Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2013

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 Hahc21 19:50, 30 June 2013 [1].

---

List of Kings Island attractions

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria--Dom497 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "such as Flight of Fear which was the worlds first linear induction motor launched roller coaster". "worlds" → "world's". Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Similar fix is needed later in the sentence. Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) "Kings Island newest attractions are...". "Island" → "Island's". Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "17 years after the park opened". Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) The lead image could use alt text. Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Soak City: "In 1997, Kings Island expanded the water park to 15-acre". Last word should be plural. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Shudde talk 02:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "The park is known to have significant attractions such as Flight of Fear which was the world's first linear induction motor launched roller coaster, and The Beast which has held the record of the world's longest wooden roller coaster since its opening in 1979 and continues to be ranked as one of the best wooden roller coasters by industry polls." — this sentence is quite hard to follow and does not read particularly well. Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Might be good to add the date the park was opened. The second sentence says "Since the opening of the amusement park", but there is no context. Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC) "Up until 1989, Kings Island did not have a water park. After 17 years of operation" — this is confusing, the reader has to do maths in their head (to work out the park opened in 1972). If the opening date is added earlier, then "After 17 years of operation" becomes redundant. Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Maybe establish that "Soak City" is "WaterWorks" somewhere in the lead. Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Should the height requirements include conversions to metres or centimetres? I would say no. After all, it wasn't done here.--Dom497 (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I looked into it, according to MOS:CONVERSIONS conversions should be included in this case. They should be included in List of Canada's Wonderland attractions as well. - Shudde talk 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Considering the year rides were opened/added is mentioned in the lead, would it not be good to add this information to the list? - Shudde talk 11:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) KI website does not list all the attraction opening dates. It would be hard getting dates from reliable sources for the ones that are not listed on KI's website.--Dom497 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Alright, a bit of a shame. - Shudde talk 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Additionally: "Also, The Beast continues to be ranked as one of the best wooden roller coasters by industry polls." I'm not sure that [2] is a RS for this statement. - Shudde talk 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC) This reference should have a page number. Also a date, volume number etc. I don't think a template:cite web is appropriate here, maybe journal rather than web? - Shudde talk 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a space between the full stop and superscript; I'm happy to Support under the good faith assumption that this minor error will be fixed. - Shudde ^talk 09:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Two dabs (Mason, Mondial)... Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "The park is known to have significant attractions " why not just "The park has attractions such as..."? Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "by industry polls. [3] " no spaces before refs. Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "one of the best wooden roller coasters" where, in Ohio? In the US? In the world? Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) What's a "lazy river"? Added a link in the lead. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "WindSeeker during testing in 2011." no need for the period. Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "One of the many animatronic dinosaurs at Canada's Wonderland version of Dinosaurs Alive!, similar to Kings Island." ditto. Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Try making those images the same height, at least. Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Suspended Family Coaster" why the over capitalisation?! That is a specific model name with a matching article. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) What's a Crazy Bus and what's a Mini Jet? Added a link to Mini Jet. Dom, any ideas on how to handle Crazy Bus? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I'v added a link to the Zamperla website.--Dom497 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC) " 17 years after the park opened" what park? Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Mondo Monsoon in Soak City." no need for the period. Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see the need for the blatant advertising external links. I've pruned it to just the home page. Is that better or should I remove it as well? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Almost every sentence in the Soak City paragraph starts with "In 199X..." This makes the section difficult to read, and could use some variation to increase sentence fluency. That's the only comment I have. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Looks like it's all fixed! Great. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 01:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by DivaKnockouts In the lead, write out numbers under ten per WP:ORDINAL. (I've taken care of this for you) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC) The sentence "All of the water slides and lazy river were refurbished along with an additional wave pool being constructed." sounds way too confusing at the end. Is the wave pool still being constructed? Consider rewording for clarity. — DivaKnockouts 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• That looks and sounds better. Support. — DivaKnockouts 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series

Nominator(s): SoapFan12 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series for featured list because I believe that this meets the criteria. Also, I previously nominated Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series and it became an FL. Therefore, I have made the same requirements as I did for the other article and I strongly believe that it should become an FL. Thank you.

• Support I don't see any immediate issues that need to be addressed. Article is in very good shape.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "is a Emmy Award that" -> "an Emmy..."  Done "The award was introduced following two years of the ceremony being held off-air. [1] " remove space before ref, but what is the relevance of the off-air award ceremonies to this award?  Done "one of the Daytime Emmy Awards presented" okay, so perhaps rather than "is an Emmy Award", it should be "is a Daytime Emmy Award"? Or, to avoid repetition, just have in the lead that "is an award..."  Done I don't think a "child actor" is an appropriate link for people who can win the award up to the age of 25.  Done "While the other actors nominated in the category were over 25.[3]" this is not a sentence, it should be merged with the previous one.  Done "has held the most wins" -> "holds the most".  Done Why does Bryan Buffington not have an article? Buffington's does not have an article, since no one created one. Therefore, what should I do? Could write one? Or red link it if he passes WP:N. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)  Done. Thank you again. :) SoapFan12 09:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) "Indicates the winning performance." -> "Indicates the winning actor"  Done "Table heading of "Actress" should probably say "Actor"?  Done MOS:DTT compliance required, row and col scopes needed please.  Done Ref 4 is incomplete, needs access date etc.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Overall, I have fixed and corrected everything. Thank you :) SoapFan12 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arre 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Arre 9 Here are a few concerns I have: "...Drama Series is a Emmy Award..." ---> "is an Emmy Award"  Done "It is an award presented annually..." ---> "It is presented annually..."  Done "to recognize a young actor under the age of 25, who has delivered an outstanding performance in a role while working within the daytime drama industry" ---> IMO this should be reworded to something like "in recognition of a young actor below the age of 25...", just a suggestion, though.  Done In the lead "Daytime Emmy Award at the time at age 15.[1] while the other actors" ---> is this meant to be a period or comma? Fix it.  Done "Its most recent recipient is Chandler Massey, for the role of Will Horton, on Days of our Lives" ---> just another suggestion but this should be reworded to something else like "The most recent recipient of the award is Chandler Massey, for his role of Will Horton on Days of our Lives".  Done "In 2000, he also became the actor to have received the most nominations, with six" ---> "...with a total of six", this sounds more proper.  Done "later reached five nominations as well" ---> "...have also received five nominations each".  Done Just out of curiosity, is there an actual need for the Double-dagger image here? It is needed for WP:ACCESS, they don't need bold. In each image of an actor who has been recognized in this category, I feel that the show they play the character on should also be stated. Especially in cases like Dondre Whitfield; it appears that the character he plays/played doesn't have an article, so the title of the series should be added.  Done Joshua Morrow's image: Please add (left). We all know who is who in that picture, but it's just more proper that way.  Done Same with Scott Clifton's image, add (left)  Done Chandler Massey caption: "In 2012, Chandler Massey was the first actor to win a Daytime Emmy Award for playing a gay character.[3] He receive the award again in 2013" ---> "Chandler Massey is the first actor to receive the award for portraying a gay character, having won in 2012 and 2013 for his role of William Horton (or Will, whichever is common) on Days of our Lives."  Done Under "Total awards won": Days Of Our Lives ---> Days of our Lives  Done Ref 48: Convert POPSUGAR to PopSugar.  Done Ref 59: Remove the brackets from "emmyonlinetv".  Done Once these points have been addressed I'd be happy to support this as a Featured list :). Regards, Arre 09:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC) These concerns have been all addressed. Thanks for reviewing the article! SoapFan12 10:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks again for taking a look at the article :)! It's greatly appreciated. SoapFan12 02:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry but there are just a couple more points I have before supporting: "The most recent recipient of the award is Chandler Massey, for the role of Will Horton, on Days of our Lives." ---> "The most recent recipient of the award is Chandler Massey for his portrayal of Will Horton on Days of our Lives".  Done "Currently, Guiding Light has the most recipients of this award, with a total of seven wins." ---> remove "currently". Also I think it is worth noting that Guiding Light is defunct.  Done. Also I believe that Guiding Light is needed since for the leads you need to cover every sections of the article. Am I right? Do you know what i mean? "The criteria later changed to require the actor to be 25 years old or younger to be eligible to win" ---> Can you state which year the criteria was altered? Instead of just stating "later"? Also, too many "to"s, this sentence needs rewording. Before, it should be clarified that there was some sort of controversy or the rules were different. Because there is nothing stated about the criteria before. I hope you know what I mean, this sentence just doesn't flow well.  Done "Since 1999, Jonathan Jackson holds the most wins with three awards for his role as Lucky Spencer on General Hospital" ---> "Since 1999, Jonathan Jackson has held the most wins with a total of three from six nominations for his role as Lucky Spencer..."  Done It sounds odd still... As I said, add "has" before "held". "In 2000, he also became the actor to have received the most nominations, with a total of six, beating Bryan Buffington's record of five." ---> "In 2000, Jackson also became the actor to have received the most nominations, surpassing Bryan Buffington's..."  Done Also, where it says "Bryan Buffington's record of five", add "tally" after "record", just to add a bit of variety in wording.  Done Another thing, in the info-box it says "best" performance. Is this an official description?, or shouldn't "best" be "outstanding" performance?  Done Arre 06:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks again Arre! This means a lot that you have been able to do this. :) SoapFan12 10:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC) To avoid the italics for "National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences" that are in the work parameter, you could add around the academy name, or just move "National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences" behind the emmy online website in publisher.  Done "The criteria was altered, requiring the actor will not be eligible to win unless they are 25 years old or younger" ---> this sounds even more awkward, try wording it differently. Just say "The criteria was altered, requiring that the actor be 25 years old or below". Also, I feel like it still sounds really awkward to say randomly in the lead. Maybe all of the requirements should be in the first paragraph, and record-breakers/milestones should be in the second paragraph. It just doesn't flow well.  Done "Networks had declined to broadcast the show during a time of voting integrity rumors and waning interest." ---> is there a source for this?  Done Ref 3: "AfterEllen.com and TheBacklot.com" should not be in italics.  Done Arre 06:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks! :) "Since 1999, Jonathan Jackson held the most wins" ---> still haven't added "has" before held..  Done First paragraph is too big compared to second. Like I said. Move "The most recent recipient of the award is Chandler Massey, for his portrayal of Will Horton, on Days of our Lives. Guiding Light has the most recipients of this award, with a total of seven wins." to the second paragraph.  Done "The criteria was altered, requiring that the actor to be 25 years old or below" ---> you can add "later" now considering you have mentioned some things about this directly before. Change it to "The criteria was later altered, requiring that the actor be aged 25 or below".  Done I was just wondering, is there a "previously known as" or former name parameter for the info-box? If there is it would be helpful to list the former name of the award there, instead of having it bold & in the lead. No there isn't. I have checked the Template:Infobox award and unfortunately there is no parameter . Arre 14:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC) These concerns have been addressed. I am very sorry for the delayed. Thanks! SoapFan12 14:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC) "The criteria was later altered, requiring that the actor to be 25 years old or below." ---> this line still hasn't been adjusted, please see above.  Done "Years before this category was introduce" ---> introduced  Done "networks had declined" ---> remove "had"  Done Arre 11:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Fixes and done. Thanks! :) SoapFan12 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC) "The criteria was later changed making it actors 25 years old or younger are eligible to win" sounds improper. Change it to "The criteria was later altered, requiring that the actor be aged 25 or below". After this is fixed I'll support :) Arre 11:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)  Done. SoapFan12 11:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support now, great work. Arre 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everything! Thanks for the support! SoapFan12 12:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 For the Google News archive sources, at the very least include a page number so that it remains verifiable if Google News goes down.  Done Suggest archiving other online sources with webcitation.org I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What do you want me to do? You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references (except Google News), which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)  Done Any way to avoid the white spaces in sections 2 through 4? I have none. Do you have any suggestions? I was thinking columns, but that's hard to do with tables. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) I believe that this is not necessarily major problem. Therefore, I think I should just leave it alone. the 12th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards ceremony in 1985. It is presented annually - Annual / annually I do not understand what I need to change. Can you please clarify? The repetition of annual/annually is redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)  Done Networks had declined to broadcast the show during a time of voting integrity rumors and waning interest. - when? They don't say when, it just says that the networks had declined in the source. In any other sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)  Done Not really keen on having "must be under 25", "these guys were over 25", "the rules were changed in 2007". Particularly since that opens the possibility for numerous over-25 winners between 1985 and 2006 (inclusive). Well, I believe that I've made a mistake because it numerous sources they don't tell us when the rules were changed however in 2007 they forced that rule. Might need to double check then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Same situation as the columns : I believe that that the year is not necessarily major problem. Therefore, I think I should just leave it alone. Alright, so long as there is no inaccurate information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Images all look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing. Sorry if I have too many questions :O/:(. SoapFan12 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks again! :) SoapFan12 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job, Soap. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This means a lot that you took time by giving these comments. I'm so grateful! :) SoapFan12 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments: Ref. 3 needs a date retrieved  Done emmyonline.org → EmmyOnline.org and PRNewswire.com (my personal preference, you don't have to change it) I rather not change it. National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences → shouldn't be in italics How do you remove the italics? Do I remove the whole work section off? Ref 43 → add

Support: Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! It means a lot! SoapFan12 12:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've listed this here because I've been working on this list for quite some period of time. Prior to this the list under went a peer review with stated suggestions being implemented. Look forward to your comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Refs. 10 and 11 are broken. Please find reliable replacements.

- Surge_Elec (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments All dates in refs. should be written in the same way (See refs. 4 + 9). Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Still needs to be fixed in refs. 15 + 16 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Refs 8, 10, 14 + 17 → add The Times Group as the publisher. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Ref 10 looks incomplete. Looks compete to me. Can you point out which information is missing. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) It was in this edit but it has since been fixed by another user. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Ref 12 → add Indian Express Group as the publisher. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "thrice" -> three times. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) "India missed out on only a single year " do you really just mean "On only one occasion did India did not submit a film"? Yup! DO you want to rephrase the sentence? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I just suggested how to! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) " Tamil films " and "Tamil actor" both link just "Tamil" but to different articles, could be confusing. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Language(s) seem to be using the lang templates which puts them in small text and parentheses, any reason why normal, linked languages aren't used? It was listed in that fashion even before I started working on the list. Do you want to change it to linked languages? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I think it would be more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Our article on Swathi Muthyam has no h's in the title. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) "Eklavya - The Royal Guard" either use an en-dash or a colon (per our own article title). Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Check WP:DASH in reference titles. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) You don't need Category:Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film as it's already using a more refined category of Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments The Best Foreign Language Film category was not created until 1956; however, between 1947 and 1955, the Academy presented a non-competitive Honorary Award for the best foreign language films released in the United States. - Relevance? Also, this paragraph kinda leaps all about. I think this adds some relevance to this list, as it gives an overview about this category. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) when they controversially - India is a country, not a person. You're likely looking for whatever body is in charge of selecting the nomination. Done. FFI is the body —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) The 1957 Hindi film Mother India was India's first submission. The film made it to the final shortlist and was nominated alongside four other films in the category. It came close to winning the Academy Award but lost to Nights of Cabiria by a single vote. - Ultra short paragraph, should be merged somewhere. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) In 2011, the jury of the 58th National Film Awards made a recommendation that movies winning Best Film at the annual National Film Awards should be the official entry. - How was this received? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I've copyedited, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Checked and thanks! —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Very nice indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Submissions: "one of he directed himself." Needs "which" after "of". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed! Thanks —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support meets the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of sieges of Gibraltar

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is, in my (not-so-humble) opinion, a fascinating subject covering European politics and conflict from the beginning of the fourteenth century to the end of the eighteenth. Gibraltar is a tiny piece of rock on the south coast of Spain, but its proximity to North Africa and its position at the entrance to the Mediterranean have given it an importance in world history quite disproportionate to its size. This was great fun to write, and I'd like to think it's up to FL standard. As ever, constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement are very welcome. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt (addressed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments by Cirt NOTE: Please respond below these comments, and not interspersed in them, thank you. There is a good deal of info before the actual list in the List of sieges sect. I suggest breaking this into its own sect, titled, Background, and then just have the List of sieges sect for the tabular material, itself. I'd recommend breaking the lede intro sect into two paragraphs, perhaps at the point beginning with, "Although there have been fourteen sieges ..." Image review: Four (4) images used, all free-use, all from Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection all look like they check out okay. Two (2) existing redlinks in the article: Alonso de Arcos and Marquis de las Torres. Might be nice if these were made to be at the very least stubs with three or so references each. Not necessary, of course, but would be helpful. References sect - I'd suggest breaking this into first Notes sect, then References sect, per WP:LAYOUT, that's the standard way. Portals - I'd recommend adding at least a few relevant portals, either in the See also sect using {{Portal box}}, or at the bottom of the page using {{Portal bar}}. Sourcing review - sourcing standards look good, meticulous use of inline-citations. Other than those suggestions and recommendations, above, looks pretty good. Keep us posted here if you've attempted to address above. Thank you for your efforts on this quality improvement project to a list page on Wikipedia, — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) To what end? The section s not just background, but a description and explanation of the sieges. Fair enough; done. Thank you. There's nothing wrong with red links per se and I know very little about those two subjects, so I'm inclined to leave them red, but I'll consider it That's one way of doing it, but I quite like the style I use and I'm not sure how changing it would be an improvement except to make it consistent with somebody else's preferred format Do you have suggestions for relevant portals, and what would this add to the reader's understanding of sieges of Gibraltar? Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC) The Gibraltar Portal most definitely needs to be added and Portals are always a requirement for Featured (and often Good) level articles, where applicable. SilverserenC 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Response by Cirt The page is quite good and thank you for addressing some of the recommendations, here are some responses, below: 1. Yes, it is a description and explanation of the sieges. This is precisely what Background sections are for. That info is not itself part of the List, so it doesn't belong in the List subsection. 4. You could at least try to create stubs and then leave messages at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects informing them these stubs had been created. It doesn't take an expert to create a stub, and there are only 2 redlinks so this should be relatively easy. 5. References sect - this is not just the preferred option but the best way to do it, the current method is confusing, and never used in any form of paper, journal, or book in academia or any standardized system. For uniformity, best to break that into two sections, first Notes, then References. 6. Portals - see recommendations by Silver seren (talk · contribs), above. Please try to add some relevant portals. Both related to the topic itself, and some of its parent topics. Without any attempts at all to address or even try to address points 1, 4, 5, and 6, I don't think this page is quite yet ready for Featured quality status. It's quite almost there, actually, but those recommendations would really help, in my humble opinion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Note: I was WP:BOLD and made some changes to show how the page would look incorporating recommendations, above. Now viewers of the page can more clearly see that the Background info belonged in its own sect, not inside of the List sect; and that the Notes and References sect should be split apart. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Addendum: If these changes stay in the page and are part of its stable history, I think the overall quality and look of the page stands much improved, and I'd be happy to say it would be ready for Featured quality, at that point in time. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It appears that the Background and List sections formatting I'd recommended will be retained as stable. Thanks very much for keeping these recommendations, and for your contributions to Wikipedia towards this quality improvement project. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. This is obviously a quality article, but I'd argue that it goes beyond the realm of "list article" and is more appropriately a full article. Have you considered moving it to Sieges of Gibraltar and aiming for a "featured article" rather than "featured list"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • HJ, it's your call, if you'd like to stick here, then you're welcome to do so and then I'll review the list but if you're FAC-bound, do let us know so we can archive the nomination (and wish you all the luck in the world over in "the other place"!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think it would fare well at FAC. It was written to list a series of events, so I think this is the appropriate venue for it. It perhaps contains more prose than most lists, but it is fundamentally a list I think. I'd be happy to hear any comments you have, TRM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It's welcome here at FLC, most definitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support I commented on the A-class nomination for this list, and think that the FL criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments nice work.

• "Despite its small size," not sure you need "small", it's self-evident.
  • You're right; gone.
• "began later in the eighth century. The campaign eventually took 800 years to force the Moors back across the Strait, and did not reach the Bay of Gibraltar until the fourteenth century" forgive my maths but this doesn't seem to add up to me...
  • It reached the bay in the early fourteenth century (leading to the first siege), but the campaign wasn't concluded for nearly another 200 years.
• Is it worth linking Castilian people? Or something you deem more appropriate?
  • I can't see any harm in it.
• "fell out with each other" perhaps this is expanded upon later, but I'm not sure if this is fully explanatory.
  • I'm reluctant to go into more detail there for fear of duplicating (rather than summarising) the table, unless you think it's necessary?
• "walls.[34][33]" could we have refs in numerical order?
  • Of course, done.
• "of the Reconquesta, decided" earlier, it was the Reconquista.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Indeed it is, since it's a Spanish word. Fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Finlayson's name is misspelled in reference 50. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Like Nick-D, I was a reviewer of the MILHIST A-class nomination for this list, and consider that it meets the FL criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Solid list, I've had my eye on it since DYK. Somewhat more prose than usual, but no problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - meets the criteria, so why not? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Can somebody please fix the typo I noted two weeks ago? I don't want to promote something with an outstanding glitch like that, and I'm sure TRM doesn't either. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

30 Seconds to Mars discography

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have recently completely updated and improved the article by adding reliable references, a new lead and tables. Earthh (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

*In the lead eleven → 11 (WP:MOS) Done.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "released through Immortal and Virgin" → released through Immortal and Virgin Records Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "peaked at number 107 on the Billboard 200 " → US Billboard 200. Please do this for all the Billboard charts. We shouldn't assume people know these charts are from the US. Done.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "selling more than two million copies worldwide over the years" → as of when? (WP:ASOF) Added date.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "including a platinum in the United States." → including platinum in the United States. Done.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher for all Billboard references. Added.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) For all Hung Medien references: cite web|url=http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=30+Seconds+To+Mars|title=Discography 30 Seconds to Mars|publisher=australian-charts.com. Hung Medien|accessdate=19 March 2013 > cite web|url=http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=30+Seconds+To+Mars|title=Discography 30 Seconds to Mars|publisher=Australian Charts Portal. Hung Medien (Steffen Hung)|last=Hung|first=Steffen|accessdate=19 March 2013. Adjust similar references in this style. Done.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) For RIAA reference (add information on how to search): cite web|title=RIAA – Searchable Database: 30 Seconds to Mars|publisher=[[Recording Industry Association of America]]|url=http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%2230%20Seconds%20to%20Mars%22|accessdate=18 July 2010|format=To access, enter "30 Seconds to Mars" into the "Search" box, then select "Search". Do this with the BPI reference as well. Done for the BPI reference. For the RIAA reference it's unnecessary, the source is a direct link to the band's certifications.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Wikilink Rovi Corporation in all Allmusic references. Done.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Add Viacom Media Networks as a publisher for all MTV references → not MTV Networks Added.--Earthh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Ref 27 is dead but there should be an archived version at the WebCite archive. Added archived version.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Don't mix three and 11 in the same sentence. Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "Edge of the Earth" just redirects back to the album, surely we could write even a stub for this? The article was deleted after a discussion, I don't know if I'm allowed to rewrite it.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) You can do whatever is required to counter the arguments for deletion, but I guess as this never charted, then it's not worth having an article about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Actually it charted at number five on the UK Rock Chart in 2008, among other songs from the album (ref 3).--Earthh (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Ok, that's not shown in this list, that's why I missed that fact. I'm not familiar with the music project's concept of notability for singles, so I'm not sure if that's suitably notable for a standalone article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reading WP:NSONGS I think that's suitably notable for a standalone article.--Earthh (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I've just created the article for the song.--Earthh (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Link "certifications" suitably. Done.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "most added track on alternative radio " context needed, like, in the US? In the UK? Added.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "After a $30 million lawsuit by EMI concluded with a new contract," could explain this a little further. Done.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Where is Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams referenced? Added source.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Same question for AOL Sessions Undercover and To the Edge of the Earth EPs and "Edge of the Earth" single? Added sources.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Table heading for EPs is incorrect. Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Musica e Dischi (not Musica e dischi) Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) PDF refs normally have format=pdf in the citation. Added.--Earthh (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You need more reviews/supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comments

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to offer my thoughts. I've also performed some minor changes to the lead prose. I'd change "three EPs" in the lead to "three extended plays", in order to keep it consistent with the section headings. Changed.--Earthh (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) "Formats: digital download" → "Formats: Digital download" Done.--Earthh (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I see terms such as "Australian Charts Portal" being used for some chart references, but a run-through of the Hung Medien sites shows that this wording isn't even used on the sites. I'd rather use the actual names of the sites ("australian-charts.com" or "ultratop.be", for example). Done.--Earthh (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Still, great work. Will be happy to support when my comments are addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great job. Holiday56 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – About.com (ref 1) is not a reliable source. You'll have to find another source for this information; since it is citing some basic information about the band, it shouldn't be that hard to locate one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Added an Allmusic source.--Earthh (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hahc21 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Governors of Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on this list on and off for a few months, and think I finally have it in shape for a FLC run. I've based the general format off of the other featured governors lists, but, as always, formatting lists is not my strongest skill. Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• Restrict the colour to a band like in the Alaska list.
• Not sure the point of "Other offices held" in this and similar articles. This should be a simple list of a state's governors, why complicate it with a list of everything else the governors have done in their life? Of course, if a governor went on to serve as President or something very senior in the federal cabinet, you could mention it as a note or in the lead, but another table is overkill.
• Living former governors: similarly, you could just add a § symbol against each living governor in the main table and add a note explaining so.—indopug (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (I haven't worked on this article [yet] but I made the other featured governor articles) I've been wondering about these tables. My personal rules - which are perhaps arbitrary - has been to include: Congressional offices; High executive (President, VP, Cabinet); Governorships; District Court Judge or higher; Ambassadorships; the previous entries for both the USA and CSA; and major foreign posts, like president of another country. Some states have an extraordinarily long list of people who fit into this; just see New York, with, among others: six VPs, 2 Chief Justices, 4 Presidents, and 7 top cabinet secretaries. This was originally expressed as a simple list, I wanted to change it into something more formal. However, I agree: It's a little beyond the scope.
  • As for the living governors list... this too seems extraneous. If you want to see who the living governors are, click a few links; no state has more than a handful. It's not really vital information that needs to be shared, and it raises the maintenance costs of the article.
  • If it's the will of the FLC voters, I'll go through all my previous featured governor lists and prune these out, or convert to text where logical. And this one could serve as the new template, with work. --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have yet to have it explained to me why a band of color is better than a full cell of color. As I've said before, I won't revert if someone else goes through and makes the change, but as far as I know, the current format is not counter to WP:ACCESS or anything other guideline. I think the "other offices held" is quite interesting, and would be much less handy in notes, and very unwieldy in the lead. Expressing the number of House and Senate seats held in prose, rather than as part of the list, would help cut down the size. Would that help? I've removed the living governors section, and instead included the information in a couple of new sentences in the lead. That seems easier for people using screenreaders, etc. then having even more symbols/columns in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly wouldn't suggest it being in footnotes, as that's not the point of the table. It's a list of governors, not a list of people who have been governor; it's a subtle distinction. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Colour—in the current format the colours overwhelm the table and affects the list's appearance (5a). Remember, the point of the colours is only to give a quick indication of affiliation; you don't need a colourful table for that.—indopug (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the color as overwhelming - to me the color draws the eye across the table and makes the flow a bit better. If other reviewers disagree, though, I'll go ahead and change it. What are you thoughts on my suggestion above (in the comment on 31 March 2013) on condensing the "other offices held" table? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Background color on table cells is an accessibility issue. Blue-on-red and blue-on-blue are both very difficult to read. (On a less important note, it's just gaudy.) —Designate (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to list things like house, senate, ambassadorships etc... Successful politicians (which state governors obviously are) usually hold a number of positions in their lives. As for the lead, I meant doing something like "X went on to serve as President of the United States, while Y became Vice President"; just as a shoutout to a couple of people who got the highest jobs among the lot.

Living people in the lead—this is a little too detailed (with the brackets, date ranges and birth dates). I'd change it to "As of January 2013, four former governors were alive, the oldest being William Milliken (born 1922). The others are James Blanchard, John Engler and Jennifer Granholm. The most recent governor to die was George W. Romney, in 1995."—indopug (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to transfer the list over to the color scheme preferred by all above, but unfortunately failed. I can't figure out how to get the formatting to work with row and column scopes, and none of the other governors lists have row and column scopes to allow me to shamelessly copy :) If any of the formatting gurus here could do a row as an example, I would be quite grateful. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, Golbez has figured out the formatting (thank you!!!) and so the colors are now switched over. I've removed the governorship dates from the living governors in the lead, but left the birthdates, as these are useful and not found elsewhere in the article. I've converted House and Senate appointments to prose, which leaves us with several governors who also held ambassadorships, Supreme Court positions, etc. As is shown by the fact that there are only a few, this is not something that most governors do, and I think it's interesting information and useful to readers. Can we maybe get a compromise position here, since quite a bit of what you have suggested has been implemented? Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comment Why are the "Notes" and "Source" columns sortable? Does that provide some useful functionality that I am not aware of? Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC) My apologies for taking a few days to get back to this; I didn't see your comment up here until just now. I've removed the sort function for these columns. Are there any further issues that you see? Thank you for the comment, Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Comments "Forty-eight individuals have held the position of state governor, with the first female governor, Jennifer Granholm being elected in 2003." This sentence doesn't feel right to me. My impulse is to say there should be a comma after Granholm and "being" should say "having been". Also possibly no comma after the first governor. "Governors originally held the position for two years, until the 1963 Michigan Constitution changed the term to four years." What does "originally" mean here? From the creation of the territory? Also, a term was two years, but the office could be held longer than that. Be more precise. "Should the office of governor become vacant, the lieutenant governor becomes governor. Prior to the current constitution, the office would devolve upon the lieutenant governor." What if there is no lieutenant governor? Is there an order of succession? If so, is it within the scope of the article to mention it? Also, the second sentence there seems redundant, as if is just restating the previous sentence. There is a huge difference between "Become" and "devolve"? Be more precise. Why are some lieutenant governors from a different party than the governor? The section of the article preceding the list should at least explain that prior to the 1963 constitution the two positions were elected separately, and also state that now they are elected on the same ticket. Take a look at List of Governors of Alaska, the way it explains how it is done now, and how it later talks about differences that existed under previous versions of the state constitution. Rejectwater (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the further comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments (sorry for how long it's taken to get here by the way...) Four paras in the lead is at least one too many, especially when two of them are just two-sentence paras. First para of lead, all four sentences start with "The (G/g)overner..." You could link term limit in there somewhere. Never like the hash symbol for "number", can we use "No."? Any reason the table isn't sortable? E.g. I may wish to see all the Republicans in one block... You have Lieutenant Governor linked in the table heading but not in the lead. You have "U.S. state" but "US House"... don't mix these in the same article. Note a is unreferenced but note i is referenced, yet they provide similar information... Note d needs a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, TRM! I was actually about to ping you to see if you would comment :) I believe I have addressed all of your comments; please let me know if there are further issues. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC) No worries! Just one thing, now the table is sortable (good thing!), you need to link every linkable item every time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) OK, I think I have addressed this. Dana boomer (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – No need for two George W. Romney links in the lead. The tables should be sorting by last name, not first name. There are sort templates that can help with this, if you encounter trouble. There's no advantage in making notes columns sortable, so I suggest dropping sortability there. Same goes for the Source column in Other high offices held. Note 4: "Resigned to take an seat in the United States Senate." "an" → "a". Refs 11 and 12 should have their page ranges formatted like ref 9, with en dashes and pp. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Giants. I believe I have resolved all of the above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Reads very smoothly and looks very sharp. Appears to be quite well-referenced, and in my mind meets all of the criteria. Well done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Red Phoenix! Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - Meets all the criteria, in my opinion, and I can find nothing else to nitpick. Say yes to Michigan. Rejectwater (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think everyone above me has gotten everything sorted out; lets kick this thing out the door. --PresN 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Beth Orton discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another discography! I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. I look forward to any comments that can help make this a Featured List. Thank you – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "six studio albums, two compilation albums, three extended plays, 19 singles (including two promotional releases) and 13 music videos" -> nineteen, thirteen. Comparable figures should be written the same way, i.e. either numbers or words. Why doesn't "Don't Wanna Know 'Bout Evil" appear in this discog? " it was only issued in" normally say "released"? "in the United Kingdom and" bit easter egg. You didn't link Japan and you UK but it's actually the UK charts, so perhaps rephrase to say "in the United Kingdom charts" or something similar? "Central Reservation followed " I know it's in italics (in the article) but it's worth noting this was another album. "Where Do I Begin" not referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Done and thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 File:Beth Orton.jpg has the correct copyright info but really should be cropped. I mean, it's essentially useless for the infobox. Added a cropped version of the photo. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC) it was only released in Japan. - why? To be honest I'm not sure. There isn't a lot of information about the release. The only pressing were made by Toshiba EMI in Japan. UK and US promotional pressings of the single "Don't Wanna Know 'Bout Evil" from the album were created but never officially released. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC) number eight in the UK and number 40 - Apples and oranges shouldn't be mixed, per WP:NUMERAL. Fixed – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Aren't the music videos and other media worth mentioning? Anything which received particularly good reviews? Any sales figures? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I haven't been able to find any reliable sales figures for her albums. Only stuff on fan forums. I would mention DVDs, etc. but none have ever been officially released. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, great formatting and meticulously sourced. — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – looked through the entire list and couldn't find anything needing improvement. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Sega 32X games

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated this list for featured list status because I've put a lot of effort into it twice now and I believe it meets the FL criteria (or can meet it easily with some helpful feedback from those reviewing this nomination). Five years ago, I managed to make this a featured list here on Wikipedia. Then, I stopped editing for a long time and while I was away, it was delisted because references went down and some of the reliability standards had changed. This time, I used references deemed reliable by WP:VG/S in order to put together this list and I've rewritten a significant portion of the lead, as well as restyled it a bit to better illustrate which games on this list utilize the Sega Mega-CD as well as the 32X. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Image caption doesn't need a full stop, it's not a complete sentence. Complete. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Similarly the text in the Key. Complete. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT with regard to col and row scopes. Added scopes to all rows and columns. Should be complete. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) " Codenamed Project Mars" no need for the bold, perhaps italics or in quotes. Complete. Changed to quotes. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "of games. A total of 40 games were produced, including six games" too many "games", reads repetitively. Fixed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "Sega of Japan, but Sega of America R&D head Joe Miller convinced Sega of Japan to strengthen the console and convert it into an add-on to the existing Sega Genesis." I know this is going to sound boring, but is there a way we could avoid using "Sega" four times in one sentence? Done. Reworked the sentence to eliminate that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Make sure ref titles comply with WP:DASH and don't have SHOUTING. I believe that should be them all. Complete. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of them. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Strongly suggest adding a ref column instead of having refs piled into the individual boxes. Looks much neater. Done. I wish I would've thought of that first; I was wondering if there was a better way to approach those references. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC) A total of 40 titles were produced, including six that required both the Sega 32X and Sega Mega-CD add-ons. - Per WP:NUMERAL we should not have 40 and six, but 40 and 6 or forty and six. Done. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC) strengthened - Huh? Reworded that sentence to make more sense. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Anything about the games themselves? A common genre, or one which sold really well? This is, after all, a list of games. I put in a sourced comment about some things about the games themselves; notably, their poor quality. It's hard to say there's any one that sold really well, because the whole console was a massive commercial failure, and the games library was a factor in that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC) The IGN article (reference 2) points out Star Wars Arcade, an arcade perfect Space Harrier, and Kolibri as three break out titles for the system. IGN reviews themselves cite Star Wars Arcade, Virtua Racing Deluxe, and Shadow Squadron as the three "must gets". Blackthorne has the highest IGN community rating of a 32X game. (just, if this information helps any)--SexyKick 21:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I think we're good, thanks for your help. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 00:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If we do have figures for the best-selling games, that would be really useful for the readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure we have those figures, simply because the console itself didn't sell well enough for the individual games' sales figures to be notable. I am trying to dig and find some, but they're just not there; that IGN article SexyKick references is more from a cult classic perspective. If the sources simply aren't out there to get these numbers, is this going to be a deal breaker? Although I agree it would be a helpful statistic and might provide an interesting fact, I don't think the article falls short of any of the criteria without it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No, not a deal breaker. But it would definitely be nice to actually have what the best-selling or best-remembered game(s) on the system were. Even without hard numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)\ Done - Now that I can do, and I completely agree that that's a good idea. I've used the IGN article to list out a few of the most notable games released for the 32X. Let me know what more I can do; if nothing, I look forward to your support. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Looking much better. Last request: anything considered the best 32X game by one or more notable publications? I know they've done surveys for more successful systems, but I'm not quite sure of this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The IGN article I've made reference to a few times claims that Star Wars Arcade is the best. I'm not sure how would be the best way to write that into the lead, though. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) IGN, in a (retrospective review of the system?), considered Star Wars Arcade the best 32X game, as (reason)", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Done Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, almost. Just need to explicitly mention IGN in the sentence (per WP:INTEXT) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Otherwise quite solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you. I believe I have resolved all of your comments. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments - 1) There's a few rows where you link Sega in the developer but not the publisher, and a few where you link in both- be consistent. 2) Any more identifying information on the Man!ac Magazine source? ISSN, page numbers? 3) Normally I'd prefer if JP/NA/PAL were separate columns that could be sorted individually, but with 40 releases I think it's okay here not to. 4) You didn't link Allgame in ref 22. 5) Consider archiving your references with webcitation.org or we.archive.org - while it's unlikely that Allgame or IGN will vanish or remove content, if either did so the list would become unreferenced. --PresN 22:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, not sure how I missed the Sega links and the missing Allgame link, but those are now fixed. I'll consider archiving the sources, but with 50 refs or so, that'll be a little tedious and take some time (but it would be nice to keep this at FL status forever). As for the Man!ac source... unfortunately, no I don't have any more information. It turns out that Man!ac (now M! Games, a German publication) doesn't archive their old issues on their website, so I can't seem to find any page numbers. I will do what I can, of course, but at the bare minimum having the article title, issue, and publication ought to suffice if nothing else. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Source comments –

• In reference 5, since the publisher is a magazine, it should be italicized.
  • Done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Also, I don't think the comma in May, 1995 should be there unless it is presented that way in the magazine itself.
  • Done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• What makes RetroCollect (ref 40) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. I think you about gave me a heart attack there... I'll explain, it's rather humorous. RetroCollect, I really can't vouch for its reliability and only used it because I couldn't find its info anywhere else, since the 32X CD version of Surgical Strike was exclusive to Brazil. Didn't think I would, either. Fortunately, and probably even better still, I found a great reliable source for Surgical Strike's 32X CD version, and one I'll likely use in the future now. I was able to find information from ConsoleCity.com, which is a site belonging to UGO Networks, considered reliable per WP:VG/S. Also, the two citations I had to other RetroCollect pages were not needed, as Allgame and IGN do an otherwise adequate job of covering the games, so I removed those as well. I think we can safely put this to bed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I believe this article meets the FL criteria, and so it deserves to become a featured list. Good work Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Regular Show episodes

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Having redeveloped this article based on previous featured episode lists, I believe it may now meet the FL criteria. Any comments that will help improve the list are welcome. Holiday56 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning Support - Prose looks and reads very well, and the lists are all in great condition. However, several of the citations have double parentesis going on (Ex. ""Title" of This"), when it should be single mark followed by parenthesis (Ex. "'Title' of This"). Also, the image/season navigator at the top left of the page are oddly cluttered. These however, are the only "blemishes" I could find on an otherwise great list.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Checked the references section for any instances of extra quotation marks, and couldn't find any—unless I happened to miss one, I think that's cleared up. As for the season navigator, I'd like to know where you'd propose placing it—under the image, perhaps? Otherwise, thanks for the support; your comments are appreciated. Holiday56 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Removed the season navigator per below comments, as it doesn't seem necessary with the presence of the season overview section. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I must be crazy! Full support now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "The series has broadcast 106 episodes since its debut on" -> "There have been 106 episodes of series since..." (i.e. it didn't broadcast itself). Rewritten. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Odd to see the season template above the lead image. In fact, I'm not even sure you need that season template at all, after all you've got a list of "seasons" first up. Removed. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "of two friends" -> insert "animal" perhaps? Seems implied by the next part of the sentence. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "who are both employed" -> "both of whom are employed..." Rewritten. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "It has attained two" why not "It has won" It only won one of the two nominations. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Why no viewing figures for several episodes? No sources available. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "303/305" why two prod codes for a single episode with three segments? (and 404/405) Two segments make up the first production code, while the third, longest segment makes up the second code. See the comment below for more info. Holiday56 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "401/402" why two prod codes for a single episode? (and 411/412) Certain special episodes with longer-than-usual running times (such as holiday specials) are counted as one episode overall, but as two episodes production-wise (for another example, see The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, which is a featured list). Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, with comments

• "106 episodes of the series have been broadcast..." sentence starts with a bare number. Preferably should be rewritten to include the number in the middle of the sentence somewhere.
  • Rewritten. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Is "Hi-Five Ghost" the correct (or most accepted) spelling of the character's name?
  • It's the spelling used in the credits and written out in several episodes of the series. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Table caption on the series overview table seems redundant, as do the ones on the season episode tables.
  • The table captions are present for easier accessibility. I've seen them used in several other featured episode lists. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Amazon refs don't need the url parameter if asin is filled in.
  • Fixed references. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support JJ98 (Talk) 02:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Reference 49 doesn't have a publisher (TV by the Numbers. Zap2it). Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Holiday56 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

List of municipalities of the Netherlands

Nominator(s): CRwikiCA talk 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion it meets the criteria and is of similar quality as other already featured lists of places. Note I have made significant improvements upgrading it from this to what it is now. CRwikiCA talk 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Were you going to place any dates on founding in the list and/or the name origins?Coal town guy (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Founding dates do generally not exist. Only for some merged municipalities there would be an actual date, most municipalities would have at most a rough estimation of when the spot was settled. Because the field would have different meanings for different municipalities I don't think it would be good to include it. Although the origin of the name of the town is interesting, I do not personally see it as important as other items that could be added. One of the other columns that I often see is maps, which I could add. I hadn't done it because loading ~500 images might be much, but if that would not be a problem for Wikipedia users, I would be happy to add those. CRwikiCA talk 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood, a map image may be helpful, in fact, I would advise it. Taker a look at the Featured lists for some US Counties , and they do have a table structure which would allow you to use a map, with the sole purpose of showing a pinpooint location. I kmow it does sound US centric to suggest, but I was only looking at your statement about maps. Its been a few years since I have been to the NetherlandsCoal town guy (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the maps, as you can see someone had already made nice graphical maps which were easy to include. It does add a nice touch to the tables. CRwikiCA talk 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Well done. The only gap I see is maybe a few words about special municipalities, what they in comparison to a "regular" one. Addditionally, the intro paragraph, EXCELLENT. However, I would strongly suggest getting some refs as to the type of government in the Netherlands, maybe a quote from its constitution. My Dutch is rather piss poor BUT I could look for a German version. I had to do so for the FL candidate I had promoted (quote local constitution), learned alot in that process for certain. My roommate was from the Netherlands and was possibly my best German teacher I had. His American English has also vastly improved, thanks to our mutual desire to sound better when we spoke. He forbade me to learn any Dutch though....Coal town guy (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and constructive critism, it is the first time I am sending an article through a process like this. If I were to interpret your advice I would say to reference the relevant law texts as well in the parts were only the English-language Dutch government sites are referenced. Would this be what you mean? Most laws are available to read online, so it should be possible to find the relevant passages. Writing these articles does indeed teach you a lot, especially when you research a topic a bit. CRwikiCA talk 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

To the point of quoting your specific constitution, yes, you are correct. IF you are able, not required, try to foind a book via google books that would have some interpretation of said document. BOTH are fine, but my experience has shown me that there is a sort of preferance for books if possibleCoal town guy (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some additional references to the constitution, the municipalities act and a book on municipal law. This should add some more context to the municipal status section. Do you have any other comments about the List-article? CRwikiCA talk 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, get some refs on the terms of office ( 4 years) and the functions of the municipalities. Its starting to look very nice. Also, ANY Etymology?? Additionally, you will needs refs on any and all population stats.Coal town guy (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The population stats are referenced in the column headers where applicable. Only the population density for the special municipalities is not referenced, because I could not find a source, so they are computed from the other two. Should I refer to a note that states that? The four year term is actually the constitutional reference and the translation in English and 3 additional languages is available on the linked official government website. A sentence (or two) about the etymology of the name gemeente is a good idea, I also realize that the term gemeente only occurs in the lead and not in the main text section. Thanks for you critical eye. CRwikiCA talk 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

EXCELLENT. Make a notation about the population, when possible. As to the government web site, that can be very good as when you ref the cite 100% certain to note the author of the web site as well as the last time it was updated. OR, try to find a pdf of it. As to special municipalities, try to add some more flesh to that, and by all means, yes, state the population stats are difficult, Try a local library, online population stats etc etc before saying, cant find it. FORGOT to ask, did this article get a peer review?Coal town guy (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Link for Constitution dated 2008, in English. Hey there this should be it. It provides the user a link to download the Netherlands Constitution in English. Its dated 2008, and is on the Netherlands Government web site.Coal town guy (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I included the English language link to the constitution reference. To answer your question, the article was not peer reviewed. Population stats can be difficult, although a lot of the Dutch stats are available online, one of the issues with the stats for the special municipalities is that the responsibility for those shifted when those were instated. Exactly what kind of additional information about the special municipalities would you like to see added? A lot of the government websites do not actually specify an author and in some cases not even an update date, but I will go through them and see what I can add for each reference. CRwikiCA talk 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like the list as is, BUT, since I have gone through the FL list procedure before I am trying to anticipate what others will want as well. As to special municipalities, the best thing might be to say what makes them special per the Constitution. I will contact a fwew other editors to see what their feedback would be as well. The list you have is ambitious, and with a bit more fleshing to the municipalities, is a good one, certainly educationalCoal town guy (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The constitution does not describe the special municipalities, I checked the text to confirm this. They were instituted with the cited Act in 2010, which regulates their function, role and other things mentioned in the article. Because they are not enshrined in the constitution, their legal status might be a bit different, but I do not know to which detail the legal technicalities should be discussed in the article. CRwikiCA talk 19:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the note for the population density and added notes with the dates for some of the other data as well, because the last update of the sources does not always correspond with the date of the actual data. CRwikiCA talk 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not seem like other people have taken an interest in reviewing this candidacy. CRwikiCA talk 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

STRONG Support. I believe this is an excellent list, there are some issues which others must comment on. BUT, I want to the first to say, you did a hell of a lot of work on this, good for you in at least making better data for this encyclopedia. I would suggest that you get to the Netherlands Portal and drum up some folks to lookCoal town guy (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "regular municipalities (gemeenten) and 3 public bodies (special municipalities)" the first parenthesised italic text is Dutch, the second is not, this is inconsistent. Fixed CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "Municipalities are the second-level administrative division" vs "Municipalities are the third tier of public administration" is confusing for me. Fixed CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) ".[9][10][5]" would prefer refs in numerical order. Fixed CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Don't think it's strictly necessary to link "neighbourhood". Fixed CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "As of 2011" it's now 2013, is this still accurate? Since I initially wrote it, the 2012 data is available and I updated the numbers accordingly. CRwikiCA talk 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC) In the population col, you put commas after thousands (e.g. 1,101), in the population density col you don't (e.g. 6131). I changed this to have consistent thousands separators in the number formatting. CRwikiCA talk 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your valuable comments, I will address them in the coming days. CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I have addressed all comments above and improved the list accordingly. Please let me know if you would have any further suggestions. Thanks CRwikiCA talk 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support This would make a fine featured list. Easy navigation with the sortable table and maps of the locations at the side.

Resolved comments from Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 21:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Municipalities are the second-level administrative division in the Netherlands, they are subdivisions of their respective provinces." --> "Municipalities are second-level administrative divisions in the Netherlands and are subdivisions of their respective provinces." "Municipalities are the second-level administrative division,..." is repeated in the second section. "...public services, among others these are land-use planning,..." --> "...public services, which include land-use planning,..." "local roads..." what? Management, maintenance? "...Netherlands Antilles in 2010 three special municipalities (officially public bodies) were formed, these municipalities function the same as regular municipalities." --> "...Netherlands Antilles in 2010, three special municipalities (officially public bodies) were formed. These municipalities function the same as regular municipalities and are grouped together as the Caribbean Netherlands and are not part of a province." "...distributed freely between mayor and aldermen, the exact portfolio for each person..." --> "distributed freely between mayor and aldermen. The exact portfolio for each person..." "The Municipalities Act of 1851, which was written by prime minister Thorbecke,..." --> "The Municipalities Act of 1851, written by prime minister Thorbecke,..." "Throughout the years less populous municipalities have been merged, they were either added to the larger neighbouring cities or multiple smaller municipalities merged into a larger new municipality with a new name." --> "Throughout the years, less populous municipalities have been merged. They were either added to larger neighbouring cities or multiple smaller municipalities were merged into a larger municipality with a new name." "In 1850 there were 1,209 municipalities, this decreased to 1,121 in 1900, 1,015 in 1950 and 537 in 2000." Is this sentence absolutely necessary? The tiny table at the side already has all the information. "During this time multiple mergers occurred simultaneously in large parts of individual provinces, the municipal boundaries were basically redrawn in these regions." --> "During this time, multiple mergers occurred simultaneously in large parts of individual provinces; the municipal boundaries were basically redrawn in these regions." "In the 19th and large parts of the 20th century, municipal mergers were forced by the central government." "...the decision making process." --> ""...the decision-making process." "...an increasing workload, because more public services..." --> "...an increasing workload because more public services..." "This right and the submunicipalities themselves will cease to exist in the near future." Explain why. "For administrative use by municipalities themselves and data..." "As of 2012 the municipalities in the Netherlands were subdivided into 2,621 districts and 11,896 neighbourhoods." --> "As of 2012, the municipalities in the Netherlands are subdivided into 2,621 districts and 11,896 neighbourhoods."Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your criticism, I tried to address all your concerns. Let me know if you would have any additional concerns or would like to see them handled differently. CRwikiCA talk 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) It looks very good. Just one more: "As a second level administrative division municipalities are the the third tier of public..." --> "As a second level administrative division, municipalities are the the third tier of public..." Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Done CRwikiCA talk 21:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

;Comments From what I can see, het Bildt is the only name not to begin with a capital letter – is this standard? Good eyes, as far as I know this is the exception, even their municipal website (and logo) maintains this. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) The "List of municipalities" header doesn't need the first two words. Fixed CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Geography of the Netherlands and List of cities in the Netherlands by province are both already linked to in the "Netherlands topics" navbox, so don't need to be listed in the SA section. Fixed CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Other than that, it looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your criticism, I tried to repay the favour, but your FL was already closed when I got to it. I addressed your points under each heading. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The table currently doesn't meet MOS:DTT – adding !scope=row| before the name of the each municipality would fix that.

The rows are all preceded by ! scope="row" style="background-color:transparent"|. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Municipalities beginning with either "De" or "Den" are inititally sorted under their second word, but, when sorted by name, they jump up to D. Using something like Template:Sort or Template:Sortname would correct this.

This is a good point, one of the questions is what is desirable. Sorting by the name part of it is the Dutch way of sorting, by the first letter overall is the English way. I think the English method might be preferable for users once they start sorting, but I can change it if you disagree. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Replacing, say, [[De Bilt]] with something like {{Sortname|De|Bilt}} would keep the names in the same place when they sort. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I implemented the sortname for these cases. CRwikiCA talk 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This list looks incredible! Really interesting to read, great work! Some things I would have said have been pointed out above.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – For an FL, a lead should really be longer than one smallish paragraph. There's more than enough material in the next section that can be summarized in another paragraph, at least. Municipal status: "lead to the disappearance of small municipalities." "lead" → "led"? "This policy changed in the end of the 20th century, local support for the merger is now a large part of the decision-making process." Minor, but the comma should probably be a semi-colon instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, and I still saw the first two words of the List of municipalities header. Looks like you might have missed that in your earlier edits. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your criticism. I changed and expanded the lead, let me know what you think about the expanded version. I changed the other 2 points. The section title was updated, but it sometimes takes a few minutes before it gets changed on the Wikipedia servers because of the size of the list, so your browser might not have had the latest version at that point. CRwikiCA talk 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) In the new paragraph I see "Amsterdam is has highest population". This would be better as "Amsterdam has the highest population". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC) FixedCRwikiCA talk 13:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Still doesn't look right without the "the" that I recommended be included. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Fixed now, I was too sloppy the first time around... CRwikiCA talk 23:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

Tip O'Neill Award

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk), Bloom6132 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because we feel it meets the FL criteria, save for any correctable issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

* Refs → Websites likes BaseballHallofFame.ca and MLB.com shouldn't be in italics (WP:ITAL) We can't un-italicize them. Since we're utilizing the "work" parameter in the "cite web" template, it's programmed to do that. This was accepted in recently promoted FL List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Wikilink the first time publishers are mentioned in the refs → Ref #1 wikilink Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame An ISBN needs to be added to ref #2 Since the book can be found online in Google Books, that is not necessary. Again, accepted in List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game and 30–30 club. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Ref #10 → add The New York Times Company as the publisher That's unnecessary, because we're using a "cite news" template, not a "cite web" template. Simply the newspaper name will suffice, per Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter FAs. Both have NYT articles that have solely the newspaper name and no publisher. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Ref #14 + #18 → add Torstar as the publisher Again, unnecessary. See above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Ref #27 → add Metroland Media Group as the publisher See above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Ref #28 → add MediaNews Group as the publisher See above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Ok. If they have been accepted in other baseball FLC's then I don't see the problem. Other than that it is an excellent list. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*a major league record of 84 consecutive save opportunities converted from 2002–2004 - What is "converted" here? "Converted" means to successfully record the save, as contrast to a blown save. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC) A link might be nice if we don't have one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Do you mean a piped wikilink or a source? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Wikilink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Don't really trust File:Larry Walker1.jpg. The uploader did some copyright violation before being blocked (see here) Done. Removed questionable pic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Otherwise I think this is ready to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Minor issue, but "earliest Canadian stars in" is mildly POV. Hmm. Source 1 does call him a "star", so it's sorta backed up... There's a way to reword it, it'll come to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) And ref 3, which could be citing that "star" is "unavailable" to me. Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame is overlinked. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) "from 2002–2004" never nice in prose, why not from 2002 to 2004 or between 2002 and 2004 inclusive or something prose? Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) "proceeded to win" not keen on "proceeded to" always feels a little redundant. Maybe just "then won..." Changed to "went on to win". "then won" sounds a bit awkward and incomplete. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Last four sentences of the second lead para repeat Tip O'Neill three times. I understand you need to remove ambiguity because you're talking about other awards in the same para, but consider a rethink so we don't have so much repetition. I moved the Daniel Brabant tidbit up to cut out one of its uses. That should help some, but as you say, we do have to be clear which award we're talking about at each usage of the word "award". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Error in the Tip O'Neill template for most recent year. Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) How do you demonstrate a player is still "active"? E.g. Morneau's win is referenced in 2008, where's the citation for him being on a roster this season? Per my discussion with Bagumba in recently passed FL, the "Baseball Almanac general ref lists all the players, which also has links to each player's profile where it can be verified if they are active/inactive." In short, the general ref suffices in determining active/inactive players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I think since we're trying to appeal to all readers, not just those who follow baseball, a note to that effect would be rather helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Added note. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Citra Award for Best Leading Actor

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I know it's ready. This is the third instalment in my mission to take on the Citra Awards (patently ignoring the yet to be created List of actors of the Dutch East Indies and related projects...) and it's turned out fairly nice. I hope you enjoy looking it over as much as I enjoyed writing it. Key redlinks, particularly Sukarno M. Noor, Zainal Abidin and Tio Pakusadewo, are projects for the upcoming weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... Lead section: the first paragraph's first two sentences both start with "The Citra Award...", and so does the second paragraph. These three sentence structures need to be varied a little bit to improve fluency and make the lead easier to read. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Article name is "Citra Award for Best Leading Actor" but the infobox uses "Citra Award for Leading Actor". Why not use the correct title in the info box? That's an "oops" on my part, which got through a previous FLC for Citra Award for Best Leading Actress. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Does the award have an official logo at all? I would say there would be a perfectly justifiable fair use rationale to use it, if there is one, to illustrate the subject. Or, alternatively, if you can find a free image of someone receiving the award, that would help this list quite a bit, too. I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker, but as it stands, the list simply feels very bare in terms of images. There's a trophy, but reusing it for each Citra Award list (four so far) would stretch fair use to the breaking point. I can't think of any featured lists on film awards that actually include an image of the trophy. The fact that we have fewer free images of Indonesian celebrities is another, sadly commonplace, complaint. Since the Indonesian Wikipedia has much looser fair-use rules, a lot of the editors never try to get free images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Kusno Sudjarwadi is listed with a winner's symbol next to his name, but no color is present, in contrast to the other winners on this list. Fixed, I had forgotten to remove the formatting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I'd recommend formatting the "Key" title as a table title for aesthetics and to follow MOS:DTT#Correct table captions. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Several little instances of punctuation issues in the lead: "Since 1987 the shortlist..." - needs to be "Since 1987, the shortlist..." per MOS:COMMA. Actually, MOS:COMMA only says we need it for MM-DD-YY constructs. Prepositional phrases is... a bit more complicated, and I recall that BrE/AmE has a role. Reworded to avoid the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) "The Citra Awards, then known as the Indonesian Film Festival Awards, were first given at the IFF in early 1955; that year there were two winners, A.N. Alcaff of Lewat Djam Malam and A. Hadi of Tarmina" reads very awkwardly. Instead of giving you the breakdowns of punctuation issues, I'll give just a quick suggested reword: "Initially known as the Indonesian Film Festival Awards, the Citra Award was first given at the IFF in 1955. The award was given to two actors that year: A.N. Alcaff of Lewat Djam Malam and A. Hadi of Tarmina. Used your wording — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) "From 1973 the IFF..." - again, "From 1973, the IFF..." Reworded to avoid the comma. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC) That should get you started. It's pretty good, but I see some room for touchup. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review, done everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. Taking into account your comments on the images; I agree on pushing the fair use bit if it's already on four articles. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Not that it is in four articles, but it would be in four articles if we were to use FU images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments " the Citra Award was first given at the IFF in 1955. The award was given" -> "the... award was ... given. The award was given." repetitive. "This duplication". Not keen. Perhaps "The sharing of the award"? Sharing implies that there was only one Citra awarded. They are counted as two. How's this change? (You didn't mention this at the last nomination, BTW) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "had bought Tarmina's prize" a little colloquial "to buy" something in this context is euphemism for bribery and corruption, right? Changed to "... that Djamaluddin Malik's funding of the festival had influenced Tarmina's win." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "The most recent winner is Donny Damara, who won a Citra Award at the 2012 IFF for his acting in Lovely Man" -> "The most recent winner of the Citra Award for Best Leading Actor is Donny Damara who was recognised at the 2012 IFF for his performance in Lovely Man"? To avoid the repetition of "win/won"? Changed to "The most recent winner of this Citra Award is Donny Damara, who was recognised at the 2012 IFF for his performance in Lovely Man" "A total of 61 actors have been nominated for a Citra Award" no, for a "Citra Award for Best Leading Actor", not just a "Citra Award". Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "The most recognised actor at the IFF has been Deddy Mizwar" -> "at the IFF is Deddy Mizwar". Not sure of this, as the information may change. Used your wording, but added "as of". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "each won on one of their " not sure about "each won on..." perhaps "each won for one of.."? Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Our article on Denias, Senandung di Atas Awan doesn't have the comma. The source uses it, as does the Indonesian article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Why is Albert Fakdawer suitable for an article? Seems to be the only one? (In the template as well...) I'm assuming you're missing a "not" above. I had left him unlinked as he has only been in that one film, but apparently he's made a career for himself as a singer (not one with much coverage, but he seems to have been runner up in the first series of Akademi Fantasi Indosiar). Linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

;Comments: film critics considered Lewat Djam Malam by far the better film and suggested that Djamaluddin Malik's funding of the festival had influenced Tarmina's win. Can you provide the English quote that says this? I'm wondering if this is what the books says, or only what the author says, or if the book has specific reviews it can provides to back up the claim. The Indonesian article has something listed for 2013- can you look into this? That's vandalism/misinformation; Rahadian won at the Indonesian Movie Awards (source). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I'm unfamiliar with Indonesian naming customs, but when I sort the table under "recipients", it sorts by first name instead of last. Does the family name come first in Indonesian like in Korean, or is this a sorting mistake? The vast majority of Indonesian ethnic groups do not have a family name at all. The Batak are the only ones I know of who, as a rule, do have one. As such, I've tried to avoid using the last name as a sort key (as a side note, most Indonesians would use the first / most common name for a person in conjunction with the words "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. So it would be Mr. Michael, not Mr. Jackson) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I could see value in an "English translation" column for the film titles, and I can also see value in a "Role" column for the actor's role in the film, though the latter may be hard to find. A lot of these do not have formal international titles, and since this is a domestic award I don't think it's necessary. Also, I think we should keep the arrangement of the featured Citra Awards lists standard (compare Citra Award for Best Leading Actress). The role is an idea, but aside from difficulty sourcing (an issue on which you are absolutely correct) once again there are issues with keeping the format standard between articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC) There's a mix of "Jakarta: Konfiden Foundation" and just "Konfiden Foundation" in the references- pick one and be consistant. Albacore (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support for featured list status. Albacore (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment – "draw the public's interest in the cinema industry" – not too sure about this, but shouldn't it be "draw the public's interest to the cinema industry". Everything else looks great! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 FLC – great work. It would also be advisable to apply the above change retroactively to all the other Citra FLs. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Mystery Dungeon video games

Nominator(s): PresN 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, switching back again from obscure scifi award lists to obscure video game lists. Having learned my lesson from my recent FLC that crossed the obscurity line, this list, though it does include numerous Japanese-only games, does include a few million-copy sellers. The Mystery Dungeon series is a set of roguelikes broken into roughly five groups and generally involving non-original characters, but is unified by their gameplay elements (and names) into a distinct set. The tables are taken from previous FLs and meet ACCESS requirements, and I think everything should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Transformed from a stub piece from a stubby article, it has been carefully and incrementally built up into a referenced, polished list. Great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

* Add Ziff Davis Media as the publisher for all IGN refs Add CBS Interactive as the publisher for all GameSpot refs Refs 13, 14 + 43 → Famitsu is a magazine and therefore should be in italics. Add Enterbrain, Inc. as the publisher All ref. titles need to comply with WP:DASH Wikilink Pokémon in the lead – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Done, done, done, done, and it was already linked ("...those related to the Pokémon franchise..."). --PresN 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments name - use the name or trademark? therein in - awkward construction millions of copies - how many? Otherwise looks solid. Check my copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Done, done, and the source just says "millions of copies". --PresN 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, good to go now! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Most were developed.." you ended the last sentence with "is a series of"... so this isn't great. Perhaps, "Most of titles were..." "but select titles in " -> "but other titles were developed by different companies"". "and a few individual games" perhaps "and those unrelated to other games or games franchises"? You repeat some links within sections (e.g. "PlayStation 2" within the "Dragon Quest series") but you don't elsewhere, e.g. "Chunsoft" within the Shiren the Wanderer series section. Be consistent. Check all sections. "Fushigi no Dungeon - Furai no Shiren 3" needs an en-dash, check for others. Ziff Davis Media seems to be just called Ziff Davis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC) All done. --PresN 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose - I really hate to do this to you, but there's a pretty significant problem with the use of GameSpot as a source of database information. I'm not sure if you've seen the list at WP:VG/S, but GameSpot's database is noted as being unreliable. To quote that page: "GameSpot uses a similar interface for displaying news, user blogs, and "union" postings. Be careful to ensure that the author is a staff member. Some content used to be mirrored atYahoo! Games. Their database is shared by http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=42 [GameFAQs] which is considered unreliable and their methods of verification do not meet the standards of Wikipedia. There is also other user-created content so beware!" However, I'm sure other sites that are considered reliable by WP:VG/S, such as IGN, might be able to help you out. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Ugh, are you kidding me. Gamespot is the only English-language database that covers Japanese-only games with any sort of rigor in release dates- IGN barely covers the Japanese dates even if the game was released in the US. I was in luck in this case, I guess, as Chunsoft is more consistent than Square Enix in actually putting the release dates in their games' webpages, but this is going to make my next list almost impossible to track down everything. :( Anyways, all Gamespot refs replaced, I'll archive the new refs later. --PresN 21:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I know the feeling. Allgame's pretty poor on Japanese references, too. Pretty much anything that isn't user-contributed is usually reliable when it comes to these gaming websites, but GameSpot's pretty devious... I'd say that's how they managed to get all of that Japanese information anyway because it's all user-contributed through GameFAQs. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - References have been fixed, which was my major concern for this article. The lead is a little short and could use some fleshing out, but I would say it's adequate as it is for an FL. Nicely done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Seems odd to have a template above the lead image, is it really needed at all? Perhaps not. Similar lists have had navboxes like that, but I've removed this one. Could link music download. At which point? In the Chart history section, or a piped link earlier in the lead? Maybe " ranks the most downloaded songs"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC) " 109 more singles had " 109 further? Or "another 109 singles..."? "had reached the top" -> "had topped the chart."? "were also high-selling downloads" quantify. "was "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley, which spent 11 weeks at the top." compare the sales with Gaga? Done (sort of). "the chart as a result of an online campaign" perhaps note it was designed to prevent X Factor single from topping the charts if you can cite it? " late 2002 " hyphenate. rerelease -> re-release. "with a mere 22,000 copies" lose the "mere". "single to that date" -> "single at that time" "The following year, the UK's online music revenue reached €42.1 million." this was 2005, any figures for 2009? None that I have available to me unfortunately, but I can have a look. "this 10-week " -> "ten-week". Possibly worth noting that The Streets has 7th highest weeks at number one despite it being during the trial period. Not too sure about this – it just seems a little bit too trivial to me. I can't imagine any reader will click onto this article because they want to find out which single spent the 7th longest time at number one, and I don't think the pre-1 September 2004 charts really "count" when compiling such statistics. But, if you think it be better for it to be included, I'm happy to add it. No problem, just a thought, no biggie. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC) What You Waiting For needs a ? Pussycat Dolls -> The Pussycat Dolls. Switch the "Weeks at number one" col with the "number-one singles" col as it initially sorts by the former, not the latter. On second thoughts, I have resorted the table so that it initially sorts by Artist name, with the logic being that the reader can then decide for themselves if they want to sort by number of number ones or by weeks at number one. Does that work? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC) What's the initial sort order of the "by record label" table? Alphabetical. E.g. ref 21, why the spaces for "158 – 175"? see WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Done all the rest. Thanks a lot for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "One Night" / "I Got Stung" → "One Night" / "I Got Stung" Done. The list alternates between using ampersands (ex. "Beyoncé & Shakira") and the written word "and" (ex. "The Proclaimers featuring Brian Potter and Andy Pipkin"). For consistency's sake, the ampersands should probably be changed to "and". Done. "All About You" / "You've Got a Friend" → Don't think that quotation marks should be linked if they're not part of the article title. Not sure if this counts as overlinking, but perhaps that could be changed to "All About You" / "You've Got a Friend". This is consistent with other featured lists, such as Pendulum discography, but I have changed it nonetheless. Otherwise, a solid list. Great work. Holiday56 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Well written and referenced. I believe the user's above have addressed any problems that I would have pointed out. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Nice work. Only a few comments below: if you disagree with the last two it's not a problem: the first is the only one that needs sorting. " the The Official UK Charts Company": I suggest losing the second (and capitalised) "the", and not linking it in. I've removed the first "the", as, from what I recall, the "The" formed part of the OCC's name at the time, which I feel would allow it per WP:THE. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC) " Universal Music Group – with an artist": I'd suggest a change from dash to a colon, but your call. Hmm... A colon doesn't seem right to me. How about a semicolon? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Yep, a semi works just as well for me. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) "By 2007, the": it's an American style to add commas after dates at the start of a sentence, which jars slightly in a UK-centred article Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I never knew that, thanks. Changed the two that I could find. What about the "Released in 2009," modifier in the second paragraph – should that lose the comma too? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC) That's more borderline, as it could be argued that it's followed by a sub-clause, especially with the verb first. Your call as to whether you keep it or not, as both are grammatically correct in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Hmm... I think I'll keep it then. I think a reader would naturally put a break there if they were reading it anyway. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. My very minor points all cleared up and I'm more than happy to support this: good work! - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - can't find anything wrong here, great work. Very nicely done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

List of songs written by Emeli Sandé

Nominator(s):  — AARON • ^TALK 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've spent a long time inputting all the songs that Emeli Sandé has written. I believe it demonstrates how she not only writes material for herself, but also for others as a featured artist and for other artists in general. It shows how Emeli Sandé is a true singer-songwriter and she has written just as many songs for others as she has herself. I believe it meets the criteria, and I have drawn upon ideas and constructive criticisms from previous FLCs of mine in order to create this list. Hopefully on tweaks will be needed to be made to the list :-) lol  — AARON • ^TALK 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks great! Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  Oh wow thank you :)  — AARON • ^TALK 20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, on the basis that according to to BMI Repertoire, Sandé has written at least 94 songs here. Just this week it was revealed Sandé has written "Side Effects of You", the title song from Fantasia Burrino's fifth album here. This article is in no way complete or comprehensive. Its just a list of songs that have made artist's albums and credit Sandé as a writer. Whilst I think there probably rational for the article, FLs are supposed to represent the best and most complete of articles. Promoting this to FL would detract from the whole point/purpose of FLs - to be the best of the list-type articles. (Sorry Aaron!) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  I searched for her on BMI and it returned nothing. So I don't know what you did to find those, because I didn't know about them.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BMI Repertoire uses the standard surname chronological order. Hence if you search SANDE EMELI under songwriter it pulls up all those results. It feels wrong to promote a list to FL on the basis its about an artist's songwriting contributions, yet the only songs included are ones already released and the material from the introduction seems re-hashed from other articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did, but I put the acute accent above the e.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started inputting the BMI songs.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just be careful because databases such as BMI, ASCAP, etc. also list songs that were written but never recorded or officially released. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what to do with this one, it's called "I M NOT IN A RUSH BUT I HAVEN" but it doesn't look like a complete title.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Underneath-it-All, this is a List of songs written by Emeli Sandé, so it doesn't really matter if she recorded them or not.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I was just putting it out there. I still support the list's nomination. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Not usually a commenter on candidates, but just pointing out that this page is currently an orphan with no content pages linking to it. I'm not 100% but it would seem to me that this isn't a good thing, may I suggest the Emeli Sandé template as a start? --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  There is an Emelie Sande template.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  I am aware, but it does not link to the list you are trying to promote at all. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hmm, tricky one... Obviously it's unfortunate that half the rows have N/A and Unknown cells – it makes the list look really incomplete. Made a couple of changes here – please revert if you disagree with them. Per WP:OVERLINK, major countries such as France need not be wikilinked. Done.  — AARON • TALK The captions of the bottom three images (i.e. not of Sandé) need full stops. Done.  — AARON • TALK You could wikilink "Abide with Me". Done.  — AARON • TALK "Hotel Cabana" is listed twice. Done.  — AARON • TALK "Imagine" should be removed. Oh yeah hehe  — AARON • TALK "Just A Boy" -> "Just a Boy" Done.  — AARON • TALK Artists need to sort under their surnames. Done.  — AARON • TALK There's probably no need to call OVoE "her debut studio album" in the note, as it's already described as such in the lead. Done.  — AARON • TALK Spaced hyphens needs to be spaced endashes. Done.  — AARON • TALK A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Might be worth including somewhere in the lead that Simon Cowell described Sandé as one of his "favourite songwriters" [17] — it'd provide a bit more context on how her songwriting is viewed within the industry. Is that a reliable source for FLC?  — AARON • TALK Fair question. It can also be sourced from The Telegraph or the Digital Spy interview that you cite in this article (reference 3). Added.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) OVoE should probably be listed first for the songs that featured on two albums. Even though Emeli is the featured artist?  — AARON • TALK Hmm, good point... I'll leave it with you then. Personally, I think there's merit in listing OVoE first, as it would group the songs with the other tracks on the album when the table is sorted. But it's up to you. She is the featured artist so I will leave it as her's second.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) This source states that Sandé has written at least one song for Cher Lloyd - any idea what it might've been? I've got no idea. I only found out the other day that "Side Effects of You" on BMI is actually Fantasia Barrino's song from her latest album.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) "Read All About It (Part III)" needs to be above "Read All About It" when the list first loads. Why?  — AARON • TALK If you sort the table by title, "Read All About It (Part III)" moves above "Read All About It". But why does part 3 need to be above? It's not strictly alphabetical that way.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Either part 3 needs to be above when the page first loads, or else it needs to be below part 1 when the table is sorted by title (e.g. through use of the Sort template). Done.  — AARON • TALK 11:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Made a few extra edits here – please revert if you don't like the changes. "The song was conceptualised when ..., and stated that it was written very quickly" Okay, so I'm being a complete grammar prude here, but there's a slight problem with this sentence. In its current form, it sounds as if it's the song that is stating something, although obviously that's not the case. I'd suggest rewording it slightly. Added "she stated".  — AARON • TALK 11:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not so sure that it's really necessary to list more than one version of the same song. For example, Sandé herself presumably didn't write anything new for Leona Lewis's acoustic version of Trouble, did she? The versions are different from each other.  — AARON • TALK They're different versions, yeah, but of the same song. If you start including every acoustic version, alternative version, cover version, live version and remix of any song that Sandé has written, this list is going to get awfully bloated awfully quickly. "Trouble" is the only instance of this though, aside from an alternate version of one of song in this list.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) That's my problem though. If you're going to list the alternate version of "Breaking the Law" and the acoustic version of "Trouble", then why not also list, say, the acoustic version of "Easier in Bed", or the instrumental version of "Clown", or the half-Italian version of "Read All About It"? I've removed "Breaking the Law" and "Trouble".  — AARON • TALK 11:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Nice, but what are your thoughts on Klass Remix Edit of "Radio"? Remix is a bit different because there is an additional writer and the structure of the song is different to accommodate it.  — AARON • TALK 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) What's the source for the the information in the note? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC) It's the Digital Spy source where Mountains is. I've added it to the note anyway.  — AARON • TALK 09:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Sandé worked with..." -> "She worked..." "of the songs on Our Version of Events" -> "of the songs on the album" Pretty much all bar the last sentence of the first para in the lead focuses on Sande and Naughty Boy. This is not a good "summary" of the whole list. But pretty all the songs were done with Naughty Boy only, so it's hard to get around that. I do mention 4/5 other writers too.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) That's simply not true. She performed a few of the songs with Naughty Boy, Shahid Khan wrote most of the songs with her. Now unless you tell the reader that Naughty Boy and Shahid Khan are one and the same, the lead seems very heavily biased... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Well it is true. Naughty Boy, who is Shahid Khan, co-wrote 11 of the songs, so yes she did mainly worked with him on the album. I don't know how it is being bias?? It's fact. Any songs by Sande and Khan which were co-written with others also have their names mentioned too.  — AARON • TALK 11:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) "that have been included on their respective albums" what's the purpose of the word "respective" when there's nothing to respect? Lol, it's not about respecting. It's just a term used in music articles, that's how we phrase it. It's a way of saying on the other singer's album more succinctly.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure the purpose of the word respective here, it's redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Removed.  — AARON • TALK 11:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Abide With Me is referred to as Abide with Me on Wikipedia. Who is "Traditional" when it comes to Writers? Perhaps a note rather than have "Traditional" listed as a writer. How about linking to the associated Wiktionary page, i.e. [[wiktionary:traditional#Adjective|Traditional]]? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Linked.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) You might like to note that most of her songs are registered to a "Adele Emily Sande", not her "stage name" or whatever. I've just stuck to Emeli Sandé because it's easier. Some are, some aren't on BMI.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Well what I meant was that you could have a footnote which just says that some of her credits are registered to her real name so it's not confusing to the reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC) What's the point though? Emeli Sande is her legal name, it doesn't matter if her middle name is used. I could understand if it was sometimes Lady Gaga or Stefani Germanotta, but Emeli Sande or Emeli Adele Sande isn't really important.  — AARON • TALK 11:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) You could have added it by now... (and it's Adele Emeli, not Emeli Adele...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I don't think there's any point, sorry.  — AARON • TALK 19:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC) What's the harm? A note saying "Some of her songs are credited to her under her birth name of Adele Emeli Sande". Simple as. And adds just a little bit more info to the article. Why would you object to enhancing the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC) If it was like Lady Gaga on some and Stefani Germanotta on some then maybe yes, but Adele Emily Sande and Emeli Sande, there's no point. It's kinda making something out of nothing.  — AARON • TALK 19:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Not really. You've spent ten times as long saying why it shouldn't be included than just noting it. Noting it does no harm and may benefit some readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily. When Rihanna published the credits for ""Half of Me" from Unapologetic online people thought Adele Emeli Sande was Adele and Emeli Sande, reviews even said written by Adele and Emeli Sande, so I think it would actually just cause confusion.  — AARON • TALK 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Ah, don't worry. I'll do it myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Ref 2 needs an en-dash. Check 11, 12, 13, 14 ........ Ref 3 has no access date. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Done all.  — AARON • TALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Couldn't find a flaw. Regards Robin (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  I usually don't make comments or have anything to do with this kind of stuff but I checked this and saw that there were no flaws. Easy4me (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: Couldn't find anything wrong with this one and it looks good enough for a support. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor: The list looks good to me, I just have a couple suggestions/questions:

• On Note 1, was the accent on her last name intentionally left off?
  • Added accent.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think we need personality rights tags on all these pics. (Emeli's has it, though, so that's not an issue.)
  • What's that? Lol.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • Haha, I just learned about this the other day. Apparently these tags are put on pictures in Commons that are of people. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I support the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks perfectly good to me – can't see anything that would stop this from being promoted. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [18].

---

Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record

Nominator(s): —SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 02:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cad, bounder, rotter and an absolute shower! Terry-Thomas was one of the most popular and best-known comedians in post-war Britain. A broad and rich career on stage, television and radio, he exported his portrayal of the silly-ass Englishman from British films such as Private's Progress, Carlton-Browne of the F.O. and I'm All Right Jack to Hollywood, where he depicted an upper-class English twit in a number of films, including It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and How to Murder Your Wife. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main T-T page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers—SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC) & Cassianto^Talk 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 References by Terry-Thomas and Pettigrew have no footnotes pointing to them Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) What are the tables sourced to? The sources provided in the first column. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Alright, I missed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC) (10 July 1911 – 8 January 1990) --> (1911–90); not the main article on TT, so dates not quite relevant A mistake I make every time... - now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) his professional film debut -What's the point of "professional" as a qualifier? Absolutely none! Now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (ENSA): you don't repeat this abbreviation, so you don't need it I've taken it out, but as the title is something of a mouthful, most people know of the organisation as ENSA, while perhaps not appreciating what it stands for - in other words the anagram is more the primary name than the full name. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Any critical response? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Yep - I'll add some shortly. Thanks, as always, for your comments. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I've added a couple of general comments about his persona from The Guardian and The Independent. Is this what you meant, or we you after something more specifically aimed at one or two of his performances? - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) That's perfectly fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Another solid list. Perhaps you could simply write ENSA, with a link to the organisation? I usually write Lekra, and not Lembaga Kebudajaan Rakjat, for example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks indeed for your comments and support - both are most welcome and appreciated. Good plan on the ENSA pipe, which I've now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I must remember to watchlist articles. Sorry, I missed your comments Crisco. All the changes look great and I thank you for your support. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "(1911 – 90)" get rid of those spaces! Schoolboy error! Now de-spaced -SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Expand ENSA, it's far from a commonplace abbreviation. Expanded and both full name and acronym left. This is an odd (ish) one. Although there is a full name, most people in the UK will know the organisation by the acronym, rather than the full name, so I think both should be in there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Well I didn't know it! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "was a hit" borderline non-encyclopedic, maybe "was (very/highly) successful"? Yep, now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "that " As an " again, remove the space, and probably make the As into an as. Schoolboy error again: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 'Production finished in 1938, film released in 1939;[20] Uncredited[21]" -> don't have a line break there, and don't capitalise Uncredited. Now done - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Link "short" appropriately. yep - now done - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "24 Episodes" no need for the capital E. Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Series one[44]" no need for the capital S (ditto for Series two). Yep, done too - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [47][41] can you put these in order? Now ordered properly - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "109 Performances" no need for the capital P. Appropriately de-capped - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "- Terry-Thomas on his unique" should be an en-dash, and who said it's "unique"? Dashed. Although unique, everyone's look is unique, so now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Waldorf-Astoria doesn't have a hyphen. Mercilessly de-hyphened - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Series three." etc, why the full stop? My stupidity. Now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Cast Member" no need for the capital M. De-capped - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" -> "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In". Ampersanded to within an inch of its life - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "London LP5764, (1963)" what's the comma doing? Posing. I've told it off and it's gone away now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) " Harper Audio 1559940042, (1989)" ditto? Ditto - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks TRM: as always, your eagle eye is very much appreciated! Let me know if I've missed anything or cocked anything else up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Well written, looks comprehensive, solid sources, there doesn't seem to be anything here to trip up its FL promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments, Betty; they are very much appreciated, as always! - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Space is needed before Technical Hitch in the lead.

• Good spot: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Alt text would be nice for the photos. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your wish is my command! Alts now added throughout (and one swap done on the final image - it was a weak one previously).

Many thanks for your comments Giants - much appreciated as always. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Likewise Giants. Thanks for taking a look and for your support. --Cassianto^Talk 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks good to me. I have made some edits here; please revert if you don't like the changes. One thing I'm a bit confused about is why certain programmes (e.g. Strictly T-T and My Wildest Dreams) have all their episodes grouped together in a single row, whereas for others (e.g. What's My Line? and The Red Skelton Hour) each episode that featured Terry-Thomas gets its own row. Those grouped together are for an entire series, where T-T appeared in each episode. Those individual ones are one-off appearances in a series. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Is there anything that Jeeves could be linked to, e.g. Jeeves#Record? Done.-- CassiantoTalk 10:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Note A could do with a citation (citation 49?). Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC) The broadcast date for Caribbean Carnival looks wrong. Moved. -- CassiantoTalk 09:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Mea culpa: it was in the right place, but a typo in the date. Now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Rowan & Martin's or Rowan and Martin's? Done. -- CassiantoTalk 16:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Just want to check: is The World Our Stage correct, or should it be The World Is Our Stage? Correct as is, according to the source. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know how reliable this is, but this also confirms that The World Our Stage is correct. -- CassiantoTalk 18:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC) A Tribute to Terry-Thomas was broadcast several months after his death. Did the man himsef actually record any new material for it, or is it entirely archive footage? as far as I can see, this was a tribute programme using archive material only. Should we remove it on that basis? - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I was gonna say! What a grim atmosphere it would have been on set knowing that your recording something which is intended to go out after you've pegged it! -- CassiantoTalk 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Hmm... Personally, I'd say that programmes containing only archive footage of Terry-Thomas should be excluded from the list, otherwise we'll also be obliged to include any programme that featured a clip of him in, say, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. But it's up to you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) OK, removed from the table. I'll think about adding a footnote for this programme and the Heroes of Comedy episode about him, just for the sake of completeness. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I think it should be "3-minute", rather than "3 minute", etc. Hyphened. -- CassiantoTalk 09:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Nice, but I also meant for the others as well, e.g. "15 minute", "19 minute", etc. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Ah yes, now done. I think I caught them all. -- CassiantoTalk 08:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Assuming that the broadcast dates are correct, Calling All Forces needs to be above Can You Beat It. Swapped. -- CassiantoTalk 09:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, having had another look, the problem was never that Calling All Forces was below Can You Beat It – the problem was that there was a second Can You Beat It above Calling All Forces. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Tweaked: should be OK now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC) The Red Skelton Show image is the only one where the caption is centre-aligned – any particular reason for this? I can't see one, changed. -- CassiantoTalk 10:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC) My mistake, the caption in the Bing Crosby image is also centre-aligned. Also, that image is slightly wider than all the others. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, in your view which should we go for? -- CassiantoTalk 07:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry Cas, didn't see your follow-up note here: I've removed the forced size back to default on this, and removed the centring of the title. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC) No worries ;) -- CassiantoTalk 08:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Since the photograph of Terry-Thomas in How to Murder Your Wife is of him actually in a film, might it be worth using that image in the Filmography section, and moving the 1951 headshot down to the Radio section? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I agree. Chronologically we would be correct as the headshot is older than the film image. I don't think chronology is a problem here as per the title, so the move makes sense. -- CassiantoTalk 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Other than that, it looks pretty good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC) The sorting methods in this article seem really complicated – as long as they work, there's no issue, but some of the 1968/69 dates in the Television table jump all over the place when they're sorted. Using Template:Dts instead might fix that. I'll look into the sorting. The problem with Template:Dts is that is doesn't work with the formatting of dates. It's fine on a straightforward "1 January 2000", but as soon as you try and put in a range such as "19 September – 28 November 1951", then it goes completely to pot, especially when sorting. There is something wrong with the years 68/9, but I'll work on the current template and get that to work properly. cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Using something like {{Dts|1949|10|26|format=dm}} – 21 December 1949 for ranges should work. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Fantastic: thanks very much indeed - now tweaked! If the "format=dm" option had actually been mentioned on the template documentation I would have used it previously, but that particular option seems to have been overlooked somewhere along the lines. Thanks very much indeed, both for that little gem, and for the review overall. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Only one final issue: My Wildest Dreams needs to be below 1-2-3 Click in the Television table. Otherwise, great work! Might be about time that these particular lists get their own subsection on the WP:FL page, although I can't think what the title of that subsection would be... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• As always, many thanks for your time; the Wildest Dreams move has now been done too. I like the thought of a new section: I'm working on a similar piece for David Niven's work at the moment, and have a few others I'd like to bring in over time. "Career histories" as a title, perhaps?

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comment - "By the 1980s, the disease had got progressively worse and effectively ended his career by the mid-1980s." I realize I happen to use American English myself, but even in British English, isn't the phrase "had got" something to avoid? I think this should be reworded, otherwise this list has my support. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, Red Phoenix. I've re-worked the sentence to avoid the problem (yes, even in Br Eng it was awkward!) I've also got rid of the repeat of "1980s" in the process. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good! Very well written. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Brilliant, thanks for your support! -- Cassianto^Talk 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

• Fantastic news: many thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Echoed from me. A superb result, thanks to all involved! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Lincoln City F.C. players

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been creating dozens of player articles to get the redlink count down (down to about 12 five now, so we're getting there) and staring at the list itself for weeks trying to spot all the deliberate mistakes, and it'd be a dreadful waste of time if I didn't nominate it. This is part one of the Lincoln City F.C. complete player list project (part two might well follow, not convinced part three ever will) split at 100+ appearances as per standard procedure with English football clubs with many hundreds of former players. All constructive criticism gratefully received... Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Is a page number possible for ref 3? It's to a specific fact, so a cite to the whole book isn't precise enough in this case. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Added. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Goalkeeper David Felgate is the only man in this appearance range to have been capped by his country while a Lincoln City player" - at this point you haven't actually said what the appearance range is, so this is confusing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair point, thanks for noticing. Re-arranged. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Much dislike the hash (section) link in the hatnote. Piped Could link relegation to the more specific section of that article? Which is? if you go in any deeper than the top, you miss out on the definition of relegation, which is probably why the word is linked at all. Just thought it more appropriate to link it to the "English example" but you're right I guess, the lead is important (albeit tagged with a nasty maintenance template!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "only man in this appearance range to have been capped by his country while a Lincoln City player; he received his only cap" -> "only ... capped;... only cap..." Hmm, thanks for noticing. Wasn't easy rewording without bringing in yet another "appearance", or putting "player" and "played" in far too close proximity Link "friendly"? Done " 2012–13 playing season" unclear as to what a "playing season" is. Simplified You have four refs to " Rollin & Rollin" but I don't see that listed, just a "Rollin" ref, what am I missing? The Sky Sports annual ed Rollin & Rollin is fully defined at ref#12, which is its first use as a specific reference. I didn't list it with the general references because it isn't really a general ref, it's a specific ref used 5 times. Do you think it'd be clearer to define it under general refs anyway? No, it's fine, if I'd have looked harder I'd have found it... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps not immediately, but given the propensity of football clubs to destroy their own websites and change URLs/delete pages etc, I'd consider using webcite or something similar to archive pages from those sources... The history pages from the previous incarnation of the LCFC website are already on archive.org, and the content's the same, so I've added links to those. If the LCFC archive (the main general ref) dies, I'll have to buy a book, because I don't fancy archiving however many hundred player pages... Fair enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Could have sworn I'd done this in the first place.... I get worse Thanks for reviewing, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC) No worries, happens all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Can the flag for Lee Frecklington be changed to match the one for Peter Gain? I'm not sure how or when, but some flags have a blue border depending on which template is used. Rather annoying. Most seem to have been corrected now atleast. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you sure they're different? They do use different templates: Gain uses {{fbu}} for the automatic U21 wording, while Frecklington uses {{flagicon}} with manually added wording. But I've just tried putting the flagicon one next to the fbu and magnifying them up to enormous, and they both seem to have a border and (to me) look exactly the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That's bizarre. When I magnified my screen the blue border for Frecklington changed to grey, like the rest. When I put it back to normal it was blue again. It must be something at my end, either the screen or the browser. Sorry for the inconvenience. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work as usual. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Wouldn't "remained at that level until relegated" read better as "remained at that level until being relegated"? I've looked through Hugman, Barry J., ed. (2005). The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946–2005. Queen Anne Press. ISBN 978-1-85291-665-7., and there's four players missing international selection data. These are Darren Davis (England youth, p. 161), Brendan Guest (England youth, p. 255), Trevor Peake (England C, p. 484) and Gordon Simmonite (England C, p. 562). Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Changed to "remained at that level until they were relegated". Thank you so much for the additional info, that really is reviewing beyond the call of duty. Don't know why I missed Simmonite, when I wrote his article I managed to include his caps with source... cheers. Struway2 (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC) No worries, I've recently been looking through this book for international selection data for York players so thought I'd carry on my good form. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series

Nominator(s): AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list on behalf of SoapFan12 (talk · contribs), I will let them expand on the reasoning. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Support

• For an article of this length the introduction seems a bit short. Perhaps add information about the most awarded actresses or its broadcast history?
• Ref 1 is a dead link. Please find another reliable source.
• Ref 2 → Please add the author (Connie Passalacqua) to the reference.
• Using IMDb as a reference is debatable. I really don't see it as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).
• Is there a publisher for Soapcentral.com? How reliable is it?
• Ref 50 → Yahoo! Voices redirects to Associated Content. Add Yahoo, Inc. as the publisher.
• Ref 60 → OnTheRedCarpet redirects to On The Red Carpet.
• Ref 68 needs publisher information.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I seem to recall Associated Content not being a reliable source. You should check WP:RSN to see if this is still true. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've removed all inline references to IMDb, soapcentral and Yahoo/Associated Content, replacing with what I believe are reliable sources. I also expanded the lead a little bit and added some Commons photos throughout. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with above comments, however, looks like they have been responded to and addressed adequately enough. — Cirt (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Try to avoid using the phrase "Daytime Emmy" three times in the opening sentence. Avoid bold links. Is the US flag really necessary in the infobox? "having been criticized for voting integrity" presuambly for "lack" of voting integrity? "She was nominated again the following year, holding the title with eight nominations" why not "She won the award the following year"? Winners don't need bold, but ideally need a symbol like {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS. I don't see any use in sortable tables that are split from one another by decade. Suggest you merge the tables. Please ensure all tables meet WP:ACCESS (most specifically MOS:DTT for row and col scopes). Second external link needs an en-dash per WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I've removed, corrected, added and ensured everything. With the exceptions of comment 2 and 5. What do you mean by "Avoid bold links"? Furthermore, for Comment 5, I can not correct it because she (Heather Tom) did not won the award the following year therefore what should I write? Thank you for reviewing the article. SoapFan12 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I mean avoid using bold text for wikilinks (as you have with "ingenue"). As for Tom, I think you have to be clear that she won it on the seventh nomination, and not by saying her eighth nom came "holding the title"... at least that's what I think you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Thank you so much. Can you review it one last time to see if there is any other fixes? SoapFan12 10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Support All the major issues have been addressed. Although, in the "Multiple Wins/Nominations" sections, we link to the actresses' articles, even though they've already been linked to in the main table. Is this necessary? I think linking once is enough, and seems like a WP:REPEATLINK to me.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for reviewing the article. SoapFan12 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Could someone please add a legend box to this article? I think it's needed, more professional. Apart from this, Support . Arre 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – The previous commenter is absolutely correct: some type of key is needed for the color and symbol, at least. There is now a key, but the symbols have been removed. According to WP:ACCESS, colors must have matching symbols, so they should be re-added. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC) "The criteria of the new category was deemed confusing". "was" → "were"? Criteria is a plural word; singular would be criterion, which I don't think is the intention here. "In the lists below, the winner of the award for each year are listed and highlighted first". "winner" → "winners"? External links: If publishers are going to be provided for these, the soapcentral page should have one like the others do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC) You didn't have to remove the link altogether, but since external links aren't any kind of requirement I'm striking this concern anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Done. Thank you for reviewing the article. This means a lot! SoapFan12 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The Heather Tom image could use alt text. I don't see that photo now, but a bunch of images have been added that lack alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Giants2008, I had to remove the link because soapcentral isn't a reliable source. I strongly believe that I have follow the requirements for the alt text. I am positive that I have fixed, added, corrected and removed all the edits according to you're comments. Thanks again! SoapFan12 02:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I still don't see alt text, and I'm fairly sure that we can't say the requirements have been met when there's no alt text in any of the images. My other comments are resolved; this is the last one outstanding from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I don't understand what you mean by alt text. I've read WP:Alt text and I believe that I followed the requirements however since you say no. Can you please do it for me? SoapFan12 01:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I can't perform work for nominators; that's not what a process director should be doing, and most reviewers aren't going to do that either. What I can do is explain alt text further, since you appear to be confused about it. It's basically an extra parameter for an image that describes the image itself. Alt text helps users of screen readers and is part of the WP:ACCESS guidelines that FLs should optimally follow. The best advice I can give you is to seek out other lists that have alt text and try to follow the general style and formatting that they use; there should be plenty of lists currently at FLC that have it already. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you! So you mean that you need to explain where the female was, so by example : Jacqueline MacInnes Wood at the 40th Daytime Emmy Awards, two time emmy winner? Can you give me example of FL articles that uses alt text? Please and thank you. SoapFan12 18:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind! I got it! Thank you again. SoapFan12 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The last two photos have typos in their alt texts: "brunetet" and "rwed" respectively. Take care of these and this will be ready to be capped like the rest of my comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Done. Thank you. SoapFan12 01:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Still see "rwed" in the Heather Tom alt text. Also, I don't know if the non-free image that is added truly meets WP:NFCC. I can't see how the reader's understanding is improved by a text logo. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Done. It increase the reader's comprehension by showing them how they present the award, also shows the currently category's name because it is the third name they have been using since 1991. I strongly believe it's needed and meets WP:NFCC. If you don't agree with this reasoning, I will remove the image. SoapFan12 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The image is absolutely needed. There is no way we can accurately describe the category without some form of visual representation. The best way to do this is by having thé actual logo used by the network during the ceremony.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC) IMO, the image is completely unneeded. It's just an image that helps the reader in no way gain a greater understanding of the named topic. In addition, I have observed that it's very uncommon for a non-free image like that to be used in a list ([21], [22]). It's unacceptable for a FL. I think having the free images of the recognized actresses is enough. Also, the rationale is inaccurate. Should be removed.Arre 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I guess I will remove the picture :(. SoapFan12 12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Shouldn't somewhere we link to to daytime drama, to specify what is meant by drama series? Also there is a lot of ref repetition is the lead paragraphs. The 2007 nominees could also use an additional reference.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. With the exceptions of the lead paragraph part. I don't see why having lots of ref repetition in the leads is a problem. Thank you! SoapFan12 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Refs really only need to be used once, at the end of the sentence(s).Caringtype1 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done and fix everything. Thank you so much! This will mean a lot to me if it could pass for an FL. SoapFan12 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [23].

---

Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this former featured list, as I believe that all the issues pointed out at the FLCR are solved. Tomcat (7) 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Meticulous referencing, good formatting. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Scope rows needed for table. They are not needed because blind users will easily locate the row. Under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, scope parameters are required for tables. Per WP:DTT, scope rows "clearly identifies headers as row headers" and enable headers to be "associated to corresponding cells." Presumably, it helps screen readers detect the row. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Done.--Tomcat (7) 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Add table caption Also not needed as the header already does the same, and the screen reader is presumably able to detect it. True. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The pictures on the right-hand side appear a bit too big. It would be preferable to use the thumb

• Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Could add a relevant infobox to the lead. Done Strong reliance on the "Astronomical Society of the Pacific" in the references, could you find any other sources for this? I will search I have found some sources with unclear reliability. --Tomcat (7) 12:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC) "The committee have the right not to award any of the nominees if they do not consider" - who, the board or the nominees? The nominees "Near-Earth Asteroids" asteroid, not Asteroid. Done Deep sky -> Deep-sky. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Tomcat (7) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• First "the" in "by the December 15 of the nominating year..." should be removed.
• Nik Szymanek photo needs alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both done.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the Szymanek alt text, could the "bracelt" typo be fixed as well, please? Giants2008 (Talk) 17:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - as the contents of the "field" column are left-aligned, could the title be too? That's the only thing I can see right now........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the headers are always centered and I am not sure how to change the alignment.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion it looks really silly. Is there really nothing that can be done to change the alignment of the header? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done.--Tomcat (7) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the Latin Grammy WikiProject and I will working on all the articles included in the "winners" section as I usually do with the lists, but I think this one could be reviewed in its current form, I will be watching closely your comments. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This list is comparable to other Grammy-related lists that have been promoted to FL status. In terms of format and style, I would support the promotion of this list, assuming all other concerns by other reviewers are also addressed. I made a few minor edits to the list, and also created a stub for Brazilian Dreams. Though not required, you might consider starting articles in order to eliminate other red links. (Just a thought, not a request.) Great job! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and your support AB. I am working on every article in order to eliminate the red links, I currently have Brazilian Dreams on my sandbox and recently did both albums by Gonzalo Rubalcaba. I think the articles will be done at the end of this nomination. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Well formatted and referenced. As stated above the list is comparable to other Grammy and Latin Grammy-related lists. No major visible problems. — DivaKnockouts 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Rubalcaba caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Any reason the table isn't sortable? It is sortable on my browser. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Must be Safari, the up/down arrows aren't showing, perhaps its the coloured background you're using on the col titles? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Adrian Iaies is missing a diacritic. Fixed. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Why the ? in the 2001 winner? Because is the correct name for the trio, as it is shown in the album cover. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) But that's not how it's shown in the Wikipedia article nor the source you use (ref 8), nor most of the Google search results I found? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) You are right, I fixed the lead and the winners section, but I kept it on their 2007 nomination since the album cover clearly says: Paquito D'Rivera Quintet?. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Bebo Valdés caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Nestor Torres is missing a diacritic. Fixed. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Javier Espinoza 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Afro-Caribbean and Pan-American = Relevant links?

fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• What's with the passive voice?

Could you be more specific? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your earlier version had a lot more use of the passive voice than normal for English. This looks better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've copyedited, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Very nice! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [25].

---

List of works by Sharpe and Paley

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains the major works produced by a provincial but important architectural practice in Lancaster, England, between 1845 and 1866, the period of time that it was known as Sharpe and Paley. The practice had been founded in 1835 and continued until 1946. This list provides a comprehensive account of its output during this period in its history. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Accessibility: All of the images have sensible alt text. The main table has its row and column headers identified and marked up with proper scopes, so the table is as accessible as we can make it for different screen readers. The key table only has headers marked up, but is so small that it should not cause anyone a problem.

The colours used in the key all have contrast ratios greater than 12 against black text, so exceed WCAG AAA standards and the colours are not used to convey information unavailable by other means. My only quibble is that the key uses the words "Grade II*" for example, while the corresponding entry in the main table uses just "II*" - I'd have used "II*" in the key for consistency, particularly as a screen reader could read the word "Grade" from the column header in the key table. But that is really nit-picking as Peter I. Vardy has obviously put a lot of effort into meeting our accessibility standards. Well done!

The subject is well beyond my expertise, but the list is attractive, the lead is engaging and grammatically very tidy, and the content is copiously and accurately referenced (a nod to Malleus' fine work there). From all that I see, this is an example of our finest content and I have no hesitation in offering my Support. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• That pile of references in the lead should be migrated to the proper place in the table, with excess examples trimmed. Otherwise this looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Still a little worried that the number of examples in the lead is excessive, but I don't think it's something to oppose over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments (perhaps you could ask User:Goodraise to have a look at this as he/she seems to be an excellent reviewer of this type of list?) Agree with Crisco1492, the lead has far too many examples, it pretty much recreates the names of the works in the list, just in prose format. Consider cherry-picking. Cherries picked. Adequately? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps start with "English architect... " as right now it's unclear at the outset what this fellow did or where he was from.... First sentence amended. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Not sure if you're comma-phobic but I'd see one "While Sharpe had been working as the sole principal, the practice..." and "During the period of the Sharpe and Paley partnership, the ..." but it's not a major issue. Not phobic (well, not to commas); point taken; commas added. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Key - criteria are incomplete sentences and don't need a full stop. Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) In the table what does "Date" mean? Needs a clear note. Note added. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "This was done in" yuck, "done" is horrific (in my mind), can we re-phrase? Changed to "executed" (although Orwell recommended a shorter word, if possible). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Sharpe, followed by Paley, were appointed" shouldn't that be "was" as you're referring to two singular entities? Not sure that works; but I have amended the text to cope with the singular/plural problem. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) " at a cost of £4,795." (et seq) any way you could relate those to modern pounds? Conversions added. Does this work OK? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "more than £3.900," Germans may agree, I don't! Thanks for spotting this (found another). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "[7] [38][42][43]" please remove the space. Done. Executed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Commissioners' Church" any reason why the Church isn't just church? Yes. The Commissioners' Churches form an interesting group of churches, commissioned centrally rather than locally. The Church Building Commissioners made contributions to the cost of the churches. This contribution is recorded in the text for both relevant churches in the list, and the link to Commissioners' Church provides information about them and, indirectly, links to the seven associated lists. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the trouble you have taken. Please let me know if my edits are not OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Image review: No apparent copyright problems. Goodraise 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Does flattery always get you what you want, TRM?) "built in 1847–49" – How would you read that aloud? "1847 to 49", I guess. Does this need amendment? If so, which would be better: "1847 to 49", or "1847 to 1849"? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I don't know. I'm not a professional copy-editor; I'm just an amateur who's trying really hard. I only know that my (very fallible) instinct tells me that a "built in [year] to [year]" construct sounds wrong. If you were to tell me that quality sources in this subject area use this construct for date ranges longer than two years, then I'd take your word for it and shut up about this in the future, but until someone believably tells me that I'm wrong, I'll have to insist you use the "built from [year] to [year]" construct instead. I realise now that you mean the caption to the lead photograph (at first I thought it was the whole of the Date column). I have changed it to "between 1847 and 1849", which I think reads better than "from". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Three rows lack scopes. Thanks for spotting those. Added. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "St Michael's Church (now Holy Trinity Church)" – Call me a nitpicker, but I don't like the word now being used in this way in an encyclopedia article which may be printed or burned on DVD or whatever and read in a hundred years. Actually, I agree. Amended to "later". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "[7] [38][42][43]" – There's a space where it doesn't belong. See above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Potter (1878)." – Page number? This was a reference I took from the article, but I had not added it. It is not necessary for this list, and I have deleted the reference and the source. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Curwen, John F., ed. (1926), Supplementary Records: Preston Patrick: Records relating to the Barony of Kendale 3, University of London & History of Parliament Trust, pp. 274–277, retrieved 7 April 2013" – Here I'd take the advice given at Template:Citation and include the volume number in the title field as it is given on the linked website (like this: "Records relating to the Barony of Kendale: volume 3"). Thanks for that tip. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Hughes, John M. (2010), Edmund Sharpe: Man of Lancaster (CD), John M. Hughes" – A bit more information would be nice. I've added two sentences in the Sources subsection. I have been in touch personally with the author. He spent something like ten years in researching Sharpe, and has produced a very detailed account; so detailed that he has been unable to find a publisher because it is considered to be too long. And he does not want to spend even more time in producing a shorter version, so that is how it lies for the present. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, this may or may not be a big deal. Follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Doing that you can use the parts included in Brandwood et al. Otherwise you can't use it as a source even if it's lying directly in front of you, because it would be a violation of WP:V. How would your fellow editors go about verifying a bit of information you've taken from a book that hasn't even been published yet? When I submitted Edmund Sharpe as a FAC, I thought that the use of Hughes' material as a major source might cause the sort of issue you have raised. However, it was not even discussed by any of the reviewers — see the discussion. As it was accepted at FAC, for the sake of consistency, I see no reason why it should not also be accepted at FLC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I have amended the note in the Refs about Hughes to match that in the FA. There is also hidden text about Hughes' contribution to the ODNB article about Sharpe. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) First of all, I've heard that argument a thousand times. It's still and always will be invalid. ("I got away with murder last time, so I should be allowed to do it again!" Why does anyone ever think that'll work?) Secondly, unpublished material cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia articles, ever. That's what this is about, verifiability, not reliability. I took what you wrote into the article at face value, that this work is "unpublished". Self-published sources are a different matter however. Add |oclc=668355694 to the citation template instead of those sentences (hiding them perhaps). That way a reader who wants to verify anything sourced to this work will at least have a place to start looking. Agree; silly argument (but it felt OK at the time!). And I misled you (and myself) by saying that the source is unpublished; I was thinking just about publication in book form. It is if course published – as a CD (it says so on the CD itself). So it's published, but it's self-published. That should not be a problem in this case. As WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". His work in the relevant field has previously been acknowledged on the ODNB article on Sharpe, and subsequently he is one of the authors in Brandwood et al. Thanks for your advice on the oclc number. I had no idea about this, or how to find it (FLC as a learning process?). I have added this as advised, and hidden the text. So is that now OK on this being accepted as a reliable and verifiable source? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, it's fine. I never questioned the reliability of this source to begin with, only its verifiability. So yes, I do except it, but obviously I can't speak for anyone else. (I would hope that you learn things at FLC! Personally, I've learned more about writing good articles while reviewing than while doing anythings else on Wikipedia. Of course not every reviewer takes the time to read, re-read, and re-re-read relevant guidelines and do other kinds of research while examining articles written by other editors about subjects that don't actually interest them. This is also why it can be so frustrating when nominators seem like they just want to be served all the answers on a silver platter, as if it hadn't been their responsibility to check before nomination whether their article actually met the criteria... I'm going off on a tangent. Sorry.) "Potter, J. (1878), History of the Fylde of Lancashire, W. Porter and Sons" – Same. See above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good so far. (Items not yet reviewed: Lead, Notes column) Goodraise 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks to you, too, for the trouble taken. I will deal with the first point following your advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Revisited. By the way, your execution related replies to TRM's comments cracked me up. I was so close to checking George Orwell bibliography for where he might have recommended that before I realized. Goodraise 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Revisited and continued. I found no issues with with the prose in the Notes column. I am however unhappy about the inconsistent Name column. In some cases, renamings are mentioned in the Notes column, with only one it is done parenthetically in the Name column. There's also several easter egg links where there should be links to redirects, or other peculiarities (e.g. "All Saints Church" (missing a apostrophe?), which links to "Wigan Parish Church", which redirects to "All Saints' Church, Wigan"). Goodraise 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I have sorted out this inconsistency, and found some more to deal with (including coordinates in the wrong column). All the renamings are now in the Notes column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Good. I actually thought those were placed there intentionally. Anyway, looks much better now. Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks Goodraise, from me, for being so amenable to my suggest that Peter requested your review. Marvellous when people collaborate for the greater good! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Don't mention it. By the way, good to see you're back to your old, sweet-talking self. I take it your wikistress level is down again? (I haven't been following your talk page recently.) Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Major life event klaxon. I'm well happy...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) That's great! I like you much better this way. Goodraise 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I like life better this way! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) A few more things: I believe both Grade columns violate MOS:BOLD. I am not sure that cells with coloured backgrounds are covered by MOS:BOLD, but more likely by WP:CONTRAST. This matter was covered, to my understanding, by RexxS (above) in his review iro accessibility. And, when a template such as {{Grade II* colour}} is used, the following text is automatically emboldened (and I know no way to reverse this). I have however, taken the suggestion of RexxS that the repeated words "Grade" should be deleted from the Grade column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Neither RexxS' review nor WP:CONTRAST appear to mention boldface letters. It's also not the template's fault. Try replacing !{{Grade II colour}}| with |align="center" {{Grade II colour}}|. So it was the "!" causing the problem. These have all been replaced. They were only there because a reviewer in a previous FLC told advised me that's how it should be done. As you realise, am no expert in IT! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC) My apologies. I suppose I sometimes forget that not everyone has a lot of IT experience. "St Nicholas, Wrea Green (1848–49), and Christ Church, Bacup (1854)" and "Hornby Castle (1847–52), and Dalton Castle (1856)" – Do you insist on these commas? No. They were a hangover from the purge of examples in the lead, and have been deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC) The lead is solid. One might question whether all those parenthetical dates are necessary, but I'm not going to do that. The only thing I'd like to see would be an appetizer in the first paragraph. ("So this is an article about some of the works of two long dead architects? There's gotta be thousands like them! Why should I continue reading about these two?") Yes, but the works live on – and that what this list is about. Nevertheless, I take your point about an "appetizer"; it does need something more. I have added material which should (IMO) do the trick. Thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC) "...of Sharpe and Paley. Sharpe and Paley were..." – Unnecessary repetition. I also think you've overdone it slightly. Being unfamiliar with the subject area, I obviously didn't know what could be said about them, but I was expecting something less elaborate, an adjective perhaps, like "highly influential", "acclaimed", or something along that line. No, you had spotted an omission that I should have corrected much earlier. You ask "Why should I continue reading...?" You could also ask "Why have I spent many, many hours in writing articles and preparing lists about a little-known provincial architectural practice?". The answer is twofold. First it is unusual for a practice to continue to thrive for over a century with so few principals. Secondly, their work is under-appreciated, and should IMO be more widely acknowledged. I could have just used words as you suggest but, unless they were supported by reliable sources, I would have been in danger of being accused of Puffery. So I used a quotation from the best-known architectural historian of the 20th century. The two new sentences, I think, give justification for the list having some value. Brandwood et al. entitled their Introduction "A practice like no other" (p.1). I could also have used this quote, but decided that would have been too elaborate. Thanks for drawing my attention to this, and so improving the impact of the lead. Repetition removed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC) All right, keep that level of detail then, but right now the addition seems out of place, foreign in the middle of the paragraph. It disturbs the flow. How about rewriting the paragraph to start with "Sharpe and Paley was ..."? It's been an unusually pleasant experience reviewing this article! Looking forward to supporting. Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Revisited. Almost supporting. Goodraise 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC) A few more things. (I'm surprised I forgot to check for them. I guess I'm out of practice.) Avoid using jargon and "easter egg" links. For example, when you just write "restoring", many readers will misunderstand what you mean, but you can't solve this problem by linking every occurrence of the word to Victorian restoration, because readers will assume that those links point to Building restoration. You will actually have to change the article's text to solve this, at least on the term's first occurrence. Use redirects. They are good for the encyclopedia. For example, link like this [[Roman Catholic]] rather than this [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]. Also, links in articles should rarely contain number signs (#). That's what redirects are for. Link like this [[Sharpe and Paley]] rather than this [[Sharpe, Paley and Austin#Sharpe and Paley|Sharpe and Paley]], and create a redirect at Sharpe and Paley which points to Sharpe, Paley and Austin#Sharpe and Paley. I think, considering that the hat note ("For details of the works by ...") leads to a related article, it should be integrated into the lead, perhaps into the last paragraph. Likewise, the lead could be tweaked further to render the entire "See also" section redundant. Please try to do so. I'm sorry that my comments always keep trickling. I just can't help myself. Goodraise 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Lead rewritten. Some Easter eggs cracked (any more)? Hatnote and See also integrated into the lead. I had always thought that redirects were bad and had to be avoided (I had assumed that because there is a Redirect link on the FAC Toolbox - wrong again!). What next? Does the lead require another copyedit? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) As a rule of thumb, direct links are better than redirected links, but redirected links are better than piped links. Here a few more links with room for improvement: Tarnbrook Wyre, Early English, Bluecoat school, Elizabethan Revival, Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic, Austin and Paley, Scottish Baronial, Roman Catholic, cruciform, castellated, Storey Institute, Congregationalists, groining, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I have dealt with these (in one way or another), apart from "Austin and Paley". The problem is that there were two separate periods when the practice had this title 1895–1914 and 1915–44, with "Austin, Paley and Austin" between them. So an "Austin and Paley" redirect will not work accurately. I suppose I could amend the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article to absorb the Austin, Paley and Austin sub-section within Austin and Paley; I'll think about that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I really don't see the problem. Ask yourself, if the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article was so big that it required splitting by period, what would the newly created articles be named? Austin and Paley (1895–1914) and Austin and Paley (1915–1944) perhaps? If so, that's where the redirects go. Austin and Paley should house a disambiguation page with both redirects (which can also be seen as possible future article locations) as entries. Goodraise 14:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Found a simpler way of doing it by reorganising Sharpe, Paley and Austin into subsections and sub-subsections. Austin and Paley now links to the to whole period in which the practice had this title. Dealt with most of the indicated links, but I have been informed that Bluecoat school links to a disambig page. Can we leave it like that? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Normally, linking to a disambiguation page would not be acceptable, but here it seems that page (Bluecoat school) shouldn't actually be a disambiguation page, but an article, and merged with Charity school. So I guess this is good enough. I've written a short lead to Bluecoat school, making it an article rather than a disambig page. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think the lead would benefit from another copyedit. The prose quality has deteriorated somewhat. Copyedit has been requested. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) "Many of the alterations consisted of the restoration of medieval churches, which in this context means returning the structure of the church to what was its main style, or to what the architect considered to have been the best medieval style, usually that of the 13th and 14th centuries." – Am I imagining it, or are you trying to avoid using the term "Victorian restoration"? Yes. I have not seen the term used other than in the title of the WP article. And restoration, in this sense, started before and continued after Victoria's reign. So I've deleted the term from the list. The link in the lead has been maintained, despite my explanation, because the article is otherwise of value to the reader, but it might be better to de-link it. What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Well, I guess things are even more complicated than I already thought they were. Basically the problem here, as I understand it, is that you are trying to use a word (i.e. restoration) in a sense in which it isn't used anymore, at least not in the context or architecture. How are the sources dealing with this? Could you perhaps avoid using the word entirely? As for linking or not linking to Victorian restoration, I think this is somewhat of a having-a-cake-or-eating-it situation. If that article really is relevant to this one, you shouldn't hesitate spelling out its title for the reader to see. Otherwise I wouldn't even use it as an entry in a "See also" section. If the issue is that "Victorian restoration" is too specific for your purposes, perhaps you could create a stub article to link, or perhaps add a section to Building restoration (to which you could create a redirect). Or maybe, if you think the article is simply named incorrectly, you could move it? The word "restoration" is certainly used currently and frequently in the context of architecture. Almost every article on a medieval church includes the word; either to describe how the church has been restored; or that it has not been restored, because leaving a medieval church unrestored is very unusual. How do the sources deal with it? In the way that Ref 6 does. The explanation in the source occupies nearly a full page, which I have condensed into a single sentence, and which I think covers it simply and adequately. Linking "restoration" to Victorian restoration confuses the issue, so I have removed the link. I do not intend to do anything about the article because I do not have the expertise to change it. And there is no suitable title for moving it; the architectural historians just use the word "restoration"; they know what they mean by it, and I have tried to explain this in the lead as simply and as accurately as I can. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Well, can't say I'm smitten with the way it's put, but the impending copyedit may change that. We'll see. Revisited. Goodraise 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 14:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 05:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I've rewritten that sentence, so it now reads "Many of the alterations to medieval churches were done in the course of restoration work, in an effort to return the structure to its main style, or to what the architect considered to have been the best medieval style, usually that of the 13th and 14th centuries." Eric Corbett 19:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the copyedit, Eric. Looks good! Just one (hopefully) last question (directed at whoever can answer it): "Paley was ... carrying out independent commissions from at least 1849." Excuse my ignorance, but on what were those commissions not dependent? Did you perhaps mean that Paley carried out commissions independently? Goodraise 04:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Quite so. Changed as per your suggestion. Eric Corbett 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Goodraise 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support now my minor quibbles and Goodraise's splendid review comments have been addressed. Nice work all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Ref 15 needs a pp. for the page range, instead of the current p. Same for refs 25 and 85. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Eric Corbett 20:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, EC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [26].

---

List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson

Nominator(s): Chihciboy (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets the FL criteria and is similar with the standard found on the Fiona Apple and Adele list of recordings. I'll do my best to address your concerns/reviews. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aaron

Resolved comments by Aaron Comments by Aaron I have issues with the lead, especially with the second paragraph, but for the moment I'm commenting on the formatting of references. FN1: The publisher is simply Viacom, which shoudl be applied to all MTV refs. Done. FN7: Idolator needs linking and should not be in italics, Buzz Media should also be linked. Done. FN8: On the contrary, these need to be unlinked and Idolator should not be in italics. Always link the first time. Done. FN11: Not sure of Popcrush's reliability for FLC, but it should not be in italics and should simply be Popcrush I replaced it to an MTV source so it won't be a problem in the future. FN12: MTV should not be italics Done. FN17-21: WP:OVERLINK of RCA, XL and S Records Done. FN25/26/28/29/33: Overlink of Amazon Done. FN34: Missing Apple as a publisher Inserted Apple as publisher. Fn35: Missing publisher and iTunes Store needs unlinking Done.  — AARON • TALK 17:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed it. Please check. Chihciboy (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks good at the moment, but there are still some things that need changing. I have made a few edits here. These are my comments: The first thing that strikes me when reading the lead through is that the names of certain singles and albums are repeated in quick succession. Thankful and "The Trouble With Love Is" both begin sentences that they have just ended, and the second sentence of the second paragraph uses "Breakaway" twice. I'd recommend rewriting these sentences slightly. Done. Please check. The caption of the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating full stop. Done. You don't use the abbreviations for Bertelsmann Music Group or the National Football League again, so there's probably no need to include them. Done. Per MOS:NUM, "twenty-year-old" -> "20-year-old" and "co-wrote 6 songs" -> "co-wrote six songs" Done. "follow suit" is an WP:IDIOM and needs to be rewritten. Done. Does "two Grammy Awards" refer to two wins, or two nominations? The way the sentence reads at the moment, it sounds like two Grammy nominations. Done. I rewrote it. That controversy mentioned in the Ryan Tedder image caption certainly piqued my interest, but it's not mentioned again the article. I'd suggest either expanding a bit in the lead on what the controversy was, or else removing that sentence from the caption. Done. Expanded it in the lead. It might be worth including in the key exactly what "N/A" represents – songs that were featured on single releases only, right? Done. Added footnotes in the "n/a". "A Moment Like This" needs to sort under M rather than A. Done. I believe that the normal convention is for titles of double A-sides to be separated by spaces, i.e. "Before Your Love"/"A Moment Like This" -> "Before Your Love" / "A Moment Like This" Done. "Don't Waste Your Time" needs to be above "Don't You Wanna Stay" when the page loads. Similarly, "Honestly" needs to be above "Hole", "What Doesn't Kill You" needs to be above "Where Is Your Heart", and "The Trouble With Love Is" needs to be below "Timeless". Done. The link to Kelly Clarkson discography features in the navbox at the bottom of the page, so, per WP:SEEALSO, it needn't be included in the SA section as well. Done. Per MOS:EMDASH, spached hypens and em dashes needs to be spaced en dashes. Is this this on the references? I replaced the em dashes on the references with en dashes. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I fixed all except the last one. I'm not so sure if its on the references you're referring to. Please check. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the references. Also the spaced hyphen in Further information section. Done. It's good that the info about the controversy has been expanded upon in the lead, but my concern now is that the lead is quite long – it looks like it's about 25% longer than it was before, and I wonder if that is too long for a list of this size. Personally, I reckon you could probably get rid of the third paragraph entirely, and split the second one into two smaller paragraphs (with a new paragraph beginning at "In 2009..."). But that's up to you. Done. I split the second paragraph into two, with second one containing the fourth and fifth album cycles. I haven't removed the last paragraph yet, but if I still think it should be removed it's fine for me. Statements about songs' "commercial" or "modest" success and "worldwide hit" don't seem to be referenced. Also, the second sentence of the second pargraph uses "commercial success" twice. Done. I removed some of the statements that I can't find a citation to support. And referenced the other ones. Citations need to be in ascending order, i.e. [8][4] -> [4][8] Done. "Already Gone"'s -> "Already Gone{{"'}}s Done. The List of songs heading doesn't need the first two words. Done. "Some Kind Of Miracle" -> "Some Kind of Miracle" Done. Is there a more reliable source than Last.fm to cite "Up to the Mountain"? I could scrobble a track in such a way that it suggests that Kelly Clarkson has recorded a version of Bohemian Rhapsody, even though she obviously hasn't. Done. Replaced it with a Billboard one. Typographic quotation marks (i.e. “ and ”) need to be replaced with typewriter ones (i.e. "). Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed it. But please check. Thanks. Chihciboy (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Tantalisingly close, as far as I can see, I just have a few more comments: A couple of sentences use the word "Grammy" three times – to fix this, rather than specifying in which awards show the songs were nominated (e.g. "at the 48th Grammy Awards"), you could simply say in which year the nomination occurred (e.g. "in 2006"). Done. Speaking of which, four sentences begin with "In [year], Clarkson". It might be worth restructuring a couple of them just for the sake of variety (e.g. "Clarkson released her fourth studio album, All I Ever Wanted, in 2009.") Done. "include:" -> "included" reads better to me. Done. The back of The Smoakstack Sessions Vol. 2 CD cover lists its third track as simply "That I Would Be Good/Use Somebody", rather than "That I Would Be Good"/"Use Somebody". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Done. Finished it now. Please check. Thanks. Chihciboy (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Just had another look over, and there are no other major issues that I can see. Like I've already said, some might say that the lead is a little too long, but this isn't too much of an issue for me. I also think that neither of the two colons in the third paragraph are needed (replace the second one with a comma). Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Chihciboy (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "being also" doesn't seem needed in the parenthetical bit at the end of the first paragraph. Done. You got rid of the parentheses, but not the words that were causing the problem in the first place. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Removed. Chihciboy (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC) "the" is missing before "soundtrack" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Done. Added it. "The song's commercial success inspired Clarkson to name her second studio album, Breakaway". Comma isn't necessary here. Done. Removed it. No, I still see it there. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Removed. Sorry, my eyes must have been blurry back then. I thought I removed it. Chihciboy (talk) "and suggested Clarkson to reunite with her previous collaborators." → "and suggested that Clarkson reunite with her previous collaborators."? Done. "was met with controversy due to its musical similarities with Beyonce Knowles' song Halo, both of which produced by OneRepublic lead singer Ryan Tedder." Grammar doesn't work here. You could try "Halo; both were produced by OneRepublic lead singer Ryan Tedder." Done. Replaced it with "Halo; both were produced by OneRepublic lead singer Ryan Tedder.". As a general comment, the second paragraph is very large and could stand to be shortened. The easiest way I see to do this would be to break it up and have her fourth and fifth albums be the subject of their own paragraph. No content would need to be removed, and the lead would look more well-balanced. I split the paragraph into two. The first one containing the second and third while the other contains the fourth and fifth. Is this okay? Images could use alt text. Done. Note 1: The comma should probably be a semi-colon, although this is minor. Done. About.com (ref 30) isn't a reliable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Replaced it with Boston Globe. Fixed it according to your comments. You can check it now. Thank you. Chihciboy (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments nothing really to say, it's a good list, but "became notable hits" not sure what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changed to "hits". Chihciboy (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that all the issues have been covered above. Looks good to me...although the lead is a bit long. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The list deserves the star. Regards — Robin (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) [27].

---

List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is well referenced and complete. It is my first list of songs, so I look forward to any comments or feedback to help it reached FL status. Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, it does indeed look quite complete and very well referenced. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aaron

Resolved comments by Aaron Comments I can't really find anything to fault. It's nice to see that the format I've created for lists of songs is being used by others and applied to lists by other singers. The only things I think could be addressed are that fact that every song bar one is by the Scissor Sisters, so it kinda of makes the Artist column seem slightly awkward as it just repeats Scissor Sisters column after column after column. Also, as nearly all the songs were written by the same people in each column. Maybe this could be overcome by placing a note saying that "All songs were written by X, X and X. Additional writers are written in the table." I'd like some other editors opinions on these two suggestions though. However, you should remove the (UK edition) and (Deluxe edition) though, we don't differentiate between editions of albums, after all, it is the same album. If some feedback is given about those two suggestions of mine by other editors then I will probably change to support for what ever the outcome is and the action that is taken for it.  — AARON • TALK 21:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC) I'll await some more feedback, but I have removed the notes that differentiated between different editions. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support  — AARON • ^TALK 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks good to me, I just have a few remarks: After the initial mention of his name, Jakes Shears should be referred to by his surname only. Is it definitely "Better Luck Next Time"? My copy of the album lists track nine as "Better Luck" on the back on the CD case. I agree with Aaron that it's probably not necessary to have an entire column dedicated to the artists when all but one of them are the same. I had the same problem when I did a similar list for Guillemots – here's what I did. Consider it at your own discretion, if you want. Maybe he could do something like "Shady Love" <br /> (Scissor Sisters vs. Krystal Pepsy ft. Azealia Banks) ?  — AARON • TALK 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that could work. I'd do "Shady Love"<br /><small>(Scissor Sisters vs. Krystal Pepsy ft. Azealia Banks)</small>, personally. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, it won't make the table as wide that way.  — AARON • TALK 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I think it should perhaps be included (maybe in the key) what the N/A cells actually represent. "Contact High" needs to be below "Comfortably Numb" when the page first loads. Similarly, "It Can't Come Quickly Enough" needs to be below "Invisible Light", and "I Can't Decide" needs to be above "I Don't Feel Like Dancin'". (You'll probably need to move the anchors when you swap these around.) "Fire With Fire" -> "Fire with Fire" WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBN where possible, which, for Alex Hannaford's book, would be 978-1-903906-69-9. Some of the dates in this article flit between being in mdy format and dmy. Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I have made the changes that you mentioned. I have also removed the column dedicated to artists and left a note for "Shady Love". If there is anything else please let me know :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Looks a lot better; I've got a few more remarks: I'd move the note citation for "Shady Love" to the end of the song title, rather than after the dagger. "The Other Side" and "The Skins" need to sort under O and S respectively. "is performed by Scissor Sisters" -> "is credited to Scissor Sisters" "List of Scissor Sister songs" -> "List of Scissor Sisters songs" A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Again, thank you for all the help. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The track listings for "Kiss You Off" and "Only the Horses" include songs called "Bad S**t" and "Magic Hour Medley" – any reason they couldn't be included? I have included "Bad S**t" (although I cannot for the life on me find the writing credits) and "Magic Hour Medley" is a mix of songs from the album, not an original composition. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I probably shouldn't have have censored myself – the track's listed as "Bad Shit" rather than "Bad S**t" on the Wikipedia article. "The Other Side" and "The Skins" move to the bottom of the table when it's sorted by title. Moving the quotation marks outside the sort template should fix this, i.e. "{{sort|Skins|The Skins}}". Done – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Similarly, the ASCAP link lists a lot of songs that don't feature in this article, such as "Black Cocaine", "Deeper Than Emotions", "Dirty Bomb", "Doctor (I'm Only Seeing Dark)" and "Forever Right Now". Also, it names "Fuck Yeah" as "F*** Yeah", rather than the expletive-filled version. I have changed "Fuck Yeah" to "F*** Yeah". The other songs are either unreleased or were included on an unofficial demo album titled K-Mart Disco. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see, tricky one... I'd say that, even though they were never on an official release, they are still songs recorded by Scissor Sisters, and would hence fall within the remit of this list. But I guess it all depends on whether an unofficial demo album can be considered a reliable source for this kind of information. I might take that up at a WikiProject... I have decided to include songs from the album as it was done on the Leona Lewis list. As for songs such as "Black Cocaine", I cannot find any release (official and unofficial) that they were featured on. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC) That's a good idea, although I think it might be worth mentioning K-Mart Disco somewhere in the lead, rather than just having it stuck down in a note somewhere. It wouldn't need to be any longer than a sentence or two, perhaps at the end of paragraph two or the start of paragraph three. Added information about it to the lead :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC) "(Demo)" or "(Demo)"? Fixed – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC) So, for the songs not on albums, were they B-sides to singles, or leaked demos, or something else? They are B-sides to singles. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Hmm... In that case, I'd personally suggest listing on which single the B-sides appeared and titling the column as "Original release" rather than "Album", as in this list, for example. But that's up to you. Done – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Looks a lot better, although now the singles move to the top of the column when it's sorted. Using something like {{sort|Any Which Way|"Any Which Way"}} would fix that. Also, what about "Electrobix"? Done – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I probably didn't explain that as well as I could have done – I meant that those changes should be made to the singles listed in the Release column. I've gone through and made the changes, and hopefully everything should be sorting correctly now. Thanks – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Do you happen to know if "Ooh" and "Ooh (The Blues)" are the same song? They are listed separately on the ASCAP website with different work IDs. If they are the same song ASCAP lists alternate titles (see "Better Luck") – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Hmm... If they're the same song, then I'd say that only one needs to be listed, ideally the Ta-Dah version. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I have removed the one listed from K-Mart Disco – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support I've had another look over this list, and it meets the criteria by my reckoning. I just have a few final comments:

• "Better Luck" is still named "Better Luck Next Time" in the lead.
• "songs recorded prior to the release of the band's debut album" -> "songs recorded by the band prior to the release of their debut album" reads better to me.
• Stick an "All songs credited to Scissor Sisters, except where noted." note at the top of section.

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done and thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment couldn't find anything obviously amiss here, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Looks to be in excellent shape. Well referenced, and appears to meet all of the criteria. Well done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [28].

---

Timeline of the Manhattan Project

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A timeline is a peculiar type of list article. This one is on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Impeccably referenced, highly educational, quite encyclopedic and a valuable resource for this site. — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't read all the way through, but I already noticed some typos. I fixed them. Please proofread to make sure it is typo-free. Other than that the list looks good.—Chris!_c/t 00:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• SUPPORT As a fan of the Manhattan Project, I was happy to see how much work went into this. I don't think a few typos should hold it back, and I'll gladly see if I can fix a few of them. Excellent work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments really nice piece of work, and incredibly interesting. "2013[1] dollars)" would prefer to see that citation the other side of the closing parenthesis. Me too, but it is generated by the inflation-fn template You could link uranium. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "so a more complex Implosion-type nuclear weapon " no need for "Implosion" to be capitalised. Decapped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Britain and France" shouldn't that really be "Great Britain"? No idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) No need to over link "Einstein-Szilárd letter" and it should have an en-dash (like the first instance). That n-dash subverted the duplicate link checker. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) If you link "nuclear fission", perhaps you could link "neutron"? Done. James Chadwick would want it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) " that Uranium 235 is " for consistency, that should be "that uranium-235 is"... please check for others. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Could link "slow neutron". Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Rudolph Peierls" Rudolf according to our article. Whoops. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Frisch-Peierls memorandum" needs an en-dash. Ecch. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "This is given to..." the memo or the pound of enriched uranium?! The memorandum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Again, avoid overlinking (e.g. Tizard). Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Don't bother linking "research project". Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Video of the Trinity nuclear test." no full stop required. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) " Roosevelt formally authorizes the project." consider reiterating that this is the Manhattan Project he's authorising. Can't say that, because it is not yet the Manhattan Project. Changed to "atomic bomb project". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Our article on "Stone and Webster" has "Stone & Webster" Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "July 30, " for consistency, that comma should be a colon. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Aerial view of the Operation Crossroads..." caption doesn't need a full stop. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) There are sometimes more specific articles for military ranks, e.g. Field marshal (United Kingdom) which would be more useful. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) " exploding bridgewire detonators" hyphen needed. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "at Alamogordo, New Mexico.[65]." remove spare full stop. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Could link "Potsdam Ultimatum" to the relevant section of the bombings article? No. Linked to its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Page ranges in the refs need to use en-dash per WP:DASH. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) You don't need "Science timelines" as a cat since you've got the more refined "Physics timelines". Otherwise a great (and tragic) read. Thank you for your work and the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - A very well written, well referenced, and education timeline. Just a few comments/points for consistency: Noting that you tend to only link on the first use of a term or reference… 1941-July 2: James Chadwick is not linked. Gasp! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 1942-September 23: William R. Purnell is linked to a page that doesn’t exist (perhaps this is okay). Yes, it is okay. WP:REDLINK: Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. 1943-August 19: Churchill is already linked in 1942. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 1943-September 8: Combined Policy Committee is linked to a page that does not exist. This is okay. I will eventually create the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 1943-Hanford Site is linked twice. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) brigadier general is never linked (first use in 1942-September 23), should also be capitalized for consistency WP:MILTERMS: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general. First use of Colonel is 1942-September 17 (not linked). Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Major General linked in intro, also 1942-August 13. The lead doesn't count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) First use of General (full) 1945-July 25 not linked. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 1944-September 2: “Chemists” for “chemists”. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Again, well done. -- Godot13 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Well written, educational, very nice work.--Godot13 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• September 23, 1942: Something looks like it's missing before ref 36. It's not just a period, but judging by the sentence as a whole some key words are not there.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• May 21, 1946: "Slotin lifted the upper hemisphere with his left hand and dropped it onto the floor, so preventing a more serious accident." This feels like it would read better without the "so", but that may just be me.
  • It seemed too long for a timeline to me, so I cut it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Suport great article, although it would be nice to have a few more costs/payments inserted. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.