gonna hold up my review any longer on those grounds. I conditionally support pending fixes. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I converted them over to a numbered list so I can reply by number. I'll be working on tweaks here and will reply shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
1–3: done.
4: I think both are needed. The second comma sets off an independent clause ("it must be nominated through a two-stage process" can stand alone as a sentence), and the first comma sets off the "to be listed" as applying to both of the subsequent clauses.
5: done.
6: I'm not changing it because he isn't the state rep for Presque Isle, but rather a state rep who happens to be from Presque Isle. Your proposed switch would reverse that relationship.
7: It's just an information report, no approval necessary.
8: I put it where I did because that is a block quote, and direct quotations are supposed to have a citation afterwards. For other articles that put it before the colon, I'd say they do it wrong, or at least inconsistent with placing the footnote after the closing quotation marks.
9: done.
10: MDOT does not define "reasonable length", so I can't.
11: done
12: they're intentionally separated to keep each subtopic together, mirroring the definition list in the blockquote above it.
13: thank you It's one of the times where WP:OVERLINK's allowances come in handy.
14: maybe, maybe not. I aimed for accuracy there, since that's the date of the last report listing them as active proposals.
15: Since the Senate and the House are co-equal branches of the Legislature, it would be weird to capitalize one and not the other.
16: It's a good thing I understand your sense of humour as well as I usually do... :-)
17: done.
List
1: I'm ambivalent on that. That was the suggested format from Seattle's review above, and it certainly is common to put the "s" in parentheses when dealing with something that refers to either a singular or plural subject. (One row of the table has a single footnote applying to it while all of the rest have two or more.)
2: Yeah, it can.
3: The problem is that if I made them match exactly, then black text wouldn't stand out. The map uses the same shades from the signage so that the lines will stand out from the background, but in the table, I used a pastel version of the three signage colors so that black text would stand out as the important detail. The orange shade, is the same shade we use for proposed highways in {{infobox road}}, et al., or in the new-style templatized routelists. As noted above in Seattle's review, a color key isn't needed because meaning behind each color is spelled out with each usage.

So I guess my options are to switch the teal/brown/blue to the same shade as the signs and use white text for the Historic/Recreational/Scenic labels or to leave it as is.

@Floydian: I've made fixes as noted above, or otherwise commented. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Prose point #15, the capitalization wasn't an an issue; rather it was to impart the use of "in the" for the house and senate, since the legislation was done in the senate/house, not through it. I'll accept the colour issue, I just wanted to clear it up before the ninnies complained. Regarding point one for the List, I think "Ref." is acceptable short-form for references as well as reference. Won't hold this up on that semantic however.
@Crisco 1492: No, "touted" is analysis of a third-party source in violation of WP:WEASEL. The phrase "Sponsors of the bill touted the promotional benefits..." is furthermore a WEASEL phrase, as it "aim[s] at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". Seattle (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle and Crisco 1492: wording changed. Can the oppose !vote be stricken now as that was the only thing left, aside from the opposition based on using separate mile and kilometer columns, which I believe you had also struck earlier? Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Now you've added "indicated", which is POV under WP:SAID as well. WP:SAID states that to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Wiktionary lists indicate as "[t]o point out; to discover; to direct to a knowledge of; to show; to make known." "Stated" would be neutral. Furthermore the sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Sponsors of the bill said that by including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign would provide promotional benefits. It's a dependent clause without anything else. Fix the grammar and replace "indicated" with "stated" and I'll strike my oppose. Seattle (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle:: {{u|Crisco 1492 beat me to it, so take another look. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. How hard was that? Seattle (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:15, 21 July 2015 [8].

Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle was a prolific and high-profile British writer, best known for his Sherlock Holmes series of stories. He wrote much, much more besides, and his output included 22 novels, 204 short stories and articles, non fiction books, plays, poems, pamphlets, and a series of works on spiritualism, in which he began to believe after losing his son and brother at the end of the First World War.

This is a re-vamped bibliography, made partly from the previous limited, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. All comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* In the introduction the Sherlock Holmes stories "A Scandal in Bohemia" (1891) and "The Adventure of the Final Problem" (1893) are discussed before A Study in Scarlet (1887), the story that introduced Holmes. Shouldn't Scarlet be first?
  • Also in the intro you could hyperlink "A Scandal in Bohemia".
  • In the infobox "Plays" and "Operettas" are listed separately yet they both link to only one section ("Stage works"). I suggest putting both together in the infobox OR having them separate in the listings.
  • The same goes for the "Spiritualist and paranormal books" and "Spiritualist and paranormal pamphlets" listings in the infobox.

— Jimknut (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comment from Harrias talk
  • The story in The Strand was one in a series of twelve, published in successive months.[4] They were well-received by the public, and the editors of the magazine commissioned a further series six stories, and then another twelve. I think you've misinterpreted the source here. As far as I recall, and having a quick look, I think that there were twenty-four stories before Holmes was killed off. It was a run of six, extended by six to twelve, then a further twelve. Harrias talk 06:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with that one very minor point fixed, I can't find anything to fault. Great work. Harrias talk 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images and sourcing review

All images are appropriately licensed on Commons, well placed and appropriately captioned. The sources listed are all credible publishers. And while not cited inline by each title listed, the requirement is otherwise met with inline citations in the individual table headers.— Maile (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Happy to support the well-detailed lists of Doyle's works. Nice work on the tables and the infobox. Lead is informative and a good recap of the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- An immense list on a great author. Just a few small comments, which have now been resolved:

Resolved comments from Cassianto (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"Doyle, fearful of having his other work overshadowed by his detective creation, killed his creation off in December 1893..." -- creation/creation repetition.
  • "During the First World War he also wrote extensively on the topic..." -- The Boer war or WWI?
  • "His son died in the 1918 influenza epidemic, the condition exacerbated by his war wounds; Doyle's brother died of pneumonia shortly afterwards. Like many others at the time Doyle became interested in spiritualism and wrote extensively on the subject" -- I kind of see where you're going with this, and if it's where I think it is, could we simply not say: "Owing to the close successive deaths of his son and brother, Doyle turned to spiritualism..." Or something similar? I'm worried that this would otherwise be a deviation too far away from Doyle himself if it wasn't a ramification of his relatives deaths. CassiantoTalk 23:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:15, 20 July 2015 [9].

Premier League Golden Glove

[edit]
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk); Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I have been here, but came across this list recently and was in good shape, so have just sprued it up and hopefully it now meets the criteria. Since I haven't been here in a while, I might not be up to date with certain style guidelines, so I apologise in advance if that is the case. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Players" column doesn't sort properly; should sort by last name
Should be ok now, but for some reason the sorting keys aren't appearing on my screen on any article, so I'm not 100% if its fixed. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why, but Čech isn't sorting properly. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sorting on Cech. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need an "Awards won by nationality" table if readers can just sort the "Winners" section by nationality? It's not as if hundreds have won the award?
I understand your point, but I think its just for quick reference for the reader. There are numerous other instances of this occurring in other Featured lists, although that obviously is not a fully refutable reason why they should stay, but an indication that there is a precedent. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 needs "(Manchester City FC)", unless it's not published by (Manchester City FC)
done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Ive removed the van der war image. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, the Golden Glove could only be won outright by a single player. Should there have been a tie in the number of clean sheets, the goalkeeper with the superior clean sheets-to-games ratio received the award. can you combine these sentences with a semi-colon?
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They established a new commercially independent league in order to negotiate "in order" can usually be cut wherever seen
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the Golden Boot can you link "Golden Boot" somewhere?
Linked on first instance NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • presented at the end of the inaugural season,[4] and the Premier League Player of the Season award first bestowed the two seasons later. a bit too "season" heavy. Is "the" needed before "two seasons later"?
reworded NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it took over a decade to elapse before the Premier League Golden Glove was first awarded in 2005, when Petr Čech received the inaugural award. → "In 2005, the Premier League Golden Glove was first awarded, with Petr Čech its inaugural recipient."
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Hart has won the award on four occasions, the most times out of all keepers. not sure "times" is needed here
Done NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his streak, Van der Sar went 1,311 minutes... the third longest in the world after Mazarópi's 1,816 minutes. I'm not sure what this has to do with the award, mates. Seattle (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, I'd like a few more opinions first before I remove it. It does seem superfluous to the article. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'd cut out some of the detail on Van der Sar's record, I don't think it's relevant enough to merit that level of detail.
  • Might it be worth detailing the lowest number of clean sheets needed to win the award, similar to what's done at Premier League Golden Glove?
  • I'd note the season in which the current recipient won the award.
  • There's no need for the numbers in brackets to be in small text.
  • Could you explain what the second general ref is there for? It doesn't make any mention of the award. Also the list of award winners in the first general ref only goes up to 2009; is there an alternative that lists all of them? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Mattythewhite: I've addressed them all. I've removed the second general ref and I can't find one that lists all the winners, but as they are individually sourced I feel this should be ok. NapHit (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What's a clean sheet?
    • When a goalkeeper concedes no goals during a single match. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was being a bit obscure with my concern here. This is an example of MOS:JARGON; in the US, for example, a "clean sheet" is something I might pull out of the washer after I launder my bedding. Since it is possible to explain this term in a few words, which you have just done, quite well, this defintion should be included in the article.
  • The phrase "clean sheet" appears 7 times in the lead, including 4 times in the opening paragraph and twice in a single sentence. Is there some other way to phrase some of these?
  • Possibly unneccessarily piped link: [[English football league system|English football league]]. See MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN.
  • In the same vein as above, I don't see the value in piped links for club names such as [[Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United]].
    • This is common practice in the WP:FOOTY project, clubs are shortened to remove the F.C. as it is not necessary to have the full name of the club in the article. I personally don't see this as an issue and as clubs are not referred to by their full names and in some cases just 'United', it would be odd to use the full name on every instance. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two things: 1). I still don't see the value of doing it this way, however if you're following a project specific guideline here, please link to it. 2). Regardless, MOS:NOPIPE applies to Manchester United and Manchester City.
        • I actually can't find a guideline within the project about this, it's just the done thing it seems. Plus reading the MOS on piped links it states: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." I think its fairly clear what the reader is going to click on when they read this list given its nature, so I'm still reluctant to remove the pipes. I see no benefit to including the suffixs F.C., when its clear what the links link to and that the article is about football.
          • I agree the links are intuitive, that was never my concern. MOS:NOPIPE states "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits". So, within that guideline, if we want the text to say "Manchester United" then we should just link to Manchester United. As for hiding the F.C., we can agree to disagree.
            • That is a fair compromise, this should be done now. 15:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Image alts: check out WP:ALT, especially the Queen Elizabeth example.
    • Not really sure what your point is here. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, NapHit I think they are trying to say that since this is not a fashion article it should not be "a man in a red uniform" just the way WP:ALT advises Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat". See this. -- Frankie talk 09:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Is the image of Joe Hart included because a picture of "a man in a red uniform holding a ball" adds value to the article? No. The alt text needs to take the place of the image. "Joe Hart playing football" probably does the trick. Also for WP:ALT the daggers don't have alts.
  • Most of the second paragraph talks about peripheral subjects. What is the value of discussing the history of the Premier League, the Golden Boot, etc, within the context of this article?
    • Its providing context for the reader I feel. The part about the premier league is pertinent and this is the body that oversees the award. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that explaining what the Premier League is adds value and is necessary. Might be worthwhile to have it in the opening paragraph, but if the lead flows better with it in the second paragraph, so be it. However, this isn't History of Premier League awards: the entire third sentence doesn't belong.
  • General reference has unclear purpose and value. Only lists five winners: if there are no other sources for any of those five, should be used as a specific ref for each as necessary. Rejectwater (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Rejectwater: I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments
  • The publishers for references need to be linked on their first occurrences e.g. Sky Sports in ref. 2.
  • You might use {{Tooltip}} for the table.
    • I'm not sure how to implement it into the table, I've never used it before. From what I gather, it seems to be used for abbreviations? I think the tables might be ok without it. NapHit (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the list looks good with the prose in great shape. I am not sure if you have ever reviewed a music list, but if possible have a look at my nomination. -- Frankie talk 09:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @FrB.TG:, I've responded to both and yes I'll take a look at your list in due course, cheers. NapHit (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk

Not much from me, this looks in pretty good shape.

  • The key states "Player (X)", "Name of the player and number of times they had won the award at that point (if more than one)", but it looks like you removed the number in brackets.
  • Is "§" an MOS:ACCESSible symbol?
  • As FrB.TG point out, the ALT text could be much simpler: for the purposes of this article, it is only really relevant that they are pictures of Hart and Cech playing football, not the specifics of what they are wearing. Harrias talk 13:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Harrias:, I've addressed your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

A few more things and then I imagine we can wrap this up unless others join in:

1) WP:NOSYMBOLS (part of MOS:ACCESS) says "Do not use unpronounceable symbols such as ♥ (a heart symbol); use images with alt text instead." I don't know if asterisks meet this guideline. Perhaps use another template with alt text such as double dagger, hash tag, up arrow, etc. Also the daggers would all need to have alt text as well (I mentioned this earlier but was very unclear).
I have no idea whether it is unpronounceable or not, so I've changed it to double dagger to be safe. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'm not sure about the asterisk either. But, the daggers and the double daggers all need to have alt text.
According to the alt-viewer tool, they appear to have alt text as they are. I added alt to a few of them and there is no change in the alt viewer. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing WP:ALT text. Should be something like {{dagger|alt=multiple award winners in the same season}} and {{double dagger|alt=the club were Premier League champions in the same season}} Rejectwater (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2) MOS:LEAD: the sentence beginning with "Originally consisting of 22 teams" seems to come from nowhere. As the third paragraph nicely summarizes individual accomplishments, why don't we use the second paragraph to talk about more "macro" stuff? Who the first and current recipients are is already discussed, so how about things like how many different players have won, representing how many different countries and how many different clubs, which club has the most awards, etc (since it's a young list and the number of winners is the same as the number of clubs I imagine it could be combined somehow like "Joe Hart of Manchester City has won the most awards.") There is a table for awards by nationality and another for awards by club, this should be summarized somehow in the lead.
I've re-jigged this now, should be along the lines of what you said. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3) Why are the symbols in the table superscripted?
There's no particular reason, is this a problem? NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, just curious.
4) Wikilinks for nationality seems to be WP:OVERLINKING ("the names of major geographic features and locations").
Removed the links. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of. Now the flags are links: use flagdeco instead of flagicon, or you can drop the flags entirely citing MOS:FLAG. Personally I like the flags, but they do draw the eye, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Rejectwater (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done NapHit (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:17, 20 July 2015 [10].

Julianne Moore filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Moore is one of the great modern Hollywood actresses. Known for her dual role on the television soap As the World Turns, and her variety of roles in films ranging from a veteran adult film star in Boogie Nights (1997), a troubled 1950s housewife in The Hours (2002) to her Academy Award winning role as a sufferer of early onset Alzheimer's in Still Alice (2014). This list provides a summary of her film and television career. As always look forward to all the helpful comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jimknut
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
  • "Julianne Moore is an American actress who made her acting debut on television in the television mystery series The Edge of Night in 1984." — "Julianne Moore is an American actress who made her acting debut in 1984 in the television mystery series The Edge of Night." (no need to have "television" in the sentence twice, especially so close together)
  • "before her breakthrough role in Robert Altman's drama Short Cuts in 1993." — "before her breakthrough role in Robert Altman's drama Short Cuts (1993)." (in addition to this change can you explain what makes this her "breakthrough"?)
  • "The following year, she starred in the Coen brothers-directed crime comedy The Big Lebowski (1998), and Gus Van Sant's Hitchcock remake Psycho (1998)." — "The following year, she starred in the Coen brothers' crime comedy The Big Lebowski and Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho." ("-directed" after Coen brothers not needed, just a '; comma not needed after Lebowski; the year of release is not needed for either film since your preceding sentence states 1997, hence most people can figure out that 1998 would be "the following year"; Psycho is not a "Hitchcock remake", it is a remake of an Alfred Hitchcock film)
  • "In 2001, Moore reunited with Hopkins on crime thriller sequel Hannibal, appeared in science fiction comedy Evolution, and the drama The Shipping News." — "In 2001 Moore reunited with Anthony Hopkins in the crime thriller Hannibal and also appeared in the science fiction comedy Evolution and the drama The Shipping News." ("in" insead of "on"; add in "the" as needed; commas not needed; spell out Anthony Hopkins' full name since it was several sentences back since you first mentioned him; drop "sequel" since you are not telling us what the film is a sequel to)
  • "The following year, she reteamed with Haynes on the drama Far from Heaven (2002), and starred in the Stephen Daldry-directed drama The Hours (2002)." — "The following year she re-teamed with Todd Haynes for the drama Far from Heaven and starred in the Stephen Daldry-directed The Hours." (As before: commas not needed; spell out Todd Haynes' full name since it's been several sentences since you first mentioned him; year of release not needed since your previous sentence says "in 2001" while this one says "the following year")
  • "She also received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress (Far From Heaven), and Best Supporting Actress (The Hours) in the same year." — "She also received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress (Far From Heaven) and Best Supporting Actress (The Hours)." (comma not needed; "in the same year" not needed)
  • "Two years later, she starred in the satirical drama Maps to the Stars (2014), and drama Still Alice (2014)." — "Two years later she starred in the satirical drama Maps to the Stars and the drama Still Alice." (commas not needed; years not needed as as your previous sentence states "in 2012" and this one says "two years later"; add "the" before drama Still Alice)

Television

  • Moore is an American and her television appearances have all been in the United States. Hence the column heading "Channel" should be retitled "Network" as this is more appropriate for American television ("channel", I believe, is more appropriate for British television).

That's all for now. Jimknut (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut: Thanks for the thorough review. I've sorted your points and explained why it was her breakthrough role. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I will be away from home until July 7. I will look it over then. Jimknut (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, see you then. Cowlibob (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Cowlibob (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My only comment would be to try to mention that she was the ninth person nominated for lead and supporting awards in the same year. Here are several sources: [11][12][13][14][15]. Other than that, I think it is FLC worthy.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I thought about including it but I don't think readers would find it interesting that someone achieved something that eight others had previously done. Cowlibob (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob:: Now that you mentioned it, I believe it's fair game. Besides, that fact about double acting nominations in one year is probably suited for the Oscar ceremony lists.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The list seems to meet the featured list criteria with the prose being in a great shape. The (size of the) lead is perfectly fine and this list is pretty comprehensive. The list is easy to navigate, and also complies with MoS, and the references are also reliable. Last but not the least, there is no ongoing edit war in the history of the article. Nice work on a very talented actress. -- Frankie talk 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*The second paragraph begins with three sentences that simply list one film after another. This must be re-written to emphasise on which of these films were particularly notable. The fact that Boogie Nights garnered her an Oscar nom can be mentioned the first time you talk about the film. Also, the fact that The Lost World was her biggest commercial success till then needs mention.
  • "The following year, she starred in the Coen brothers' crime comedy The Big Lebowski and Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho" Again, instead of simply listing a series of films, if we mention that Psycho was such a critical dud, it will make the lead much more interesting to read.
  • "Moore starred in three film adaptations in 1999:" Films adaptations of what? Novels, other films, comic books?
  • The fact that she played homemakers in suburban America in both her Oscar nominated roles in 2002 is a crucial bit of missing information.
  • The final two sentences of the third paragraph also has a similar problem of simply listing the films without establishing much else.
  • "In 2012 she played politician Sarah Palin in political television drama Game Change. For her performance Moore won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie" "The" missing before political television drama, and the two sentences can be simply combined together so that you don't have to say the redundant "for her performance".
  • Why is her role in the Hunger Games not mentioned? Mockingjay is her career's biggest hit.
  • This is a personal preference, but can't we use an image that is different from the infobox image in her main page? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted your points. Reduced the listing prose, shortened lead down by combining sentences and excluding some unneeded info. Found alternative image, added mention of Mockingjay. Cowlibob (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:16, 20 July 2015 [16].

List of The Last of Us characters

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in The Last of Us and providing insight to their importance within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. Along with the high quality of content within the article, this proves to me that the article is good to go all the way. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments:

Thanks for your quick comments, FrankBoy! Would you be able to take another look at the article, and let me know of any other problems that you can see? No worries if you can't. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could spot anything else (others may), so I support. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

[edit]

I'll give some comments.

  • An immediate concern I must raise is the archiving of GameSpot references. The site, which has been having extensive trouble with ads copying their site and using for their own purposes, has put in a deliberate block on any site at all making a copy of any page. That basically means that it is fed into a silly YouTube clip. They are apparently making Adjustments (not yet in place) for Archive.org, but the current WebCite archiving is useless. It's a pain, but apparently a pain which is being sorted. In the mean time, check all GameSpot references and remove the ones that redirect. When the problem is sorted, they can be put back.
  • Everything else seems fine.

Once the GameSpot is sorted, I can support this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, ProtoDrake! I went through and removed all archived GameSpot references. Is this basically what you meant? I'll definitely replace them with Archive.org links when the problem is fixed; I'll be keeping my eye on WT:VG for any updates on this issue. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant. I can support the article now. The archiving thing is a pain, but it should be sorted out soon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The archiving issue has now been fixed. All applicable links have been replaced. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 16:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Angel Haze discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Haze is an american rapper, they've released one studio album, two extended plays, six mixtapes, eleven singles (including five as a featured artist) and eight music videos. I am nominating this for featured list, I've been working on it extensively for the past few days and think it sufficiently meets criteria, hope to hear others thoughts. Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't looked thoroughly and may add more comments later, but on first glance:
    • All mentions of "extended play" should be changed to EP, the more common term. The releases infobox even uses "EP".
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "they" pronouns should be explained in a footnote for readers who have not read Haze's biography.
Done: Explained and sourced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
–Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@HĐ: Please could you elaborate a bit on how this meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. As PresN has outlined here [[18]], short "looks great" reviews can give impression that the list wasn't actually "reviewed" even if it was especially if later reviews find substantial things to fix. I don't want it to seem as if I'm trying to hinder these noms but I'm actually ensuring the nom has better chance as reviews don't need to be discarded later on. Cowlibob (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user HĐ did tweak the page before leaving comments, just to eliminate any thought of "gave approval without even looking at the page" Azealia911 talk 03:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a gifted support but have to take into account how these early "votes" have been considered in the past. Cowlibob (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the !vote, and that's ok, we were all new at one stage, happy editing. Azealia911 talk 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HyunAChachki: Since you started your account just yesterday and have made 8 mainspace edits. It's probably too early to start giving supports to featured list candidates but feel free to continue contributing on expanding articles. Please look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for what is required for a FL. Cowlibob (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going on wikibreak for a couple of weeks for exams. Comments I can leave with you are:
  • the lead is only 900 characters which wouldn't be enough for DYK nomination. Is it possible to expand that? You could use things like chart positions, notable collaborations.
Done: Expanded and sourced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be surprised if others suggested merging the discography back into the main article as the main one only has 3.5K of prose. I think Lorde who has a similar length discography had atleast 5.5K prose before it was split.
Done: Calling this a done seeing as it's not a fixable problem concerning the discog article, I'll buff up the main article as much as I can though. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't use metacritic in this case for critical acclaim as it is based of 6 reviews.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table error in guest appearances where the table is open.
Done: Fixed year error. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of links to commercial sites such as iTunes, they are generally used if there are no other sources for the song/album.
Done: Replaced majority, only remaining is a very low-key artist I can't find an alt link for, and one for the New York EP, which partners with one that mentions the release of the EP in October 2012 without specifying date. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also try to find alternative sources for the info which is based of Facebook, wordpress and other such sites even if they are operated by the artist.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main image needs alttext per WP:ALT
Done: Provided. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be my initial comments. I can't reply to it due to above wikibreak. Hope they are helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with you exams, and hopefully if the nom is still open when you get back, you can give your support. All the best, Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Calvin999
Comments from Calvin999
  • Is pandering to her requirements of being referred to in singular pronouns "they" and "their" appropriate for Wikipedia? As a read, I find it confusing.
!: Per MOS:IDENTITY, yes.
  • In July 2012, Haze released their[note 1] EP Reservation online for free, which was met with critical acclaim, with Consequence of Sound calling the project "diverse in its influences" and "polished". → Too many clauses, just full of commas.
Done: Fixed.
  • In late 2013, Haze leaked their debut album Dirty Gold after a disagreement with their record label, who wanted to release it sometime in spring 2014. → As you say 'late 2013', I think it would be more inline to say 'early 2014' instead of Spring.
Done: Fixed.
  • Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics, it was a commercial failure, failing to appear on the Billboard 200, and appearing on the nether end of the UK Albums Chart, peaking at number 197, with reports claiming that the album may have sold as little as 850 copies in its debut week of release. → This is a really long-winded sentence with too many clauses.
Done: Cut down.
  • on the Billboard 200, → Billboard should be in italics.
Done: Removed from sentence in question.
  • Lead says that it peaked at 197 in the UK, but the album chart table below and the album article say 196?
Done: Fixed.
  • Is Spotify Sessions supposed to link to Spotify?
Done: It was inentional if that's what you were questioning, I'll only link "Spotify" as opposed to the full title in order to avoid confusion.

On the references front:

  • Ref 1: Consequence of Sound should not be in italics.
  • Ref 3: Missing authors name
  • Ref 6: Is the second instance of Billboard in the references, so it should not be linked
  • Ref 8: PitchFork Media should not be in italics.
  • Ref 11: Same as Billboard above, this is the second instances of Consequence of Sound and it should also not be in italics.
  • Ref 12: Same here again for Billboard
  • Ref 13: Can't work out why you've said it's for UK R&B peak positions when there's only one reference. The title should not be in italics.
  • Ref 14: Same here. It's just once reference. Official Charts should not be linked, and neither should the title. I think you've added some stray apostrophes for these two references.
  • Ref 15: Republics Records should not be in italics.
  • Ref 16: Rate Your Music should not be italics
  • Ref 17: Rate Your Music should not be italics nor linked.
  • Ref 19: DatPiff should not be linked.
  • Ref 20: Sterogum should not be linked.
  • Ref: 22: Official Charts should be neither italicised nor linked.
  • Ref 23: Same here, both of them.
  • Ref 24: Consequence of Sound should not be italics nor linked.
  • Ref 25: Same again for Pitchfork
  • Ref 26: Same for Digital Spy (non-italics)
  • Ref 31: Consequence of Sound again
  • Ref 33: Rap-Up should not be linked.
  • Ref 34: Beatport should not be italicised
  • Ref 35: Rolling Stone should not be linked
  • Ref 36: Idolator should not be italicised
  • Ref 39: Second instance of NOISEY so shouldn't be linked
  • Ref 43: DS should not be linked
  • Ref 44: Same for Stereogum again
  • Ref 47: Same for Idolator
  • Ref 48: Same for Pitchfork Media, (not called just Pitchfork by the way)
  • Ref 49: Same for Idolator again
  • Ref 50: Missing work parameter

Oppose I don't know how the two editors above have voted Support when the references are such a mess and there are still mistakes in the lead despite four editor's being involved thus far.  — Calvin999 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for looking through the article in such depth, have now addressed all of your concerns, thanks again for the in-depth analysis! Azealia911 talk 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Azaealia911's message on my talk page, all of my concerns have been addressed (I just made some additional fixes to some refs as well), so I now Support.  — Calvin999 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again, too many quick supports...

  • Please fix all the WP:DASH violations per the MOS, mostly in the reference titles which seem to use spaced hyphens rather than spaced en-dashes mostly.
Done: Corrected, think I got 'em all.
  • Infobox has 1 EP while lead and main article show 2.
Done: Corrected.
  • Are you claiming a single source that says "only someone who gives at least several fucks could offer up something this personal, this diverse in its influences, and this polished" means that an EP is "critically acclaimed"?
Done: Sourced.
  • Image caption is an incomplete sentence so it needs no full stop.
Done: Corrected.
  • "Haze released... Haze released..." repetitive and dull prose.
Done: Cut down use of the word "release" from 11 times in lead to 5.
  • "release it sometime in early 2014.[4] Due to the leak, the label rush-released the album, and it was officially released" count the "release"s, again dull and repetitive prose.
Done: Same as above.
  • "sold as little as 850 copies" as few as...
Done: Corrected.
  • "Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics" where is this referenced?
Done: Sourced.
  • "which is set to be released in 2015." well we're half way through 2015, when is this going to happen?
No idea, I'm not affiliated with Angel Haze's music team, simply a fan. But as you pointed out, we still have six months left of this year in which the project may be released, and as we know, albums can be released with no prior announcement, even from the biggest artists. The article cited stating the projects are due for a 2015 release are them most up-to-date I can find, and as long as we're in 2015, I see nothing wrong with the wording.
  • "were released from Haze's upcoming projects, both released" released released.... zzz.
Done: Fixed.
  • Please include the country of release for each of the specific release dates.
Done: Done.

That's it for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected all errors pointed out. Azealia911 talk 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Needs brushing up.....

  • "The discography of American rapper and singer Angel Haze consists of" is overly wordy; just keep it simple and use "American rapper Angel Haze has released"
Done: Changed.
  • Critical reception for releases belong in their own articles, not here
Done: Removed.
Done: Removed from refs in question.
  • Josepvinaixa.com (aka "Ultimate Music") and "Gigwise" aren't really good sources to use
Done: Changed.
  • "Digital Spy" shouldn't be italicized
Done: Changed.
  • "NOISEY" should read Vice
Done: Changed.
  • "Rate Your Music" is unreliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
Previous sources were officially verified social networks of Haze to indicate release date. Another editor thought these to be unreliable. However, RYM is the only other source I seem to be able to find, what do you suggest doing? The mixtapes exist as proved by the social network posts, but seem to be unusable on here, which leaves me pretty stuck.
Done: I've just gone and removed the two tapes in question. They seem incredibly lowkey and I can't actually find a place to download them, let alone reliable sources to back them up.
Done: Changed.
  • Are "DatPiff" or "The Line of Best Fit" reliable?
The Datpiff link was uploaded by a user named IAmMixtapes, who's uploaded various other official mixtapes, including those of Birdman 1, Pusha T 2, and Jae Millz 3. Same with the other datpiff reference, with the tape in question being uploaded by Flybeats09, who's uploaded official tapes by Young Jeezy 1 and Jim Jones 2. I also don't see any issue with the line of best fit.

Not exactly FL material at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS sorry it took me so long to address your comments, changed the majority to your suggestions, will work on the others shortly. Azealia911 talk 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but is "BeatCog" reliable? I'm not very familiar with it. Additionally, Official Charts Company shouldn't be in italics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Nothing instantly brings up a red flag to me, and nothing at the WP:RSN after a search. They seem to report on minor artists. The article simply relays information, and includes a tweet confirming the title from Haze's twitter. Changed OFC. Azealia911 talk 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Add the full form EP on its first usage, with EP in parenthesis.
? Previous user Chasewc91 thought otherwise in his comments.
I'm asking it to use it as extended play only on its first instance 'cause I am not sure if all know what does that stand for.
  • "Due to the leak, the label rush-released" - pathetic. Surely it can tweaked (especially that "rush-released" thing) for a better flow.
Done: I'd appreciate it if you didn't point blank call my work pathetic though.
If you submit a list, you'll face criticism. Even the FLC itself means "constructive criticism" from reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling my work "pathetic" isn't constructive. Try not to confuse constructive critisism with simply being rude. Azealia911 talk 17:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God! I wasn't being rude. What I was trying to say is that I didn't like that sentence (not you), that's all. I haven't reviewed the list just to put someone down or in your words being "rude". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the lede is a bit confusing. I don't know if "CANDLXS" and "GXMES" are the names of the Haze's "upcoming projects" or the two "promotional singles".
Done: Tweaked.
  • No sales amount for the studio album?
No further info other than the poor first week sales, I could input that if you're ok with it reading "US: 856", but upon reading that myself I'd be convinced it was vandalism.

Would appreciate it, if you look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


FLC now has 5 supports and only 1 oppose (of which all comments have been addressed, and user has said they will re-asses if they have the chance. I'm assuming they're too busy to do so.) Last comments were made near-two weeks ago, can this just be closed already? Azealia911 talk 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - feedback as follows:

  • None of the tables have any headings.
Done: As far as I know, they're not required, they're pretty self explanatory headings, added anyway.
Some of the headings are nonsensical such as "List of non-single charting songs, with selected details and chart positions" - if it's a non-single how did it chart?
Songs don't have to be singles to chart. I do see on your user page that you've worked well on discographies of artists who primarily released music in the 20th century. Modern day Billboard charting can be achieved via high levels of streams on spotify or independent downloads of a song from an album, without it being a single. An example being the song "Feeling Myself". It wasn't released as a single from it's parent album, but charted on multiple charts, considerably well actually, from streams/downloads.
  • Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart.
? Bit confused by what you mean, can you give an example of a chart header in the page you think needs changing, and what you'd change it to?
In accordance with the style guide for discographies - Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Singles as a lead artist, whereby UK charts should be separated into two columns under a single heading of UK. In the other wikitables such as promotional singles the heading of the chart should be US, with US be wiki-linked to the appropriate chart. In saying that is the US Pop Digital chart the same thing as the Mainstream Top 40? (it doesn't appear that they are). In fact all the chart links need to be double-checked to ensure they link to the right charts.
I'm still lost, especially the comment about the lead single section. Don't suppose I could request you whip something up in my empty sandbox could you?
I'd suggest you check the Discography style guide, which clearly outlines how chart tables should be formatted. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt Ok, I now understand what you mean, but have to disagree, with you and maybe even the MOS. I note that the examples from on the MOS' page all link the the primary chart, which isn't the case in the article. Under both US headers in the examples, it links to the Billboard 200, the main albums chart for the US. Whereas on Haze's page, the US Heat title links to the Top Heatseekers chart, a kind of pre-school equivalent of the Billboard 200 if you like to use an analogy. As for the singles chart, wouldn't having three US headers all linking to different charts be incredibly confusing? US is generally just linked to the Billboard Hot 100. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other charting songs table should be amalgamated into the table for singles as featured artist
? The song wasn't a single though...
If the song was never released as a single then how did it chart at #32 on the US Dance Digital Chart?
Same answer as above question relating to table headers.
  • The statement "Haze revealed that they were working on a sophomore album, titled The Flowers Are Blooming Now, which is set to be released in 2015." has no reference citation.
Done: Sourced
Isn't the publisher actually Vice Media and the author is Isabelle Hellyer
Done: Changed.
  • Was The Winter of Wet Years released on February 23, 2015 - as some sources state.
Done: No, included note.
The term "never surfaced" needs to be replaced with something that isn't so colloquial.
Done: changed.
  • Is the title In the Winter of Wet Years or The Winter of Wet Years
Done: In the Winter of Wet Years, spotted mistake.
  • Ref 12 is identical to Ref 30 & 31.
Done: Ref named.
  • Need to replace "was officially serviced" with a more appropriate term.
Done: replaced.
  • The lead is still relatively 'light-weight'. At my count it is still under 1,500 characters - which as pointed out by Cowlibob wouldn't qualify for a DYK.
It's like 50 characters under. I don't know, maybe I could apply some minor puffery but I don't see it as a huge barricade.
The lead section, particularly for a 'Featured List', should summarize its content, provide any necessary background information, give encyclopedic context, link to other relevant articles, and make direct statements about the criteria by which the list was selected. For a start you should be looking about including information on sales and charting. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is now 1997 characters at my count. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain whether this article is really notable. At this stage Angel Haze has only released one album and two EPs, of which the only mainstream chart success has been a peak of #196 on the UK Charts. I'm think that the application might be a bit premature at this stage. Dan arndt (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a guideline that states articles may only become featured articles once the subject has tonnes and tonnes of successful content to write about. The article has near-50 references, includes all the standard discography sections, and is well written. Azealia911 talk 14:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, I am simply questioning whether the article should exist as a stand-alone list given the limited number of official releases by Angel Haze. The more I look at it the more I think that the article could be incorporated into the main article on Angel Haze. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess all's I can do is disagree, as an earlier editor pointed out, the main article its self has less bulk than this article, which can be used to argue either side. If you'd like, I could also bulk up the main article, as it's particularly outdated in content, but I rarely edit it. But I would still say that this article has more than enough to warrant a SAL. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on this. I count over 30 entries in this discography (including all sections). That looks to be enough to meet criterion 3b. Of course, it would be nice to have the main article be a bit meatier. It would make the disparity in article class much less troublesome. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, thanks for your input, I'll get to work on it in a bit. Would the article have to be bulked up in order for this to be promoted? Just wondering how urgent it is to attend to as I'm quite busy with work at the moment. Azealia911 talk 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 Oh ok then, in that case, I'll wait until this closes to start working on their bio article. As it currently stands, all comments have been addressed (apart from one comment from Dan arndt which I'm still not fully sure I grasp what they're requesting) and the other opposing user has been requested to reconsider their place on the lists status, and has stated they will if they have time. Other than that, nomination has five supporters and two users who are yet to indicate a !vote. Azealia911 talk 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt thanks for your comments. Azealia911 talk 07:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note: A discography list for an artist with only one actual album makes me give it a funny look, but the singles give it enough content to not be a content fork, so I'm in agreement with Chris. That said, you still have an oppose from The Rambling Man - can you ask him one last time to at least strike his oppose, even if he doesn't want to give a full review? I'd call the issue done after that. Also, just for your edification: vote counting is pointless- there's another nomination at FLC right now that I'm not going to promote until some discussion finishes that has 6 supports and one oppose. That's not "6 minus 1 equals 5", that's "consensus not reached". Similarly, if a nomination came up here and got 3 real supports in it's first day, I'd still leave it up for the full 10 days just to make sure it got enough attention paid to it. And I'd read it over myself. The little vote counting "participation guide" box you put on the nomination is pointless (and a little annoying), because the director and delegates actually evaluate the discussion before promoting, not just count the "!"votes. --PresN 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the participation guide, if anything it's more for me to see if I have comments to address left. I've asked The Rembling Man again to review his position on the page. Thanks for your comment Azealia911 talk 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 The Rambling Man's been editing since you and I requested his input, I don't think we'll get a response. Azealia911 talk 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, PresN Soo...what happens now? The Rambling Man has now struck his oppose. Azealia911 talk 11:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the oppose struck, I'm going to close this as passed. --PresN 20:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for passing my first piece of featured content! Azealia911 talk 20:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]

List of accolades received by Barfi!

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2012 Indian romantic comedy-drama film Barfi!. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala I'm a non-native English speaker. Hence, i request the nominator to keep the fact in mind that these aren't the only possible issues and a better editor may also contradict my views. To the best of my knowledge, i could spot these issues. Please rectify them, or give a reasonable explanation here.

  • The film stars Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi, and Roopa Ganguly in supporting roles — The film features Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi and Roopa Ganguly playing supporting roles.
  • Did Basu "co-wrote" the film's script with his wife Tani?
  • Any film's narrative in general either tells or narrates the lives of the protagonists. Barfi in particular. Give it a thought!
  • Is Barfi the only India's official entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 85th Academy Awards? I mean, was there any other one too?
  • What does mostly from recognition of the film itself mean? Can you please explain?
  • Barfi! received nine nominations, and swept eight awards — more formal usage of terms is encouraged.
  • Note c and d require references.
  • Is reference number five reliable?
  • Make sure that all the links in the reference are not dead.

Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well, every year there is only one official selection for the Oscars. The reference number five is very much reliable and thanks for your comments.—Prashant 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Pavanjandhyala. What makes Business of Cinema a "very much reliable" source? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have been using this in almost every FAs.—Prashant 16:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Namely? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: and @Pavanjandhyala:: Shah Rukh Khan (Reference number 133), List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra (Reference number 64), and many more. Do I need to prove more?—Prashant 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant!, FL exemplifies one of the best works on Wikipedia and that's why we ask you to prove its reliability. Well, reference number 6 and 28 are dead. What about them? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and found that reference number 28 is working properly. And, fixed the reference number 6.—Prashant 12:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This tells a different story however! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was reference number 29. Fixed it.—Prashant 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are four green links there. Turn them white by archieving them, just like reference number 6. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the references.—Prashant 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, i find this list eligible for a Support now as FrB.TG is looking after the prose, where i am weak being a non-native English speaker. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from FrankBoy (FrB.TG)
  • In the first line, pipe Indian to Cinema of India.
  • WP:ALT text needed for the image.
  • "received several awards and nominations for their performance" => "for their performances"
  • "written-directed by Anurag Basu" => "written and directed by Anurag Basu".
  • "Pritam composed the musical" => "Pritam composed the music".
  • Convert crore to million/billion per MOS:COMMONALITY.
  • "and won seven awards, including the Best FilmBest Film"?
  • Not sure of the credibility of The Times of India Film Awards as it is just basically an internet poll. Even if it is notable enough, it does not need to be included in the lead.
  • The same for ETC Bollywood Business Awards.
  • You need not link the categories of the BIG Star Entertainment Awards as they are redirected to the parent article.
  • Under the award column it's 58th Filmfare Awards while others are simply the awards (excluding their ceremonies). Be consistent.
  • The same for Zee Cine Awards 2013.
  • Why isn't Debajit Changmai sorted by his/her last name?
  • Ref. 6 is dead.
  • CNN-IBN needs to be linked on its first instance.
  • In ref. 10 and 11, link Apsara Awards to Star Guild Awards. It's not known as simply "Apsara Awards".
  • Pipe Indiatimes to Times Internet, and it does not need to be in italics. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TOI Awards, actually are not polls but awards. If you can see even Screen Awards decides Popular categories by voting. And, ETC Bollywood Awards are presented by the ETC Network for the business of the films.—Prashant 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TOI Awards are non-notable awards from a notable parent company. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start a new controversy for awards. The awards which were considered non-notable were already removed after a discussion. So, please. —Prashant 15:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment on it anymore as the editor does not want a "new controversy for awards". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Apsara categories are redirected link.
  • "Set between 1972-2012" => "Set between 1972 and 2012".
  • "grossing ₹1.75 billion (US$28 million) at the box office.|" - What is | for?
  • The first and second sentence of the second paragraph can be merged with the omission of "was a major commercial success" as it's not necessary here.
  • How many awards (total) has the film won?
  • "received 23 nominations at the 19th Screen Awards, winning nine, including" - nine what? You mean "awards"?
  • "At the 14th IIFA Awards, it won 14, out of 21 nominations" - ditto.
  • There is no source for the main categories of IIFA.
  • Ref 19. only confirms the win of Chopra, and not Basu.
  • Ref 21. is not needed as the film has won no awards at the Mirchi Music Awards ceremony.
  • Ref 25. does not even relate this page. Why is that here?
  • None of the ref confirms that the film won Best Cinematography at the Screen Awards.
  • Winners of Zee Cine seem to be verified by refs but not all i.e. Best Production Design. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks!—Prashant 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that all are done? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure all of the actors are "looking towards the camera"?
  • None of the IIFA source says that Saurabh Shukla was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor award.
  • In the Mirchi Music Awards' Results there is an endnote, actually there is no endnote, but just "[IV]" - what does that mean?
  • Now that you've added the total wins (and also nominations), a tally must be added to represent the number of nominations and awards that the film received. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Except for the ALT as all three of them are looking in three different directions. Can you suggest something for it?—Prashant 08:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to particularly describe their eyes' directions. Something like "A photograph of three people at an event for the film Barfi!". The film has not won 70 awards. As per my counting, it is 68. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the counting mistake. Thanks! for your detailed review. I appreciate it.—Prashant 10:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the film was a major commercial success. It was the first time that a film like this collected more than hundred crore. So its fine. And, you want that I make another sentence saying the film was released on this date?—Prashant 05:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I asked you to "merge" (combine) those two sentences if you remove that success thing. I didn't ask you to "make" another sentence or such. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, that can stay. See Kaminey fl. I mean this not an issue, but a choice.—Prashant 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked you to remove that. Given the above explanation ("collected more than..."), I think it can stay. Anyways I may post some more comments (if any). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash I support this FLC as I find no obvious improvement needed in prose.However, the links may be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2 Support — Looks pretty comprehensive. Nice work on this, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What's that?—Prashant 05:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prashant!: Do it this way. OR if you're asking the purpose behind that, you've got to read the template. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the template per user's request. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mirchi Music Awards Hindi 2012 nominations" appears as a dead link for me
It is very much working.—Prashant 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basu co-wrote the film ... Pritam composed the music ... Barfi! was edited by Akiv Ali dull prose
  • Pritam composed the music Pritam redirects to Pritam Chakraborty; can you use his proper name?
  • The film was a major commercial success ... The film was selected ... The film has received repetitive prose
  • At the 58th Filmfare Awards, Barfi! received most nominations with 13 of what?
  • At the 58th Filmfare Awards, Barfi! received most nominations with 13 needs a "the" before "13"
  • Is there a date for the "Okinawa International Movie Festival"?
Done. Also, That is the official Youtube Channel of the Star Guild Awards.—Prashant 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not verified; how do you know it's not a massive copyright violation? The prose also reads stiltedly; do you think you could combine a few sentences? Seattle (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced that source with another one. Do you have any suggestion about which sentence to merge?—Prashant 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The structure reads much better than it did– the only thing I would change would be Barfi! has received various awards and nominations in categories, with praise for its direction, the cast's performance, cinematography, screenplay, musical score, costume and production design. The film has won 68 awards. → Barfi! has received various awards and nominations in categories, with praise for its direction, the cast's performance, cinematography, screenplay, musical score, costume and production design; in total, the film has won 68 awards. Seattle (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your inputs.—Prashant 04:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I see a problem with the tone of the article. I know this is an accolades list, but you can still try to make it neutral. Though the film was a critical success during release, it received sharp criticism when it failed to get a nomination at the Academy Awards. Given that you've included stuff about the same, I think the reasons could well be added. —Vensatry (ping) 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vensatry for the oppose. But, please try to tell me an exact reason because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article. So, you think I should remove the official entry thing from the list?—Prashant 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think my reason was quite "exact". "because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article" – You mean to say lists can bypass WP:NPOV. I suggest you please reread the criteria before arriving at a conclusion like this. —Vensatry (ping) 08:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I feel every film from India is criticised for not getting nominated for the Oscars! And, I havent seen a single accolades page talking bout their criticisms. Do they? I have followed a pattern similar to lists and not articles.—Prashant 08:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about other lists, neutrality is a prime requirement for all articles. As for the Oscars, yes I do agree most of the films receive criticism, but in the case of Barfi, the criticism was very sharp right after it was submitted to the Academy. I see no point in mentioning that in the lede since that can neither be considered an award nor a nomination. But then, if you wish to retain it, the criticism too can be added to maintain WP:NPOV. —Vensatry (ping) 19:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • Per WP:ALT, alt text should identify the names of people in these types of lists. Their appearance or posture doesn't really matter.
  • "It was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani," - The source doesn't mention anything about his wife and from our article's infobox I see that she is credited (jointly) only with the film's story. However, I don't see that claim made anywhere else in the article (in words).
  • "Pritam Chakraborty composed the film's musical and background score while Akiv Ali edited Barfi!, with the cinematography provided by Ravi Varman" - It's better to move the name of the film (Barfi!) to the beginning of the sentence because it gives the reader an impression that we are talking about two different films.
  • "in total, the film has won 68 awards." - Needs "as of ..."
  • Since you are sure that the film has won 36 awards, why don't you include a table in the infobox mentioning the total number of wins and nominations? Many of the existing FLs seem to follow that pattern.
Its not a must in all the lists and all Indian films list follows the same pattern.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Critics' Choice awards have nominees?
  • The nominees/recipients of Best Film awards are the producers themselves. You seem to have included the name of the film in the table which is technically incorrect.
Same as above explanation.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Cowlibob says, the Times of India Film Awards are not notable. They are just internet polls.
It like you haven't seen the rest winners, which includes Jury Awards. It follows the pattern of all Indian awards like Filmfare, IIFA, Zee Cine and the rest. Popular awards are decided by votes and rest by Jury.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Best Film and Best Director" is repeated three times in the last three sentences.

—Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the rest.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support excellent piece of work. nicely written neutral point work. Daan0001 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your exhaustive review. Care to explain how well the article appeals neutral to you? —Vensatry (ping) 08:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean it sarcastically. Because I think Daan0001 always supports Prashant, regardless of the situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that clearly shows how good he is as a reviewer! —Vensatry (ping) 11:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments wow, so many supports!

Well, another nomination of mine also got many supports. Hehe.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "features" vs "incorporated" - pick a tense and stick with it.
  • No need to overlink rupee.
  • Second paragraph reads really clunkily, like a series of almost unrelated factoids.
  • "nominations in categories" is "in categories" really necessary?
  • 13 ... seven, etc... - see MOS:NUM.
Well, someone had told me that I should use numbers after 9. —Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NUMNOTES —Vensatry (ping) 06:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If ETC Bollywood Business Awards are notable, why isn't there an article? At least it should be red-linked.
Yes, these awards are notable, linked one of them to its existing article, created another and red-linked the last one.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment applies to the Lion Gold Awards and the South African Indian Film and Television Awards.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

[edit]
  • Suggested rephrase "The screenplay which incorporates a nonlinear narrative was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani." Also Tani Basu contributing to the screenplay is not mentioned in the source.
  • For critical acclaim you can replace the Business of Cinema with one from NDTV [[20]]. Just because it has been used a few times in featured content which often have 100s of references doesn't mean it's reliable, if it was used extensively to verify key information then there could be something to talk about, in any case refs should be able to stand on their own.
  • What makes South African Indian Television and Film Awards notable for inclusion here when it doesn't have an article of its own?
  • Times of India Awards also doesn't have its own page, I'm just redirected to the Times of India page. The awards themselves are determined by an internet poll which we had consensus to exclude. I see another user mentioned this above but the nominator just told him to stop discussing it without a valid rationale which is completely inappropriate behaviour. Nominators should show respect for the reviewers and not dismiss their comments as "Please don't start a new controversy for awards."
  • As table is sortable wikilink every entry wherever possible. Check the table for this, and also if we have articles for any of the currently unlinked nominees.

Cowlibob (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And, for the TOI awards, they are decided by voting (Popular awards) much like Zee Cine, IIFA and Filmfare. But, there are also Jury awards which is decided by the Jury. As for its page on wikipedia, anyone can create it, when one have time.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tani Basu is not mentioned in the source that you've sourced, please add a source that she co-wrote it or that's unsourced.
  • I'm not suggesting that just because there's no article for South African Awards means not to include it. Do the awards ceremony get substantive coverage from secondary source (not simply a listing of who won the award) per WP:GNG so that they can be redlinked per WP:REDLINK?
  • In regards to the TOI awards, they are internet polls which are different from ones you've described. Internet polls such as this have ben suggested to be excluded by three reviewers at this FLC as well as this RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Bollywood_Hungama_Surfers.27_Choice_Awards.
Cowlibob (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, South African....Awards received a substantial media coverage and so does TOI Awards. Toi is not an internet poll like Bollywood Hungama surfers Choice. TOI organised a function in Toronto, funded by Canadian government. It also had a jury unlike Polls.—Prashant 04:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast fix the unsourced info of Tani Basu contributing to the screenplay. Cowlibob (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had provided a source (Apsara Awards nominations list) as she received nominations (and won at other ceremonies) for both story and screenplay. I hope it's clear now.—Prashant 18:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding source. We can just sort this dispute by asking a delegate for their input.Cowlibob (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 and PresN: We're at an impasse here. There is disagreement on whether to include awards/nominations derived from an internet poll. The Times of India Film Awards which started in 2013 have split awards with some jury led and others in the popular category voted on via an internet poll, both were presented at a ceremony. There is consensus not to include awards/nominations derived from internet polls which I showed above however the nominator does not want to remove them as similar "popular" awards exist for others which are included in lists but are determined by telephone voting, online, and variety of other methods to get the result. I don't mind being wrong as long as we have a result either way. Cowlibob (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not commenting as a delegate here, but the rule of thumb is that we only include awards etc which are notable enough to have their own articles. This doesn't and personally I'd take it out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TOI is not a poll. Infact it had substantial media coverage, given by Times of India and is similar to Filmfare, Zee Cine and IIFA. If that is the case we will have to remove Screen Award for Best Actor and Actress Popular from wikiledia because they are 100% decided by polls. That's not all we have to remove all bollywood awards then. Only NFA will be here. Plus, Teen Choice Awards and other American awards are also polls but, I dobt see much problem there why?—Prashant 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second SchroCat's opinion. Vensatry and I also objected this; however, I dismissed the issue thinking that it might be notable. Now that there is consensus not to include this, it should be removed for at least if you want to see it as a featured list. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note: This list is currently at 6 supports; that said, at least 3 of them appear to have been given after only a cursory review at best, given that there are substantive comments after them. That'd be fine(ish), but Vensatry has an oppose that seems to have been largely ignored- I haven't looked into the tone of the list yet, but I'd like to see either you two come to an agreement or an impasse, not just ignoring the issue, before I'd be willing to look past an oppose to promote. I don't know enough about Indian film awards to say whether the TOI awards are notable/popular enough to overcome the half-online poll nature of them- but given that the idea of only jurying half of the categories but treating the polled ones the same instead of having a "reader's choice" category or something is frankly bizarre, I'd likely say that award should be dropped from the list. I'm not swayed by the argument that it had "substantial media coverage"- from the newspaper that awards it. Does anyone else pay a lot of attention to it besides the TOI? Really, what I'd like to see here to feel comfortable promoting is some actual persuasive arguments as to why you disagree with the other editors/reviewers and why you are correct, not just the equivalent of "no" and some handwaving about having to delete swathes of articles based on the consensus that the TOI award should not be in featured accolades lists. --PresN 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Vensatry has striked his oppose. FYI, TOI Awards ceremony was reported by other publications too.—Prashant 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2015 [21].

List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 13:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the format of similar lists nominated recently. I have a nomination currently open, but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World/archive1 has three supports and no outstanding comments. As always, all comments and thoughts are welcome. Harrias talk 13:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

That's all I have to say. I don't know whether or not you're comfortable with it, your input here will be appreciated. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review, I'll take a look. Harrias talk 14:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comment! Cowlibob fixed that before I could get to it, cheers. Harrias talk 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An impressive list. Just a couple of comments/questions..

  • In the lead Torquay gets mentioned in both the first and third paragraphs - any particular reason?
  • Not vital for FL but it would be nice to get pictures for all the grounds - a summer project perhaps (would this be useful for Torquay or this for Downside?)
  • Note C tells us about a match at Millfield, which wasn't a 1st class match - any particular reason why this one is included - presumably some of the other grounds have done this as well?

Otherwise looking good.— Rod talk 15:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, it's pretty rare for "Somerset" to play non-first-class fixtures away from Taunton. Along with the note for Taunton Vale, I found only one other relevant instance, and added a note for Combe Park too. Harrias talk 15:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Thanks for your comments, and particularly for finding those two images! Harrias talk 15:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this meets all the FL criteria.— Rod talk 16:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2015 [22].

List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what else to say other than Taylor Swift is one of the most popular singer-songwriters of the world, and has received many many awards. I have excluded the non-notable awards. I believe it satisfies the Featured list criteria. I will try to address reviewers' comments with the best of my ability.

Note: In the list, I have considered some awards had nominations (although they didn't), such as 4 Guinness awards out of 4 nominations, to avoid confusing the readers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The prose looks great, the references are reliable, and the awards are organized. If there are problems, someone else could spot them, but I'm basing off of my experience and rules I remember. So there you have it.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support And another. I don't remember the last time I supported a FLC without comment on the first read. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references, and plenty of content! Harrias talk 14:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has been a very long time since I promoted a list to FL status or even formally reviewed an FL candidate. Therefore, I do not wish to formally support or oppose this list's promotion. I have not reviewed any of the content for accuracy, but I did review the linking, formatting, manual of style and find this list to be of great quality. I did make many minor edits to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style (see this diff). If I had any feedback, I would suggest moving the "with Taylor Lautner" notes in the Teen Choice section to the "Recipient / Nominated work" column (as a subscript). I also notice that some sections note the number of awards received from X nominations, while others do not. This is inconsistent. All being said, this list looks great and if it is not already FL-worthy, it is mighty close. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making these changes to the list. Best of luck with the nomination! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I may do a more detailed review later if I have the time. Just a few quick observations:
    1. Considering that Swift has had such a decorated career, could we perhaps have a more catchy and relevant lead sentence? I'm thinking something along the lines of "The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift has won more than 220 awards from over 460 nominations. She has received seven Grammy Awards...". That way you attract readers and establish the topic of the article, in the most objective way possible.
    2. According to MOS:NUM, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures." Thus, throughout the article, when quantifying accolades, use either figures (1, 2, 3, etc.) or words (one, two, three, etc.), but not both. For example, you can say "She has won seven Grammys and sixteen AMAs" but not "She has won seven Grammys and 18 AMAs". This rule generally overrides the "rule of thumb" (that only single-digit numbers are spelled out).
I understand these comments may be contradictory to what you have observed or gotten away with in previous FLs, but I'm confident that they better the list and make it more appealing for the main page, if you ever intend to nominate it for TFL. All in all great job on this list! The Wikipedian Penguin 00:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian Penguin: Thank you for taking time to review it. I have corrected the above points you have mentioned. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments! The Wikipedian Penguin 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I am very happy to provide my support for the list as it is an exemplary work by FrB.TG. I made minor reference modifications using a script here, but other than that there is no point to complain about. Maybe one minor, the display image, can something where Swift is holding an award be used? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, I also corrected the whitespace and dash problems.
  • Another point, the Time 100 Award is missing, where Swift was listed.
  • References to Blogspot and About.com should go away.
  • FrB.TG, you sir really know how to make good quality lists! All I have to say is check the links, find something that isn't blogspot (even if from YouTube) for the YouTube Music Awards, and use a picture where Swift is holding an award or at least attending an award ceremony if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2015 [23].

List of The Boat Race results

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, last time round this became subject to an edit war so it needed to be withdrawn. I have reduced the controversial part to a minimum so, with luck, we won't end up in the same boat (tee hee). As always, thanks to anyone who has the time and energy to comment, your efforts are always appreciated, and I will attempt to address any and all comments as soon as practicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • 40% of the lead is dedicated to the reserves. Overrepresentration?
    A large proportion of the results section is dedicated to the reserves. How would you like me to improve the lead to satisfy your concern? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe have a graph showing the progression of victories after each year?
    I don't see how this helps, the information is in the table. It's personal taste. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a graph! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the horizontal scale? From 1947 on it seems to be in fours, but prior to that it's unclear. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the year of the event. Prior to 1947 the race was intermittent, which is why you may find it unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected as much... it's fine when races were held every year, but when they weren't, it's not at all apparent which year really applies. For example, the year shown before 1947 is 1937, so assuming that was four races earlier, we cannot tell from the graph what years the three in between were. This was of course when WWII was on, so they were 1938/9/46; but for other gaps, like 1829-41? We need to refer to the table. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which means to say that the graph and the table are complementary, the actual bare facts are in the table, the sense of dominance and equality and now how close it is after 161 events is given in the graph. Alternatively we could replace the year with the "edition", 1 to 161. Then dates, gaps etc become irrelevant. By all means upload your own preferred version. Or I can remove the graph altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table could use a column with the length ran that year. Use multirow if necessary
    No, but what I could do is to add a footnote regarding the courses which weren't the Championship Course, after all it's just a handful. Adding the same length for 150+ items is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk)
    Footnotes added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what easily is supposed to mean. Exact margins are completely unavailable? Is it >10lengths for sure? Perhaps have a footnote for it?
    It's what the official source says (i.e. the Boat Race website) and what the contemporary sources say. There's no definition. In answer to your first question, yes, exact margins are completely unavailable in the early races. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body of the list doesn't really explain what are reserves supposed to mean, and why was it started in '65. Have there been cases of somebody being injured in the main crew and they hopped from reserves to main?
    This is a list about the results, not the history of the Boat Race. If you're worried about the meaning of the word "reserve" then would you prefer me to link to Reserve#Sports?
  • how much is a canvass and a boat length?
    I can link this to the Glossary of rowing terms if you prefer, every boat is of different construction so its length and the length of its canvas is variable, there is no one answer and no regulation regarding it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've responded to your questions above, please let me know how you would like me to proceed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you will find plenty of reviewers out there happily dealing with your replies. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
Comments from Harrias
  • Not sure the first reference needs repeating in the first sentence, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it.
    Funny, some people get sniffy about quotes, so I directly referenced it each time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to which Oxford responded with then record-equalling streak of nine consecutive victories" I think there is a missing "a" between "with" and "then".
    Yep, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cambridge won the last race before the First World War resulted in a five-year hiatus in the event, and while Oxford triumphed in the 1923 race, Cambridge won thirteen consecutive races between 1924 and 1936, and led 47–40 overall." This sentence doesn't fit together right for me. The Oxford win in 1923 is relevant for breaking up a string of Cambridge victories between 1914 and 1936, but the article doesn't make that clear. At the moment, that middle bit seems a bit unnecessary to me.
    Tried an awkward reword, feel free to batter me for it and make alternative arrangements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you refer to "the 4.2-mile (6.8 km) Championship Course", with a lower case "the", but thereafter you always use "The Championship Course". I prefer a lower case "the" myself, but either way, remain consistent.
    Well in the first case it's split by the measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have some sort of indication in the table, be it a symbol or a note, ideally next to the time, for those races that did not take place on the current course.
    Agreed, that's on my to-do list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have an accessdate for ref #13. Technically, as a newspaper source, that isn't the end of the world, but given you have provided one for the similar refs #17 to #21, for consistency it would be nice.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias talk 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muchos gracias, I'll sort the footnotes about the length of the race, as noted also by Nergaal, tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been resolved, nice work! Harrias talk 17:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support but there still isn't an accessdate for ref 21. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I've added that accessdate! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

  • You might add alt texts for the images.
  • If I am not wrong, in harv references (book ones), we also add year preceded by the last name of the book's author e.g. "MacMichael, p. 34" should be changed to "MachMichael 1979, p. 34".
    I don't see the need to do this if there's no ambiguity, there's only one MacMichael reference after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you have linked publishers of sources in the Notes section, the same can be done with CBC News.
    Sure, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boat Race Company Limited – ditto.
    No, while they're the official Boat Race company, they are not notable enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you provided a google link only for the third entry in the below section and not with the other two?
    If you are referring to the bibliography section, it's because the third entry is the only one PD and available to read on Google for nothing, the other two are not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had some other minor concerns which were already mentioned by the above reviewers and are already addressed. Aside from that, the list looks good. -- Frankie talk 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • Very well-compiled list overall. However, the names of works only need to be linked within the first reference using it per WP:OVERLINK. Other than that, good to go once FrB.TG's comments are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I link them every time since it's not certain which reference will be accessed first, a bit like linking every item every time in a sortable list. I don't see it being a violation of overlink. Thanks anyway! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:51, 4 July 2015 [24].

Angelina Jolie filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is about the filmography of American actress Angelina Jolie. I'm aware that this is a second open nomination for me; however, my current nomination has five supports, and no unaddressed comments. Cheers to all reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Her television appearances ain't mentioned as I don't think it is important. It's pretty common among film stars to appear in TV shows. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • "Her breakthrough came the following year in HBO's Gia, which depicted the life of the titular model and her career as a result of substance abuse," Her life and career were a result of her substance abuse? Clarify this.
  • "Jolie played a sociopath mental patient in Girl, Interrupted (1999), a film based on Susanna Kaysen's memoir of same name, for which she won a Golden Globe Award" Unlink Golden Globe Award, it's already linked in the paragraph above.
    • Yet both are piped to different links.
  • "The following year, she played an assassin in the commercially successful production Mr. & Mrs. Smith, an action comedy opposite her husband Brad Pitt." They weren't married back then.
  • ref #4: Link PC World.
  • ref #8: Link The Philadelphia Inquirer and add Interstate General Media as publisher.
  • ref #19 and 95: Unlink The Daily Telegraph and Telegraph Media Group.
  • ref #27: Unlink International Business Times and IBT Media.
  • ref #28: Avoid SCREAMING.
  • ref #30: Unlink Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc..
  • ref #32, 88, 97, 98, 99: Unlink The Hollywood Reporter and Prometheus Global Media.
  • ref #36, 38, 46, 59, 75, 81: Unlink The New York Times and The New York Times Company.
  • ref #37, 42, 52, 54, 56, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 101: Unlink Box Office Mojo and Amazon.com.
  • ref #40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 51, 61, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 77, 83, 87, 89, 91, 93: Unlink AllMovie and Rovi Corporation.
  • ref #43: Unlink The Philadelphia Inquirer.
  • ref #55: Unlink Los Angeles Times and Tribune Publishing.
  • ref #57: Unlink Radio Times and Immediate Media Company.
  • ref #79, 85: Unlink The Guardian and Guardian Media Group.
  • ref #84: Unlink Forbes and Forbes, Inc..
  • ref #92 and 100: Unlink The Huffington Post and AOL.
  • ref #103: Unlink Yahoo! Movies. and Yahoo Inc..

Littlecarmen (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: I think this has come up before. Overlinking doesn't apply to references and it can indeed be useful to have them all linked as we don't which reference is going to be clicked first. Other than that, I have addressed your other comments. Thanks for reviewing! -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it mentioned anywhere that it doesn't apply to references? I've never heard that before. Littlecarmen (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly know about it whether it has a policy or not, but I have seen several FLs do that. This one for instance.
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
  • Can anything be done about the copious amounts of N/A templates? I'd suggest either filling them in or blanking them out. I read the N/A template as "Not applicable" and in turn interpret that to mean that the article is telling me said films didn't have a budget at all, as opposed to it not being known. I'd suggest {{Unknown}} if this is the case.
  • The final two music video appearance listings need closing "
  • In the Shark Tale listing, there's a (voice) placed after her role, why is this not replicated in other animated films she's featured in such as the Kung Fu Panda series.
  • The link to Alexander (film) in the main picture is a dablink.
  • The link to Mark Osborne in the Kung Fu Panda listing is a dablink.
  • The link to John Stevenson in the Kung Fu Panda listing is a dablink.

Azealia911 talk 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: Thanks for your comments. Didn't take so much time to fix. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • Instead of saying "..which made her famous globally", something like "made her a global star" sounds better.
  • "highest-grossing". Hyphen missing.
  • "became the highest grossing opening weekend ever for a film featuring an action heroine". Not sure how it can 'become' an opening weekend. Say that it "had the biggest opening weekend for a film featuring an action heroine".
  • These sentences have little or no continuity, and needs a bit of rephrasing: "Her only screen appearance of 2006 was in the Robert De Niro-directed spy film The Good Shepherd (...) She played the lead in two of the top-grossing thrillers Salt and The Tourist (both 2010).
  • "earned a nomination of the Academy Award for Best Actress" => "earned an Academy Award for Best Actress nomination"
  • The lead says that her first directorial venture is In the Land of Blood and Honey, but the table lists another film before that.
    • Actually that's a documentary. Clarified.
  • It's either USD or US$, not USD$
  • Since you don't have a separate section for television, wouldn't it be better to have a footnote stating which of her roles were in TV films?
    • Not an FN yet I have added a key.
  • This says that the budget of In the Land of Blood and Honey is $13 million.
    • Thank you for the source.
  • Some of her film roles are not sorted by last name, such as Jodie Swearingen, Gina Malacici etc. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good! But per WP:SLASH, for roles like "Kate Libby / Acid Burn", please add a footnote to specify whether she played a single or dual role in the film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • Happy to leave input:
  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for leaving input. I think I have addressed all of your comments. As for repeating the links in references, this was previously objected by Littlecaremen to whom I replied that there is no harm in it in fact it can be useful as we don't know which one is going to be clicked first. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on prose quality; very repetitive, and it discusses films in too much detail. We need to try and keep it more concise. This list has 3721 characters in the lead, for an actress with what is essentially a 20-year career. Look to our lists on people like Laurence Olivier to see how to write about such things concisely; He had a much more lengthy and prolific career than Jolie, but the lead is the same length as the one for this list. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the image yet this one is something related to her films. And since this is a filmography page, I have kept this as the lead image. As for the directorial film, I have rephrased that. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Please remove the box office and budget columns. I know they have been used previously in older FLs but as per this talk [[25]]. There is consensus not to include them in filmographies.
  • "While still a child" makes it seem that it was a surprise that she started then which isn't really the case as she is the daughter of a notable actor.
  • If she won a Golden Globe award for the television film, what made Gia her breakthrough role. Clarify.
  • Overall the prose is very dry in places with lots of Jolie did this... She received this... Jolie did. It needs a lot more variation in its sentence structure. I'll try and see if I can copyedit it later.
  • Since she has directed only four films this can be incorporated into one film table with the notes section specifying that she directed it.
  • Television films should be in separate section as "Television" because they are television appearances which just happen to be feature length.
  • IMDb said she made a cameo in The Fever (2004). Also missing: Kung Fu Panda Holiday television special, Kung Fu Panda: Secrets of the Masters animated short, Difret (executive producer), Trudell (executive producer), and Confessions of an Action Star (cameo).

Cowlibob (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Thanks for the comments. I think I have resolved all of the above. I have tweaked the prose to avoid monotony. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing what you have. As this is for featured content, I would try to find better alternative sources for info referenced by Daily News, The Wrap, Yahoo! Movies, New Tang Dynasty Television, j2 Global. Also any books published by Lulu.com as it's a self-publishing company so anyone one can put their content on it so we don't reference to it. Cowlibob (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheer Cowlibob. All sorted now. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:51, 4 July 2015 [26].

Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket award list! A fair bit of tidying work on this list, and hopefully the prose helps to make sense of it all, though I've gone around in circles a couple of times on points. As always, all thoughts and comments welcome. Harrias talk 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support, with a few comments: I'm sure you've thought long and hard about the running order, but it seems odd to go from Sangakkara in 2014 to Ranji in 1900 – yet the distinction between current and retrospectively-notional is entirely rational, I admit. I struggle to understand why the totals of the Awards by country table and of the graphic next to it differ by one, but am quite prepared to be told I'm missing something obvious. Seeking to find anything more to grumble about, I mention the inconsistency of image sizes, with Sir Viv's so much narrower than his compeers'. That apart I can see no reason to withhold support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FL criteria. – Tim riley talk 22:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The totals for the country table and the graphic were just a typo, so I've fixed that now. Viv's image is narrower because it is already full size: you're right that it does look odd, I might remove it for that reason. Thanks for your review! Harrias talk 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For consistency you should use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template to italicise Wisden in the article title.
  • "This criterion continued for" would "This criterion was applied for..." be better?
  • I know we know but you could mention that Ponting was Aussie.
  • "panel helped to select the winners" helped to select or did select?
    Both. I'm not sure which is more accurate. Engel collated the listed with help from experts on certain eras, and then those in question had a final smaller panel to determine the winner in case of dispute. The sixteen figure refers to the whole lot, experts plus the deciding panel. The details gets a bit complicated. I could try and expand it out more to explain it if you think that would help? Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sangakarra caption, "Leading Cricketer of the Year." do you mean "Leading Cricketer in the World"?
  • Here's a weird one, sort by Player name up and then down, then sort by Country, it doesn't work....
    I think it's because of the sorting I used for the World War columns. It does work if you then click to sort by Country again. I don't know if the functionality would be improved by removing the forced sorting? Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the refs using {{reflist|30em}}

Otherwise nothing to complain about. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've addressed all but those noted above. Harrias talk 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • Alt text needed for Sangakkara's image. Be consistent with it, per WP:ALT you should simply name the subject in these lists (talking about Bradman and Warne).
  • "reverted back" is tautology
  • "Ricky Ponting was chosen as the first winner of the award, for scoring eleven international centuries during 2003" Was he really selected because he scored 11 centuries, but not for his runs?
  • I think the list could do with a bit about the selection process (criteria, board members who decide the winners, etc.,). This one is more than enough.
  • Where is the reference for the first two tables?

—Vensatry (ping) 11:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Think I've dealt with all of these, thanks! Harrias talk 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we specify the period considered for the award. Whether it is January - December or September to September or whatever. Tintin 13:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "A sixteen-person panel helped to select..." helped to select sounds like they were not actually making the decision themselves when they obviously were. I would change it to selected.
  • "Don Bradman was listed the most, winning in ten years..." the winning in ten years doesn't sit well with me. I think it could be made clearer that he simply was the leading cricketer ten times. Sounds a bit ambiguous at the moment.
  • "as the Leading Cricket in the World..." think there is a typo here, should be cricketer

NapHit (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Think I've dealt with all of these, thanks! Harrias talk 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans, happy to support this now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:51, 4 July 2015 [27].

List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)

—Vensatry (ping) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - very nice.

That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "...believed that a cricket ground would enhance the image of the district." Is this referenced by the ref in the following sentence? If not then I reckon it should be referenced as this could be challenged
  • Is there any particular reasons for having colours in the First-class, List A and Twenty columns?
  • Could have a separate column for the refs?

NapHit (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured headers are no more :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

  • I think having the "First-class", "List A" and "Twenty20" titles above the "First, Last, Matches" row would work better.
  • Personally, I'd prefer the venues that have only hosted one match to display that match in both first and last, but I can the logic in not doing so.
  • The table needs row and column scopes adding per MOS:DTT.

Otherwise this looks pretty good! Harrias talk 13:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first one, the rows and scopes may have to wait till after the weekend as I'll be away -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I do it myself if I have a few free minutes! Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds/archive1 sometime after the weekend too? Harrias talk 13:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the rows and scopes turned out to be nowhere near as big a deal as I thought, so I managed to get them done before clocking off for the weekend........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work. Harrias talk 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:51, 4 July 2015 [28].

List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a short but comprehensive and well-sourced list. HĐ (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Bit surprised at how quick the supports are rolling in. Lead needs a good copyedit which I'll try and do later. Tables are not accessible, need rowscopes and colscopes. As nearly all the sources are in Korean, I can't comment on it being verified but as they're from the official site I presume it's accurate. Would be nice if there were some secondary sources which shouldn't be hard to find as this is a list of numbers ones. Why do some of the albums have alternate Korean titles and others not? Images need alttext. Cowlibob (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I'm confused by the "one of which..." sentence. If Into The New World topped the chart in Week 2 of 2011, what topped the album in Week 1 of 2011 as the table starts with Into the New World. Could be useful to sort the artist column so e.g. All of SNSD's number ones would be lined up. Ideas for expanding the lead, you could mention the top three best selling albums, did the albums that sold well win any notable awards/ recognition or break any records? Were any of the albums the best selling album ever for that particular act? Cowlibob (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: The first week of 2011 counted by Gaon is December 19–25, 2010. I'm rather confused whether this should be added. Simon (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From which date till which date does the 2011 chart cover? Ideally you should have week 1 to week 52 if Gaon use December 19-25, 2010 as week 1 then you should include it as week 1 of the 2011 chart which you can clarify with a note. After all this is a list about what Gaon classifies as 2011 not whether it is actually in 2011. Cowlibob (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this. Thanks! Simon (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments I've got serious issues with this list as it currently is.

  • Like Cowlibob, I'm also concerned by the lack of secondary sources. Of the 67 references in this article, only one is not a primary source, and, since it's dated 2010, one can't really claim that it's actually about the subject in particular.
  • Adding in more secondary sources would also help to beef up the lead, which to me looks rather sparse. Currently clocking in at under 1500 characters, it wouldn't even pass DYK in its current state. Is there nothing else that can be said about the number ones on this chart from this year?
  • The prose shifts between present tense and past tense rather awkwardly in places, e.g. "albums claimed" and "peaked atop", but then "are three acts" and "is the longest-running". You're mainly discussing past events in the second paragraph; MOS:TENSE therefore suggests using the past tense.

I think this article still needs a lot of work doing to it, and I wish all the participating editors the best of luck in improving it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another set of dubious instant supports here.
  • "Sony Music Korea" is pipelinked to Sony Music which redirects to Sony Music Entertainment which has no mention of Korea at all. Is there actually such an entity as "Sony Music Korea"?
  • Similar comment for Universal. And do avoid pipelinking to redirects, it's very clusmy.
  • Our article calls the band CNBLUE.
  • "both spent four " -> "both of which spent four" or put a semi-colon in there.
  • "a reissue of the album titled A-CHA sold 129,894 copies" whose album?
  • "Album of the Year at the Mnet Asian Music Awards in 2011" if these awards don't even have an article, are they notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of this article?
  • "T.O.P." is a redirect to a disambiguation page.
  • U-Kiss is referred to as U-KISS by our own article.
  • Sortable table so links should be linked every time.
  • "Commencing date" should sort chronologically, not alphabetically.
  • It should probably also say something like "Week starting"
  • Repackage or Reissue? You use both terms for A-CHA.
  • Sung Si Kyung -> Sung Si-kyung.

Enough at this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All of your concerns have been addressed. (the Mnet Asian Music Awards has its own article and therefore it is a notable award) Simon (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of my concerns have been addressed. Please check them individually. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: The date sorting has been fixed. Thanks! Simon (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are all the links in the monthly chart table? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: done now. Thanks1 Simon (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Are there any concerns from you? Simon (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [30].[reply]

List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L. Sayers was an absolutely fascinating woman. She had a brain the size of a planet and a sense of humour and zest for life that was admired by all who knew her. In 1923 she introduced the character Lord Peter Wimsey, the archetype for the British gentleman detective. She then went on to write theological essays and plays, as well as literary criticism of Dante; she also translated Dante's Divine Comedy, and works from medieval French. This is a new page with some basic info removed from the main Sayers page and worked into a fuller, more complete list, now fully supported by reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seattle

  • Dorothy Leigh Sayers (usually stylised as Dorothy L. Sayers; 1893–1957) was an English crime writer, poet, playwright, essayist, translator and Christian humanist; She was also a student of classical and modern languages. can you just move "and student of classical and modern languages" to the end of "Christian humanist", and cut the "and" after "translator", for flow?
  • Let me mull on this one a little. The initial list is her public output and profession; the second list is lesser known and more a hobby or way of life. It would also make for an unweildy list to open. I'll ponder further on this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Seattle, I've mulled over this and I think, for the reasons I've given above, that I will leave it as it stands for the moment. It's still very early days for the FLC, so should others object or comment, then I will certainly try to re-work the sentence. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Sayers was educated at home, and then at the University of Oxford, which was unusual for a woman at the time, as they were not admitted as full members of the university until 1920 can you rework this? This reminds me of a comma splice
  • a murder mystery novel featuring the fictional Lord Peter Wimsey no need to link Wimsey here; linked above
  • Towards the end of the 1930s, and without explanation, do you have a reference for "without explanation"? This seems abrupt; can you form a note that explains why some biographers state she shifted to religious writings?
  • It's supported by the Benstock citation, but I could have put any of the sources in there as they all say the sme thing. Sayers gave no explanation for the change, and the biographers all guess at possible reasons, but none with any great conviction. It's just one of life's little mysteries, really. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the four Pietra canzoni Can you link "Pietra" or "canzoni" somewhere?
  • Name in article stylized as "Dorothy L. Sayers" but in infobox as "Dorothy L Sayers"
  • I count 11 plays, but infobox only lists 10; why isn't "The Silent Passenger" italicized?
  • "Scripts" section in infobox doesn't link anywhere
  • When I sort ascending for the "Title" column in the "Letters" section, The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1951–1957, In the Midst of Life sorts before the 1937 and 1944 letters. Seattle (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Many thanks indeed for your thoughts. I'll mull over the first one to see if there is a different way of doing this without leaving one long list. I need to try and find suitable links for "Pietra" and "canzoni" too, which I'll hunt round for, as nothing obvious springs to mind. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked canzoni to canzone - Italian for song. Pietra is Italian for stone and doesn't link anywhere, so I've translated the two in the table, although not in the lead (I'm not sure it's needed there as "Pietra" acts as a title and conzoni is linked, but I could be persuaded if you think it's the best course). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – with a few minor comments:

  • Novels
    • Is it worth mentioning in the notes column that Unnatural Death and The Five Red Herrings were published in the US with different titles, namely The Dawson Pedigree and Suspicious Characters?
  • Non fiction

That's all from me. Happy to support this excellent piece of work for FL. Tim riley talk 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, for your thoughts and comments - all much appreciated. While I have your attention, could I draw your eyes to Seattle's comment above re the opening line. Do you have a view either way? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to roll all the various occupations into the one list it would go on a bit. Perfectly acceptable, but it's easier on the reader's eye if you break it up, I think. The semicolon is an excellent choice - linking the lot. A full stop would be a bit emphatic. On the whole, I think I'd leave the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Doc Blofeld

In the external box is "By List of works by" intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in very good shape and seems to meet FL criteria. I suppose aesthetically I'd rather see each note column with some info and a source rather than empty ones among the others but it's probably redundant to do so in many cases and no point in adding stuff for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "She is perhaps best known" not sure. Is this your own opinion?
  • Would prefer to see all upright images the same size.
  • Why is the location of the publisher put first and then not sorted against? I thought you would put the location in parentheses after the name of the publisher?
  • [4][10][11][9], [4][11][9] etc refs in numerical order preferably.
  • Some of the notes have inline references, some don't, for those that don't, are the notes adequately referenced elsewhere?
  • Yes. All the information in all the tables is supported by the initial sources shown at the head of the Title column. There are a couple of entries (just the Detective Club books, I think), where the details were sourced from elsewhere). - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer the infobox to be in the same order as the sections in the article, not that it's a big deal but it seems like common sense.
  • Was The Silent Passenger never performed? It has a blank "location of first performance".
  • It was a film script, rather than a play. I've added "See note", as I have done with the radio plays, to make it a little more clear - and re-named the section and table. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I can't fault it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT
Comments from FrB.TG
  • WP:ALT needed for the three images.
  • Though one is not banned from writing US, I think "United States" is better.
  • In the tables, "

Support – Looks solid. One thing though:

  • "During the Second World War these plays, and other works like The Wimsey Papers (1939–40) and Begin Here: A War-Time Essay (1940), Sayers "offered her countrymen a stirring argument for fighting", according to her biographer, Catherine Kenney." -- the conjunction confuses the continuation from the leading line somewhat and doesn't really flow. For example you say "During the Second World War these plays...Sayers "offered her countrymen a stirring argument for fighting", according to her biographer, Catherine Kenney."

Nothing else to report; an excellent list. CassiantoTalk 08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks Cass, a "through" missing from the sentence, which should now make sense. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted. --PresN 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [31].[reply]

73rd Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2011 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Avoid the usage of U.S. in the infobox.
  • "Best Director winner Steven Spielberg ... was the third person to receive double directing nominations in the same year" - who were the other two?
  • "the most awarded foreign language films in Oscars history" - "Oscars" is a bit informal, use "Academy Awards".
  • "At the time of the nominations announcement on February 13" - something's wrong with this sentence. Consider rephrasing. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. Unless the incident resulted in an action such as a protest (i.e. protests at the 64th and 68th Oscars from homophobia and racism respectively), this information of what was more deserving or not belongs in the respective film's articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, very much! :)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS" Thanks for making the changes yourself.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*ALT text needed for main poster image.
  • Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon became the third film.... add note specifying who the other two were with ref.
  • if nothing else, tonight;s... Is the semicolon present in the original quote?
  • self- satisfaction.... Is the space between self and satisfaction present in the original quote?
  • 8% decrease in article but in line ref doesn't specify % and Ref 49 specifies 7% drop.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done: I've addressed everything above with some notes:
  • Added alt caption that reads "Official poster promoting the 73rd Academy Awards in 2001." similar to 40th Daytime Emmy Awards.
  • Replaced semicolon with apostrophe in "tonight's".
  • Removed space between self and satisfaction.
  • Copied ref 49 to sentence mentioning 7 percent drop and made duplicate copy of ref 49 for the following sentence.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted - another one down! --PresN 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/July_2015&oldid=673226742"