Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

Taylor Swift videography

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this in an attempt for my 30th featured list. This is the videography of Ms Swift, partially based on other articles of its kind - Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography, also written by me. However, unlike them I have not dedicated a separate section to the commercials she has done, as I don't find them so notable that they be discussed in such detail like they are in the two videographies. I have also tried to be as less-detailed (in "Description" in the Music videos section) as possible. I have selected the images of the models and director of her most popular videos. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —IB [ Poke ] 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think an internal redirect link to the Kanye West interruption would be beneficial sometime since the 2009 MTV VMA article is quite "list" like and a reader will defo miss the para. This can be added in the lead at the end of the first para. fixed a minor quotes issue in "The Last Time". In 2014, Swift released 1989 --> In 2014, Swift released her fifth album 1989 (since you mention the chronology of the other albums, it makes sense to do it for this one also) I'm still on the fence for the commercials, cause some of them do seem to be noteworthy. For "Change" summary beginning with "It sees Swift performing with a band in a ballroom" seems awkward. We know the column is for videos so why not directly begin it as "Swift performs with a band in a ballroom..." The picture of Joseph Kahn is stretching and extending into the reference section, making it look compacted even in wide screen monitors like mine. I would say its not necessary since all the images are about Swift's male co-actors and forms a unanimity, and Kahn just looks out of place. I will again give another look FrB., but solid work as always. —IB [ Poke ] 10:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks IndianBio - I have acted upon your every suggestion. FrB.TG (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC) File:Taylor Swift (6820735620) - cropped.jpg needs ALT text. Swift is heartbroken when she sees her him with his wife --> Swift is heartbroken when she sees him with his wife Whoops! All of the proceeds from the video to wild animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America --> This definitely does not sound right. The video is different from Swift's previous work, featuring Swift --> replace the next Swift with "the singer" to avoid repetition of her surname A single Swift bounces on trampolines --> single Swift? Sounds like the name of a car :P The video finds Swift in the streets of Paris --> "finds Swift in the streets" make it sound like she is living off the streets, probably you meant "finds Swift roaming around the streets of Paris" ala Adele's SLY. The video does not mainly focus on B.o.B and Swift, as it cuts to scenes of people, living their day-to-day lives. --> "Along with B.o.B and Swift, the video also portray people living their day-to-day lives." More to come. —IB [ Poke ] 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Looking forward. FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC) @IndianBio: could you strike out your comments you consider resolved? FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Will do shortly :) —IB [ Poke ] 08:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Support I do not see any other outstanding issue with the list. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Montanabw

• The Television chart is confusing, as it lists her two dramatic roles but then also includes her SNL guest host appearances, but lists none of her other TV appearances such as Dancing with the Stars and such. I am confused as to what your criteria were for this chart, can you clarify?
• I may be applying FAC criteria here, but the lead should normally only be unsourced where the content is repeated in the body text of the article, here the first two paragraphs are pretty much unsourced and the third is only sourced at the end. As the charts don't source the music albums from which the songs came and some other material in the lead, I'd like to see either footnotes in the lead or some of the material there added to the article, particularly where we have songs tied to audio albums. Doesn't matter which way you go, so long as we have sources.

More to come, pending what is done here and on other reviewers suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 02:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Included liner notes for the albums. As for the second one, I have not included television shows where she has performed her songs. They go in List of Taylor Swift live performances (I will start that page sometime later). FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, but then why is SNL included? I guess my sense is that SNL isn't an acting role (though maybe she was in some sketches? Or was she only a musical guest? or both? Unclear) so if her TV performances aren't here, I need clarification on the SNL one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Because she was also the host of the episode and she didn't really perform a song; it was a monologue. FrB.TG (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. You might want to note "guest host" on the chart then, so as to not be confused with "musical guest" which appears to be a category you are excluding here. I would recommend doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• Support: My concerns have been addressed. Looks good. Montanabw^(talk) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

During her acceptance speech, she was interrupted by rapper Kanye West, which sparked controversy and received much media attention. - Probably one of the most controversial statements of this page is unsourced. Per above. Of course per above, source is needed. You mention commercials done by Taylor, but they are not on the list. Why not? I would have happily included a list if additional information such as who directed them were available but just listing those commercials is basically repetition. Also, see my explanation in my introduction. First, without commercials this list can be incomplete. Second, the lead is a summary of the page; thus, if the page doesn't list the commercials, the lead shouldn't mention it. Mentioned it in prose form in a section created for them. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC) For "Fearless" it says the director is Todd Cassetty and the description states that Swift uses footage from the Fearless Tour. Did Todd Cassetty direct the tour? or Swift directed the video along with Todd? Now for someone to direct a video, it does not have to be original, does it? Maybe you should say that Cassetty uses footage from the Tour while directing this video? "In the video" should be removed vieo → video The video albums table has a title, others don't. Why not? Two youtube links formatted differently, should be in the same format. From her eponymous debut album (2006),[1] - What is the first footnote? So, you basically provide the link to the album with a footnote that has that same link? It doesn't make any sense. Having wikilinks as reference is unreliable. You should know that since you do source reviews. The first six footnotes currently need to be deleted/replaced. They were all liner notes which are not available offline, but since they were only used to confirm the tracks of the albums, I replaced them with the iTunes sources. But since Beautiful Eyes is not available on iTunes I left it as is. You already have that link in the lead, why are you putting it in a footnote? Removed. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Every mention of an award won in the lead should be sourced They are all sourced in the main body of the article and should not be repeated in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Yes, per WP:LEAD, it should be sourced. No, LEAD does not say anything such. It asks to source a controversial statement in the lead. I have sourced the controversy bit, but awards are not controversial so they are better there. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Several of the descriptions are unsourced No, they are not. They are sourced with the links to videos in which the plot of the videos can be seen. The plot may be seen, but how about the location? or What tour it's from? If I am to source every tiny detail, I will probably wind up having three four sources for just the plot of a video. They are apparent in the videos themselves. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC) That's why you don't need to go into detail just mention the plot of videos. Don't mention anything that has to be sourced. Removed. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Why are you not including tonight shows with Fallon, Leno, or Kimmel? Also how about Punk'd? Your source lists them. If you have another criteria, then you need to change your source to correspond to your criteria I honestly have no idea. I basically copied everything from Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. I have asked a user the same question here. Let's see if they respond. Okay, since there was no response from the user, I have gone ahead and added those television shows; I've no idea as to why I didn't include them on Gaga and Perry's videographies. If there is a consensus against them, they can always be removed. I believe I have acted on on your other suggestions too. - FrB.TG (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Oppose As soon as Beautiful eyes is sourced, I'll support.--Cheetah (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Added -thanks for your comments - really! – FrB.TG (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC) In the table, beautiful eyes is not sourced. Where's the youtube video at least?--Cheetah (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC) @Crzycheetah: Unfortunately the video is not available online, but I have added a source which mentions the fact the it had a video. - FrB.TG (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good work!--Cheetah (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• According to WP:LEAD, “The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article” and “Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none”, but I have a slightly different question about the use of citations in the lead. Is there a reason why certain things are cited (such as the release of Swift’s first album), and not other things? I would think that either everything had to be cited, or everything would not be cited (and by extension be covered in the body of the article). Everything seems to be cited for similar articles like Rihanna videography and Madonna videography, but a similar citation style for Lady Gaga videography. I am not entirely sure which way is the more “correct” way (as it is up to your stylistic preference), but I just want to raise this question since the citation style in the lead was called into question by the above comments.

I have sourced those sentences which are not covered in the main body or are either controversial enough for the sources to be repeated. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I was just curious as this issue was raised by an above commenter.

• Is there a reason that a majority of the images focus on Swift’s love interests in the music videos (except for Kendrick Lamar)? This is more a question than a suggestion for a change, as this is up to your own stylistic preference, but I am curious why an image of Kellie Pickler or the Civil Wars or B.o.B. couldn’t be used instead of some of the images of the love interests for the sake of variety.
• Wouldn’t Speak Now World Tour – Live and The 1989 World Tour Live count as video albums and be included in the “Video albums” charts?
• Just a suggestion, but if you wanted to expand the “Commercials” section, you could use a table similar to that used in the “Commercials” section of Madonna filmography.

I would expand it if I find additional information about them. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. This was just an idea if you had the additional information, but since it is not available, the section is fine as it currently stands.

@FrB.TG: Aside from these points, everything else about the list looks great! If possible, could you review my FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. Had your request come before today, I would have gladly reviewed your list, but I don't think I can do that now; so sorry. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: No worries, I am just glad that I could help in any way. I support this to be promoted as a FL.

Passing source review, and closing as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another football club player list up for FL. I based it on List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances) which was promoted quite recently, so hopefully it is up to the currently-expected standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – Good read, although is odd to have a list from 25 to 49, if the main list starts at 50, this one should have all the remaining players, but it's your choice.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the size of the 1-24 list? It's absolutely huge (well over 100K), so combining it with this one would create a monster! Also, splitting the overall list into 3 articles is quite standard for football club lists of this type......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments – minor stuff 'The Football League' should link to 'English Football League' Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Table needs rowscopes, per MOS:DTT Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Images could do with WP:ALT Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Ref 9 should be 'BBC Sport' Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC) ISBN for 'Gillingham Football Club: A Chronology 1893–1984'? It doesn't have one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC) "Statistics are correct up to the end of the 2015–16 season," they have played two games into the new season, has this affected the list? If so, date needs changing. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC) No, the stats are still correct to the end of last season. I don't update them after every single game. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – on style, satisfies the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support The only issue I have is that maybe the position column should sort by position. So, goalkeeper is first with forward last, but that's the only quibble I have. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Passing source review, with some minor changes. Consider archiving your online sources, so that if e.g. Soccerbase goes away this list doesn't get taken out. Closing this nomination as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Game of Thrones episodes

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and because I have worked on this article and being that this is the biggest series of all time has inspired me push to get this list to FL. AffeL (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments I just want to mention two issues that I noticed by a glance. First, the lead is way too short for the biggest series of all time. Second, the colors look so much alike. If only you could change it up a bit.--Cheetah (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) @Crzycheetah: The colors is suppose to fit the season articles, the official posters/cover of the season. For example, Game of Thrones (season 4) is black, because the official DVD/Bluray cover is black and Game of Thrones (season 5) is Gold, because of same reason. And I will work on the lead. I just saw that List of Supernatural episodes is a Featured Article with a short lead and I thought it could be enough. But I will try add more to the lead. - AffeL (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC) First and Sixth episode's colors look the same to me, but I understand the reasoning. That Supernatural list passed back in 2009. I'd suggest to use the most recent featured list as an example.--Cheetah (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC) @Crzycheetah: I wrote some more info in the lead. Is it enough, or do I need to add more?. - AffeL (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC) It's fine. Thanks, I'll come back later and do a thorough review.--Cheetah (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Currently, this list meets the FL criteria, even though it should exceed it. I am just wondering if there are any mobisodes, webisodes, or some other type of special episodes. Take for example the Lost list. --Cheetah (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: There are no webisodes or any any other special kind of episode for this series.. that I know of AffeL (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. All the promotional content has been presented as part of subsequent episodes. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note that, yes, while the article may deserve to become FL status, it is far from being "the biggest series of all time". A definite exaggeration there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

lol. then what is?? Doctor Who?.. hahaha.. give me a break man. Until you can find a show more successful and popular than GoT, then it's definitely not an exaggeration. Just let it go man. AffeL (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Your uncivil tone just makes me want to oppose this nomination. I could name a dozen series that has had more viewers, constant critical acclaim, and have run far longer than Game of Thrones. It's a popular series, and that's as far as it goes. Just let it go indeed. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Your uncivil tone just makes me want to oppose this nomination". How professionell of you. But whatever.. you can have your own opinion, just keep calm, relax and don't get so emotional for nothing?. I just figured that when a series is the ranked the number one most talked about show on social media(Facebook, Twitter) and having won more Emmys than any other Drama Series. Record breaking viewership for HBO(Payed Cable). Also the most pirated show of all time, three times more pirated than the second most pirated series(The Walking Dead). Also being critical acclaimed and having the biggest budget of any series ever, and just because a show has "run far longer", does not make it any bigger. I believed that was enough for me to refer it as "the biggest series of all time"?. But no worries, you can think what you want. It is for the best that we just move on and let it go. Sorry for whatever I did that made you so mad.. AffeL (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC) I could provide series that rival almost every point you gave (for example, ER had a per-episode budget over twice that of GoT), but I'll leave you to your fan-based beliefs. Enjoy the series. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Okey.. I just stated facts and you called it "fan-based beliefs". But no problem man, let's just agree to disagree. I really don't want to argue over something this stupid. AffeL (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Hey guys, we should calm this down a notch and just focus on the goal that is trying to be achieved here: getting this to FL. Whether or not it is the biggest series of all time, it is no doubt among the biggest. I'm not sure how the nominators comment about this should affect the list in any way. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Burklemore1

• A nice list, though a few issues with the lead.
• "The series start when"... -> "The series starts when..."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "David Benioff and D. B. Weiss serves as executive producers along with..." What about "David Benioff and D. B. Weiss both serve as executive producers along with..."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Filming for the series have took place primarily in Croatia, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Spain." What about "Filming for the series has took place in a number of locations, including Croatia, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Spain." By the way, I'm confident that countries don't need to be linked.

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Filming for the series has took place" is not correct English grammar at all. It should probably be "Filming for the series has taken place" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks AffeL (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Episodes are broadcast on Sunday at 9:00 pm Eastern Time, the episodes for season one to six have been between 50 to 69 minutes in length." What about "Episodes are broadcast on Sunday at 9:00 pm Eastern Time, and the episodes for season one to six are between 50 to 69 minutes in length."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "As of June 26, 2016" Why not just June 2016 for that matter? Don't think we need to be really specific.

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the documentation at {{Aired episodes}}. This is the format agreed upon by the members of WP:TV, to include the date of the last-aired episode; if you believe that it doesn't need to be so specific, please create a discussion at WT:TV. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a terrible problem with it, it was more out of curiosity. I should also mention I am not familiar with the type of formats that are accepted or not. Thank you for the clarification though. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "The series will conclude with its eighth season." When?

It will probably be in mid-2018, but that has not been confirmed. AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• David Benioff is linked multiple times: specifically for S2 EP1, S3 EP1, S4 EP1, S5 EP1 AND S6 EP1.
• Same for D. B. Weiss, except for S4 EP1.

The reason they are linked multiple times, are because the table is from the season articles. Look at Game of Thrones (season 2) for an example. AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Each writer/director is linked once in the respective season articles, which is then reflected in the main episode article. This hasn't seemed to affect other LoE pages becoming featured lists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Will continue later. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Sources are good, external links also good, no dead links. Good job.
• Since my final comments were on the dup links, I have become aware this is fine for these types of lists. Because of this, I no longer see any outstanding issues that could prevent this nomination from becoming a FL. I can now support this nomination. Great job! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Addressed comments from - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• You link George R. R. Martin twice in the lead. Per WP:OVERLINK you shouldn't
• "between 50 to 69" → "between 50 and 69"
• "and will" → "which will"
• "later than the" → "later in the year than the"
• You overlink TV by the Numbers in the referencing section. It only needs to be linked once (at its first mention)
• Same for TVShowsOnDVD.com

— Good job so far. A few small fixes needed to be made before I can support. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Dingo: I did all those things you asked AffeL (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. Well done AffeL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do a source review at the soonest. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reliability - not sure about Zap2It (actually sure about this, definitely a bad one to use), and MetroNews.ca (the British newspaper is a very bad source; I am not expecting this one (if it's another version of the newspaper) to be any different). Have looked only until here; will post the rest tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Zap2It has always been a reliable source in the Television WikiProject. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like I mistook it for another not-permissible source here I myself used in a list of mine. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay here's the rest:

• Formatting - from what I see you are practicing the 'link the publisher/website/work only on first instance', but you are very inconsistent as to when you link them. For example, The Guardian needs to be linked in ref 5, Entertainment Weekly needs to be delinked in ref 11 (already linked in ref 10), and as does TV by the Numbers in ref 47, 57, 67.
  • Ref 9 - Deadline => Deadline.com
• Spotchecked the ratings section (at first I searched for the ratings but I couldn't find some numbers, but you practiced round-off there) and no issue.
• I think you might need to provide a source in the end of first paragraph, in which it discusses the series' storyline. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: TV by the Numbers is linked multiply times because it is linked once in the respective season articles, that is then reflected in the main episode article. - AffeL (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All done.. thanks. - AffeL (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:FrB.TG, I fixed all the things you said. Is there anything else? -- AffeL (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No! - FrB.TG (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [4].

---

List of BLM Herd Management Areas

Nominator(s): Montanabw^(talk) 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I am a wikicup participant. I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive, annotated listing of the roughly 270 Herd Management areas for mustangs and feral burros (legally, "wild and free-roaming horses and burros" handled by the Bureau of Land Management across 10 western states. By necessity, it includes the Wild Horse and Burro territories of the U.S. Forest Service and some areas that have been merged or altered over the years. This is my first whack at a FL, though I've done quite a few FAs. I've been working on this for over a year and found it was far more complicated than I ever dreamed -- Government reports, contradictory statistics, political controversy and reading things with titles like "Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Capture, Treat and Release Plan - Fertility Control with Limited Removal - Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2011-0031-EA". I am glad to answer any questions and improve the article as the reviewers deem necessary. Montanabw^(talk) 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good list – and a monumental piece of work! A few comments to tighten up here and there:

Summaries of population by state table

• There are a few columns that could be made sortable: State, HMAs, HMA Acres, Pop. Horses, Pop. Burros, Total and AML could all be made sortable.

I did, but the last row (totals) also sorts, how do I exclude that row? Also, Pop. Horses won't sort correctly, any notion how to fix that? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• You should remove the gaps between the references

• I would prefer to, but I ran into a glitch where they were making the column wide and not stacking. Do you know of a way I can fix that?

• I'm not sure of the use of the images on that one: they don't seem to show

• You can't see the images in the chart? I have one for every state... are they just running off on the right hand side of the page? I could run them down the side outside the chart, would that work better? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry - no idea why I didn't finish the sentence there! I'm not sure what the images actually show us to help us understand the areas. Yes, they show pics of various horses, but they don't really illustrate the content of the row. I'd be tempted to remove the column entirely, which would help when the page is viewed on a mobile device. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• To some extent, they illustrate the typical phenotype of horses found in that state or landforms in that state. I guess my answer is "I think they add interest and look nice," but I am open to suggestions — I've seen some FLs that have the images running down the side outside of the chart, would that work better for mobile users? Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

List of HMAs

• Set the Herd description columns on all the tables to be unsortable (It's pointless trying to sort open text)

Fixed. Also did state, as I now have each state in its own table. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Montana – one row table, so should be unsortable

Hm. I can, but hate to make it different from the others, and in theory, the BLM could make some HAs into HMAs there (unlikely...). Your call. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd take it out - consistency only need go so far, and one-line tables tend not to have the sort in FLs. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Shawave Mountains row in Nevada need reference(s)

• FIXED

Notes

• You need to standardise the capitalisation (notes c and e start in lower case)

• FIXED

References

• You have a mix of 'Day Month Year' and 'Month Day, Year' formats in there: when you standardise, I'd go with the US 'Month Day, Year' format.

• I was afraid of that... wish the templates had prefs for US/UK dates... FIXED (I think, ping me if I missed any) Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish).

Can it automate all 263 of them??? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I made a start and asked some follow up questions, beyond the above, is there more I need to do? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• In the "Summaries of population by state" table, you have spaces between the refs, which should be removed. If you're worried about the column being too wide then do [ref][ref]<br />[ref][ref] or similar.
• That table has a quote in the Idaho row: I'm not sure this needs to be a quote - it can be recast in plain English, but if you're determined to retain the quote, it needs the reference next to it too
• In all tables where there are multiple refs in a row, the row title should be Ref(s) (or {{Abbr|Ref.(s)|Reference}}, which is better - it gives Ref.(s) as an aide)

In the series of tables labelled "List of HMAs in [state]", do we need the added column of "State", which for the most part has just that state in there - some entire tables have the same term listed throughout it's particularly noticeable in the very long Nevada table, when they are all the same...). I think you should think about removing the columns from all the State tables, and mentioning and dual state information in the notes section.

• Originally, I had one big chart that I later split into different states, I see your point, but for some states (California in particular), we do need the column. I shrank it to just the state abbreviation. Does that work? —MTBW

• You need to make sure your footnotes are all sourced: D, E, F, G & I are all unsouced at present.

• FIXED —MTBW

Hope these help. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments as SchroCat says, nice list, some initial observations.

• I wouldn't use BLM in the title of the list as it's an uncommon abbreviation (e.g. it's not like NASA for example).
  • I moved to List of Bureau of Land Management Herd Management Areas. That said, west of the Mississippi, the BLM is well-known. Long title now, but better? --MTBW
• Add (BLM) after its explanation in the lead.
  • DONE --MTBW
• " of free-roaming "wild" horses and burros.[1] While all free-roaming horses and burros are" somewhat repetitive.
  • Changed to "While these animals are ..." Better? --MTBW
• You should use the {{convert}} template for areas etc, so people who don't know what an acre is can see it hectares, for example.
  • Oops, missed some. Fixed. Did I get them all? --MTBW
• You link feral two different ways in the lead "feral equines" is linked to "feral" and "feral horse" is linked to .. "feral horse".
  • Intentional, the first is to the concept of what is feral (only the word "feral" is linked), and the second to the article specific to feral horses.
• " bloodlines.Some" space needed.
  • Fixed --MTBW
• Serious sorting issues with the table, most of the columns containing mixtures of numbers and text do not sort properly.
  • I noticed, any idea how to fix that or who can help me? (Or maybe doesn't need to be sorted)
• Totals row should be anchored at the bottom.
  • Agree... thank you for fixing, I had no clue how... --MTBW

  Done this for you here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Make sure you have a consistent use of periods in the text in the tables and notes.
• Arizona is not a useful caption for that table, perhaps "List of HMAs in Arizona" would be better.
  • All 10 are that way, changed all. Better? --MTBW
• Table headings should avoid being overcapitalised, e.g. you have Horse Burro, I guess "Horse/burro" is preferable, similaraly HMA Acres -> HMA acres (ha), Pop. Horses -> Pop. horses etc...
  • Fixed, I think. Did I miss any? --MTBW
• Use en-dash (per WP:DASH) for number ranges, e.g. AML 382-478 should be AML 382–478.
  • Looks like SchroCat fixed it...thank you! --MTBW
• Multiple refs should be in numerical order.
  • Meh, yes, that's hard for me to do in the edit window and VE crashes on this list, but will work on it (be back to this). FIXED I think?--MTBWW
• Consistent capitalisation within the tables, e.g. "horse" or "Horse".
  • Fixed, I think. Lots of entries, if you see a problem spot, help... --MTBW
• HMAs with "No current population" probably need some explanatory notes as to why they're HMAs.
  • Open to suggestions. There are a number of reasons. Some have been administratively merged with another region, others have had temporary removals due to things like fires destroying the range, and most of all, the numbers change all the time -- some have an AML of zero but actually have dozens of animals living there... it varies. I could put in a paragraph about that (or a sentence, except it would say, "BLM's AML numbers are, at times, pulled out of a hat, I think.")
• "15 ‐ 16 hands (60 ‐ 64 inches, 152 ‐ 163 cm)" unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced hyphens per the MOS.
  • Fixed. I think. MTBW
• Ref 8 should be broken down into which page number of the PDF is pertinent to each use of the reference.
• Same applies to Ref 31, and pretty much any other use of a PDF or document which has more than a couple of pages.
  • Some are unpaginated, including refs 8 and 31 so is Ref 18 --even manually counting pages wouldn't help others, I don't think the only way I found stuff there was to word search for the state or for the HMA. Advice there? --MBTW

That should be enough to get you started. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Sorry for the delay. I did all the small stuff, I'm working on the bigger stuff, if you (The Rambling Man and SchroCat could be so kind as to answer some of the questions I have here and clarify if I've fixed what I thought I've fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Image and source review

Sorry for the delay in reviewing this but my computer had broken. Anyway I have no comments to make for the list's prose and thus am conducting a review for images and sources. I would like my queries to be answered, before I support it.

• Why haven't you linked any of the list's publishers? I suppose it is okay since I can name several articles not doing it.
  • Most of the time the website and the publisher are identical (the Bureau of Land Management). --MTBW
• WP:SHOUTING in the title of reference 2.
  • Fixed -- MTBW
• I am not familiar with the sources' credibility. Assuming good faith on that one.
• References for books should use {{cite book}} so that the titles could be in italics.
  • I don't think I have used any book sources. --MTBW

Ref 4 and 5. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One already uses cite book, I fixed the other now. They are both government reports, so they fall into kind of a weird gray area. But titles italicized. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is not related to references but I don't think you need to make "Ref" in tables sortable and could probably use {{abbr}} to clarify their usage.
  • Made unsortable, unclear what clarification is needed? -MTBW
• I spot-checked about 10 sources and didn't find anything suspicious.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detection does not reveal much evidence of copyvio.
• Images are appropriately licensed - they are either under public domain or were posted in Flickr with permission to share or remix the files.
• Images are also provided with alt texts. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you, FrB.TG, and my apologies for taking so long to get to this (been off-wiki for several days due to travel and work). I think I have addressed your concerns and would be glad to work on anything else you think needs it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied to one comment above and also see ref 2. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:FrB.TG. I fixed ref 2. (At least it looks to me like I did... the all caps are gone... anything else? Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Great! Support. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, so, SchroCat's retired, and TRM almost never bothers to support or oppose, so I'm going to count those as supports and give this a review to check before closing.

• Note that, unless you're quoting a full sentence, punctuation goes outside of the quote marks. I've fixed this for you.
• Fixed a ton of formatting inconsistencies in your "Pop/AML" columns (usually "AML 50 horses", sometimes 50 horses AML, or Horses AML 50, etc., and your use of breaks vs. slashes vs. commas was mixed)
• Also fixed how Utah only used capitalized Horse or Burro for the types
• Renamed "Horse burro" column to the more rational "Type(s)"; you may consider changing the cells that say "horse burro" to just "both"
• I've reached the point where "horse" no longer looks like a word, but that was it. Closing as promoted. --PresN 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) [5].

---

88th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We are nominating the 2016 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. We followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, please review it!, its has been four days since i nominate this article. Please review it and state your verdicts. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been more than 20 days, since this nomination was made and it didn't receive any sufficient reviews despite the fact that article merely have any issues. Academy Awards articles are one of the most potential articles on Wikipedia so please i urge all to review it as soon as possible. It really needs FLC candidateship. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support - It looks good and I can't find anything to comment on. Jimknut (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

* Large space between the title of films with multiple nominations and awards and the tables, anyway of rectifying? I don't know how to remove it, because 2013, 2014, and 2015 are all have white-spaces and all are FL articles. The issue I think is that there are too many images next to the main table, which has led to whitespace, if there were less, it would remove this whitespace. Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Done: Removed Laszlo Nemes and Jonas Rivera's pictures so the white space is minimized. --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "AMPAS recruited television producer David Hill and film director Reginald Hudlin as producer of the ceremony." should this be producers of the ceremony? Y Done "Derek McLane returned to designed a new set and stage design for the show." I think this should be just design and no need for the second design Y Done "many viewed it as a alternative to watching the ceremony." should be an before alternative Y Done "Moreover, the show...." The use of moreover suggest that this sentence and the preceding one are related, suggest using a different word Y Done Cowlibob (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC) All the points you have mentioned has been resolved except for one, i have explained the reason above. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Resolved comments. Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• WTF This is like the 4th FLC on Oscars where I come to ask to have the big 4 explicitly stated in the intro. Can you guys not remember from one FLC to another???? Nergaal (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Am i missing something? I didn't understood a word you just wrote above. I mean are you asking to add Big 4 categories in lead section? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the user is asking that the winners of the so called "Big 4" (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress) are mentioned in the lead. Cowlibob (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Cowlibob and Nergaal: Done: Added acting winners and directing winners to introduction.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – A fine piece of work, except for some minor quibbles:

• The first four lines of the last para (lead) seems too listy. I think it's better to merge the 'Best Actress' line with the succeeding one.
  • Y Done, added "whereas"
• I know the 'Films with multiple nominations and awards' section is just a summary, but there's no harm in sourcing it.
  • Y Done, cited with The Washington Post and The Rolling Stone references.
• In refs. why is that the some publishers are linked while others are not? (The Hollywood Reporter, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, The Daily Telegraph to name a few)
  
  • Y Done, all publishers' references that has been used at least once is being linked.

—Vensatry _(talk) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Vensatry:: All that concerns you mentioned has been resolved. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Support - Very strong list, and I cannot find anything that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review passed, with the exception of the formatting of works- do not manually override the italicization of the "work" field by putting the names in italics. Not only does it break things, but the field is italicized for a reason- works are supposed the be italicized in citations (and in text). If you really don't like it, put the newspaper/magazine as the "publisher" - still wrong, but less so. Anyway, I fixed it myself, so now promoting. --PresN 23:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [6].

---

List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I enjoy cycling and follow the Tour de France every year. I think it meets the criteria. This page is based on the FLC List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France. Please note that I currently have another FLC open but it has four supports and no unanswered comments so I think it is ok to open this one. If any of the FLC delegates disagree feel free to close. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I have worked on getting 2012, 2013 and 2015 (review) to FL and had previously brought the list up to standard. It must be noted that Yellow has only contributed to the prose, so full credit must be given to HelSimki and Ytfc23 for their very time consuming edits. BaldBoris 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BaldBoris for your support. An yes i whole-heartily agree that credit must go to HelSimki and Ytfc23 as well as Tomrtn and yourself for your great work. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I should have been clear that my support was for the layout and tables, which have had no issues. Prose now looks in shape now and I fully support it. BaldBoris 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The cites needs filling properly, which I thought I had done previously? I can do it for you, as I'm a stickler with them. BaldBoris 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: Sorry, is there something I need to do here? Or is it fixed. I happy to do it if needed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Now worries, I sorted it. BaldBoris 23:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Oppose The first two paragraphs of the lead should be combined. The first paragraph, right now, is too thin, the second is twice as large and the third is twice as large as the second. Combined What does "UCI" mean? Explained into the race by the race organisers - using the word "race" twice is redundant. Also, there's only one organiser listed, why does it say "organisers"? Fixed The word "peloton" is linked on the 2nd instance; should be the 1st. Fixed consisted of 198 riders.[4] These came from 32 countries - isn't it better to say "consisted of 198 riders from 32 countries"? Done 174 riders completed - starting a sentence with numbers should be avoided Reworded 174 riders completed the race and 22 withdrew, that's 196. It was stated earlier that 198 started, so what happened to the remaining two riders? It was a typo; fixed Chris Froome (Team Sky) - Isn't it better to say "Chris Froome from Team Sky"? This applies to all riders mentioned in the lead See comment below How many stages are there in total? The lead doesn't state it Mentioned Frenchman Romain Bardet ( - this bracket never closes Fixed Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) and Sagan also won - Shouldn't it be "Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) who also won"? Reworded This is just from the lead. I'll list more issues later.--Cheetah (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC) @Crzycheetah: Thanks for the review. I have fixed all your issues except one. That is your point about the mentioning of the teams. I followed a consistent style found used in 5 FLs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), at least 1 FA (1) and multiple GAs (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). As quite a few cyclists have there team after them in brackets in this particular list, I think it would become repetitive to use "from Team X". - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Continued.. The points classification was won for the fifth consecutive year by Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) who also won the combativity award. - I don't like that "won" is used twice in one sentence. Can you reword this? Reworded Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the race organisers - should be organiser Fixed These are great news today - where's the "!"? Added the third consecutive Tour de France that Bora–Argon 18 had been - later in that paragraph, it is mentioned that the same happened to the Fortuneo–Vital Concept team. I think it should be "the third consecutive Tour de France that Bora–Argon 18 and Fortuneo–Vital Concept had been" Merged Can you mention what order the teams are listed in the "Teams' section as well as the "by team" subsection? was there a draw placed? I can only guess Explained Where did you get the time from? I wanted to check if it's sourced, I couldn't. Sourced The winner's time should be marked differently because whatever the "legend" says does not apply to it Added to legend It has to mention why it's missing every tenth number from the "By starting number" table. Explained The 198 riders that will compete - "The 198 riders that competed" Reworded --Cheetah (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) @Crzycheetah: Thanks. All done. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support The only issue remaining that I have is I can't find out how the starting numbers are assigned. If you add that info as well, That'd be over the top.--Cheetah (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: Thanks for your support and thorough review. About the numbers, they are assigned based on the result of the team leader in the previous Tour. Should I add a note about it? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a footnote with a reference would be beneficial.--Cheetah (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: Done. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that a couple of the suggestions by Crzycheetah are unnecessary. None of these are used in the other FL cycling lists.
  • The entry in the legend for explaining why Froome's time is marked differently: The "Time" column is explained as the difference to the winner of the GC, which is explained as being denoted by a yellow jersey icon.
  • The explanation for why there's no tenth number: I mean, really, is this needed?
  • The note in the "By team" section is duplicate of the one in "Teams": Both should be a sentence in the lead.

Those were just his comments, not what you have to change. Other ones were good mind you. BaldBoris 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I partly agree with your points. The double dagger can be removed and the note about the time added to the yellow jersey in the legend table. Something like "Denotes the winner of the general classification with his full race time listed". As for your second point, to be honest, even after adding that note, I don't understand why there is no tenth number. Why are the cyclists not assigned with the tenth number? is it bad luck? Taboo? I have no idea. And the third point, yes, I agree, the notes can be removed and the order explanation be stated in the lead. --Cheetah (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: Thanks for the reply. Sorry, maybe its because I'm a keen sports fan, but if the team has only nine riders you couldn't have the next teams numbers starting at ten. It basically just makes it easy to mark who's in what team, also, the rider ending with one can easily be marked as the team leader. Imagine the mess without this. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah and BaldBoris: I have made some changes here. I hope they are a decent compromise. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good compromise there. The style of the note may need looking at though. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions BaldBoris? Should it be more informative? Does the wording need improvement? I'm a bit stuck for ideas at the moment. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support A very nice list. I have not find any issues with it. The sources and external links are also all good, and it has no dead links. Currently, this list meets the FL criteria. AffeL (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for your support AffeL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk)

Comments from Vensatry - A good list with just a few nitpicks: Paris and Tinkoff linked twice in the lead. This one is still pending. —Vensatry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC) @Vensatry: Now done. Thanks, - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "The points classification was won for the fifth consecutive year by Peter Sagan (Tinkoff). He also won the combativity award." This would read better if we join these two sentences. Done "Denotes the winner of the general classification[11] The winner, Chris Froome, has his full race time listed." Period missing before ref. Added Ref #5 is missing publisher. Added Ref #7 is missing author. Added In the refs. link the first instance of Amaury Sport Organisation. Done @Vensatry: Can you show where it says to only link the first instance of the work or publisher param? It doesn't make any sense anyway because you click the ref note and it goes to the anchor, you don't go through them from the start. If you can't then you're imposing your preference, which you shouldn't be doing. BaldBoris 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC) The general rule of thumb is either link all (some might feel that it's overlinking) or just link the first occurrence alone; randomly linking them is a bad idea. —Vensatry (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC) So you can't then? There isn't a general rule of thumb, that's just your preference. Overlinking only applies to the prose, not infoboxes, tables or references... (WP:OLINK). In this it's because the reader goes straight to the numbered footnote, as I explained. Linking the first one makes no difference to them. I just said to Yellow that the cites need sorting out, so I wasn't planning on leaving them "randomly" linked. BaldBoris 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Be consistent with italicising website names (publishers) in refs. Not done. It is standard that refs using {{Cite news}} have publishers in italics while refs using {{Cite web}} don't. Not really, you can always use the 'Publisher' parameter (in case you don't want to italicise the names). Most websites are self-publishing ones, so the 'Publisher' parameter is redundant. Italicising website names are perfectly admissible, but you should be consistent. —Vensatry (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC) @Vensatry: Understood, fixed I think. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source. Replaced both —Vensatry (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC) @Vensatry: Thanks for the review, I have replied to them all above. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose and structure. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for your support and review Vensatry. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [7].

---

List of members of the 14th Parliament of Pakistan

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

Good to see a different type of list being nominated here. But this needs a lot of work and raises many a basic doubts.

• So this is a list of MNAs as on 1 June 2013, the oath-taking day or has it been updated for current statues also. Means have some people vacated their seats for any reason; maybe removed/resigned from party, or death, or anything such?
• Not understanding how the sections are arranged? Why aren;t they alphabetic? Use full form of FATA in section names.
• If notes column of most entries is empty then get rid of it.
• Some guys have Dr. behind their name which could be skipped.
• One woman has Mrs. behind here name which can be dropped.
• If you are using only one ref for whole table then it need not be in each row.
• Lead is quite week and needs more info.
• What do you mean by "70 reserved seats for women and religious minorities". Are they not elected? If not then how are they selected?
• "..marked the historic constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to next for the first time in the history of Pakistan". So what was happening before that should be mentioned.

More comments might come... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha: Thank you for reviewing the list. Please find answers to your question below,

• This is a list of MNAs as on 3 August, 2016. MNA's who were elected during 2013 general elections and have left their seats are not mentioned in the list. I just replaced them with new ones. I don't know where to mention those MNA's, maybe in the notes?
• Sections are now arranged in alphabetical order.
• Notes column could be removed but if we can use them for mentioning MNA's who left since.
• Titles Dr. and Mrs. have been removed.
• References removed from each row.
• I will work on lead section.
• The 70 seats reserved for women and religious minorities are allocated to the political parties according to their proportional representation.

Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Point # 1 has been resolved. Former members are now added to list under List_of_members_of_the_14th_National_Assembly_of_Pakistan#Membership_changes. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments – "342 members who are referred to as Members of the National Assembly (MNAs), of which 272 are directly elected members and 70 reserved seats for women and religious minorities which are allocated to the political parties according to their proportional representation." The grammar has gone wrong here. Maybe "342 members, who are referred to as Members of the National Assembly (MNAs), of which 272 are directly elected members; 70 reserved seats for women and religious minorities are allocated to the political parties according to their proportion of the total vote." The first paragraph is unreferenced. I woudld leave out "plurality" - it usually means the most seats but not a majority. Why did the PMN-L need a two-thirds majority in order to form a government? "marked the historic constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to next for the first time in the history of Pakistan." This is ungrammatical. Maybe change "next" to "another". I would merge the last two short paragraphs. "which included 16 federal ministers and nine ministers of state." The distinction between federal ministers and ministers of state is not explained. I would leave this out and finish with "sworn into office". It looks odd having a column for a reference which applies to the whole table. I would delete the column and reference the headings, as in List of incorporated places in Maryland. I do not see the point of the first column as the number is repeated in the next column - and why is the heading a #? Notes columns should not be sortable. This list is not far off FL but needs a bit more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Dudley Miles Thank you for comments. I have worked on all points you raised. Please see! --Saqib (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "In order to form a government, the PML-N joined in coalition with the Pakistan Muslim League (F) and the National Peoples Party." I see you have removed the reference to needing a two-thirds majority, but you still appear to say that the PML-N needed the support of others parties "In order to form a government". The source just says that they appointed one minister each from the Pakistan Muslim League (F) and the National Peoples Party, not that the president needed their support. This should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I think it would be better to leave that out. I guess it was mistake on my part. --Saqib (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Dudley Miles: I have created a new table. I think this one is better than earlier one. What do you think of it? --Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC) It looks OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments – The Pakistan Muslim League (A) link should be moved to the league's first appearance in the lead. Naraz Sharif should probably be linked in the lead. "Members of 14th National Assembly...". This needs "the" before 14th. A few of the tables are sorting the first column by the first number provided, not by the number as a whole. For example, NA-10 will sort before NA-2, which seems incorrect to me. There are number sorting templates that will handle this issue for you; try going through FLC to find a list sorted by number, which is likely to have an example for you to use as needed. The publishers of references 2, 5, and 6 should be italicized in the citations, since they are to articles from print sources. Just change the publisher= parameter in the cite templates to work=, and this will be done automatically for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC) User:Giants2008: All issues resolved. But I didn't get your second last point. As I can see the Constituencies are sorting by number. I cannot see where NA-10 is being sorting before NA-2. Saqib (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Click on the Constituency column in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab tables, where there is table sorting, and you can see that these two tables sort by first number, not by the number as a whole. It looks like those are the only two tables with the issue, but it does need to be addressed. Also, reference 9 needs further formatting. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) User:Giants2008: Actually I have created a new table. I think this one is better than earlier one. What do you think of it? --Saqib (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) The boldface that is seen for several members is discouraged by WP:BOLD, part of the Manual of Style. If you want to have the ministers stand out, you could try adding a symbol to represent them instead, which would be MoS-compliant. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) User:Giants2008: Fixed! --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I'm now comfortable that this list meets FL standards. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review pass, I'm not going to bother writing the specifics. Promoting. --PresN 21:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [8].

---

Josephine Butler bibliography

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Josephine Butler is a fascinating and important character in the history of women's rights. A tireless and forceful feminist and social reformer, she campaigned for women's suffrage, the right to better education, the end of coverture in British law, the end of child prostitution and against the human trafficking of young women and children into European prostitution. Her biggest victory was against the Contagious Diseases Acts, a discriminatory law that enforced medical examination on any woman accused of being a prostitute (without any evidence being needed); she described the examination as surgical or steel rape. This is a new list (Butler's biography is at PR at the moment); any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Cassianto

• There is a lot of use of the word "biographer/biography" in the last para of the lede. Everything else looks great. Cassianto^Talk 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Cheers Cass: tweaked a few of them out - how does it look now? - Gavin (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support − looks fine, good work. Cassianto^Talk 21:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Montanabw

• File:Josephine Elizabeth Butler (née Grey) by George Frederic Watts.jpg has a tag that it's under the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. My understanding is that they also uploaded a number of lower-resolution images that are not subject to this dispute. Perhaps this image can be replaced.

• Given SNUGGUMS's comment about too many, I've removed it altogether. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• All other images appear to be fine.
• Citations check out
• Mathers does not appear to be used in the footnotes, except in a double footnote at 3 -- are both sources required there to verify the material?

• Two parts to the sentence, with a source for each part. – Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do note that paragraph one of the lead has the first several sentences sourced to two sources placed at the second-to-last sentence. Is it possible to parse out which parts of that paragraph are attributable to which source, or are they so intertwined in each sentence that this is not possible?

• I could possibly break out some of the parts into separate bits, but we'd be left with "five words[^Ref1] six words[^Ref2] ten words words[^Ref1] seven words[^Ref2] five words[^Ref1][^Ref2]", which would jar a little. The 'big picture' leads of peoples lives are great in articles (where the refs are in the body), but to break them down into chunks in a list means either too many duplicated refs, or combining them at the end of a para. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• • It's a Catch-22, for sure... I've done it both ways. Where they really are merged, I can live with your decision there; beats "Allsortsof stuff from one source [^Ref1] and Allsortsofstuff from the other source.[^Ref2]" Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure I care for the quote box sandwiched in with the images running along the side of the charts; it may be more suitable for the lead section, either under the main image or left-justified a bit below. That or put it at the top or bottom. As it sits, it appears out of context, as different width screens place it in varying proximity with the entries on the list.

• I've moved the quote into the caption; at least it'll ensure any less-than-welcome attention from my stalkers about the use of a QB. (Although I'm sure they'll find something else to complain about....) - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I use quote boxes all the time, not an issue for me. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

All for now. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Montana. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Maiden name is probably better for her bio page Removed - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Occupations tend not to be linked in opening sentence, so I'd unlink accordingly I think that's more common for articles rather than lists? As this is the only mention of the terms in the text (i.e. we can't link them in the body), I think they are best left in place? Does that sound reasonable? - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Seems fair Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "The death of her daughter in 1864"..... let's include a name, which especially helps for those unfamiliar with Butler's life "detailing the life of her father"..... same as before I see a contradiction here: You advise to omit Butler's maiden name, presumably on the grounds of irrelevance, but ask for the full names of her daughter and father to help the reader understand about her life? How does using the full names of these people help us to understand Butler's bibliography? Surely this can also be left for her biography? If this was me I'd omit the whole lot. CassiantoTalk 07:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I'll wait for SNUGGUMS's response on this, but I'll add that I've removed the maiden name for the time being - I'm not sure it adds anything to this particular page. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I was talking about first name for daughter as simply saying "her daughter" isn't very informative with no previous identification. Same reason for her father, although last name in that instance is helpful to include as it differs from the subject's common name. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks SNUGGUMS: now added. - Gavin (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC) For File:George Butler with hat.jpg, a caption like "Butler wrote a biography of her husband George after his death" would have better flow Done - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Three pics of Butler (four if counting the bust) is a bit much here; you just need one or maybe two I've removed the painting, which leaves us with three, each in a separate section (and each in a separate artistic medium too). Does that look better? - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) It does Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) This shouldn't take too long to fix up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Many thanks SNUGGUMS: all now sorted, with the point about the names to be answered. Cheers for your thoughts - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I now support following the improvements made. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's great: many thanks indeed. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Lovely looking list, which certainly looks to meet all of the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments - since I'm persona not grata, or will be by Christmas, I feel duty bound to spend some of my final days antagonising the outgoing FLC delegate with as many nit-picky comments as I can muster in the few moments I have between changing nappies (not mine, you understand). SO, stand by for a right old rollocking.

• You link "feminism" but not "women's rights". I would put them on a par so perhaps both or neither.
• " The death of her daughter Eva..." presumably since this pushed her on to campaigning, her death had something to do with the movements she advocated, could you expand in a sentence or two for context?
• "surgical or steel rape" should that be in quote marks?
• Again, a linky thing, if you feel inclined to link prostitute, I would urge you to consider linking monograph, the latter being far less common in my life than the former.
• "thought was probably" thought or actually wrote?
• "Over a period of 40 years Butler wrote 90 books and pamphlets, " we had this conversation at DYK. I think this needs to be softened, e.g. at least 40 years, more than 90...?
• "Butler wrote a biography of her husband George after his death.[3]" would suggest (pictured) after George.
• "Bust of Butler in 1865, aged 36, by Alexander Munro" she was born in 1828, so where's the ref for her being "aged 36" and not "aged 37"?
• How can year of first publication for a monthly publication be "1898–1900"? Surely it's just 1898?

And that is all. May you always have a pot to piss in. My utmost regards to your sterling work and your good humour and your magnificent assistance in helping me create 157 good articles in just a few days over one year, more good work in two days than most "Wikipedians" put into their entire "career" here. Don't be a stranger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cheers TRM: all tweaked and re-worked per your suggestions. Thanks also for your very kind words: much appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. I hereby support the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

*It was a bit unclear why her daughter's death led her to campaigning? Was the death a result of poor working conditions and safety? Presumably her personal loss led her to focus on lifting others from suffering. "Another historian, Judith Walkowitz, considers the work provided Butler with a "historical justification for her own political activism"" perhaps should be "considers the work as providing Butler..." In the caption, I don't think we need the "she" as her name is already mentioned. I note some of the pamphlets have French titles, were these translations or did she write them in French as well? Might be interesting to mention that she was published in France and Switzerland as well as the U.K. and in a different language if that's the case. Cowlibob (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Many thanks Cowlibob, all tweaked per your suggestions. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not much I could do on the source review, but passing. So, sadly, promoting this list. Don't go, SchroCat! --PresN 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks PresN – it's been great working with you, but the enjoyment has been ground out of me over time, I'm afraid. I'm leaving while I'm just about still ahead of the trolls and stalkers! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [9].

---

J. C. Daniel Award

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Instituted by Government of Kerala, the J. C. Daniel Award is the highest honour in Malayalam cinema. I hope this prestigious award will find a spot in the Featured Lists of English Wikipedia. Looking for some constructive suggestions. Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "is the highest award in Malayalam cinema." says who?
  • It is a Kerala government award. Changed to "Kerala's highest award in Malayalam cinema".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Was it not awarded in 2015? If not, then this should be explained. If so, then the article needs updating.
  • 2015 award is yet to announce.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 2015 award has announced, updated.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• "hosted the award.[6][1] " prefer citations in numerical order.
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• For the 2003 award, I don't really know what " due to some technical corrections" means.
  • Source says "The award should have been given for 2003, but was being updated to 2004 as part of a technical correction and would carry a cash prize of Rs. 1 lakh and a citation,".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Can you find any other sources to expand on what this "technical correction" really was? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Puzzle solved. The technical correction was updating the prize money. The source does not mention about the prize hike. Additional source added for that. Thanks Rambling Man. I actually missed that point.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• No images at all for this?
  • Unfortunately not.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An image added.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• In table No Award -> No award
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing major really, just a few comments and queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also worth checking that every recipient in the list links to this article, if, after all, it is the highest award they are likely to obtain... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply. It was not a delay. I just saw your comment now.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment; don't link India; MoS discourages to link well-known cities and countries. FrB.TG (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlinked.--Charles Turing (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, The Rambling Man left zilch for me to pick up on. A comprehensive list with a well-written prose and reliale sources. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support FrB.TG.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ditto, I've read through the prose and couldn't spot and issues. This list is comprehensive, well written, and the sources all check out. Well done! JAGUAR  10:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar I appreciate it. Charles Turing (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Nothing to fault here. You could possibly consider adding Alt text for the image, though the caption does much the same job in this case anyway. Harrias ^talk 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: You don't need "staff reporter" or "correspondent" or any of that- the author fields are for specific, named people
• Spotchecks: pass
• Completeness: pass

Only issue is the minor formatting problem; I've just gone ahead an done it myself so that this nomination can pass. --PresN 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) [10].

---

Evanescence discography

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this a good bit and made massive expansions to the lead, and otherwise think that the article is well formed, helpful, and adherent to the FL criteria, for the most part. I will need this to be an FL if I wish for the studio albums to be a good topic. Evanescence is an icon in 2000s alternative metal (or generally "Modern Rock", for those reviewers who are uninformed) and I've taken it upon myself to improve their articles as best I can.

This is my first FL candidate, and I'm not entirely sure if it's perfect. I had my first GAN fail too, so I can only learn from experience. If anything is currently amiss, it'll be fixed within the next few days. I know there are two things that I will fix:

Dead links will be done in a strafing run tomorrow, and the chart positions for Going Under and Lithium should be changed to reflect Bubbling Under per WP:USCHARTS. (now resolved) Otherwise, I want to get more comment because I'm sure it's pretty close. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Quick drive-by comment to remind me to come back later: the ref for the UK chart in the singles table only covers top 75 positions, and therefore the number 174 position for "Lost in Paradise" is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved with a citebundle. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Yeepsi

• "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, and released their debut full-length album Fallen in March." Wouldn't this be better as: "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, with their debut full-length album Fallen following in March." to avoid the use of "released" twice in the same sentence?
• Under the Promotional singles section, both "Imaginary" and "Missing" need citations (you can cite the liner notes[11][12])
• For the Other appearances table, change the text style from center to left.
• Also, remove the entries for "Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" from the Other appearances table. Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE: "What should not be included ... previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases." Yeepsi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

All resolved, thanks for your comments! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Yeepsi (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

More comments by ChrisTheDude

• "Very few copies of these copies were made" - need better wording here

How did I not notice that? Something I missed during expansion. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• ""Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" managed to peak in the top ten" - why not just "peaked in the top ten"?

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• You refer to their first album having sold so many copies, and the second so many units. Are these the same thing?

Done. Actually, I should've fixed that a bit ago. I learned on Tuesday they are not the same. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• "managed to attain chart success" - again, don't see the need for "managed to"

Done with this and a few other instances it appeared. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Other appearances table is unsourced

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't see the need for the "type" column in the videos table, no other such articles have this

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - the demo album and EP tables are unsourced, but I'm guessing they are covered by refs in the lead........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll put references next to those too. --DME's phone, 9:39 EST

Source review

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC

• You're very inconsistent as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you either overlink or never link (Billboard, MTV News, ). You should be consistent.

Done. Didn't know overlinking in the references was a thing. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Some formatting: MTV News needs no italics. Billboard.com should read Billboard and Allmusic should read AllMusic. australian-charts.com → ARIA Charts

Done. The ARIA one would actually be Hung Medien, that URL just randomly got jammed in there. I assume everything MTV is excluded from italics, then? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything done. MTV News is still in italics, it's still Billboard.com. Publishers should be linked on first instance but I don't see that in ref 3, 4, 10. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I wrote this before I saved this. I lost power at some point last night, so I never saved it. Apologies. '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Completeness: check.
• For the music videos, convert the external links to references.

Should there be a publisher? If so, how would it be written? Also, should I add the date it was published to YouTube in the date parameter? I've never had to cite YouTube. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be very difficult: <ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM|title=Evanescence - Bring Me To Life|accessdate=September 9, 2016|publisher=Evanscene}}</ref>

• Spot-checked the YouTube sources (all of them come straight from the horse's mouth) and ref 1-10. Ref 1 says that the band has sold "close to 25 million" whereas the article says "more than 25 million". Is Rockonthenet a credible source?

To be clear, is there anything wrong with the YouTube sources? I don't know if "straight from the horse's mouth" is a good thing or not, I've never heard that phrase. (If emphasis is necessary, yes, really.) dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment RockOnTheNet definitely isn't reliable and should be replaced wherever used Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no issues with the YouTube sources, but other ones need to be resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that this one is now resolved. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• No dead links. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I believe I have completed your requests. Did I miss anything this time? The person that was previously involved with everything Evanescence (see their page here) did it the long way and defined all the references at the bottom (I hate when I have to dig through all those!). So it's very possible I missed some. But I did my best to fix them and will correct any further mistakes immediately. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is unrelated to references, but all the tables need to meet MOS:DTT, not a few. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still unclear to me what you'd like to happen. I've no idea what's wrong with the tables, I compared them to In Flames discography, Slipknot discography, Disturbed discography and Paramore discography and I see nothing missing (though, admittedly, the Disturbed one does have other problems). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what or how they are, you should be consistent with the !scope="row" in tables. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so now I see what you're trying to get me to fix. But I still don't know how to fix that. Which part is it that you're even referring to? Are they within the same subsection, or are you speaking about something otherwise? I'm still confused. Remember, this is my first FLC. '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Should have been more clear. You see how there's "Title" first before "Year" in the singles section and there's a slide gray shade in entries under "Title". That's what you get by applying !scope="row" to them before writing the titles. See, for instance, Taylor Swift discography; it has that in every table and is consistent with them. You should be too. FrB.TG (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean make the promos and officials' years consistent? I do notice that is different now. I can fix that ASAP, but I'm busy with life right now. I have to limit my Wiki time. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the asked changes myself (based on other FL-class discographies) since I feel like I wasn't being clear enough. One can always revert my edits if disagreed with. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I have made some major edits in the process, but I don't think they are major enough to affect my support. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my density when it comes to list formatting. Thanks for the help and support! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem. I like to help new users at FLC since WP formatting can be a giant pain in the ass. Given that it's your very first, you did just fine. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [13].

---

List of songs recorded by Gwen Stefani

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all required criteria. I would love any questions or comments. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

File:Gwen Stefani – This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour ("Asking 4 It").jpg, File:Tim Rice-Oxley Keane 2009-01-29 - 1.jpg, and File:Fetty Wap.jpg don't give very clear views of faces, so it's best to use other pics  Done The lead is too single-centric and needs to mention some non-singles; this isn't supposed to be a singles discography  Done It wouldn't hurt to include genres for some songs and/or albums  Done Make sure all links are working  Done That's about all from me Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: I believe I resolved your comments? Thanks for the review! Carbrera (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC) It's looking better, but still is overly single-centric; I only see one non-single mentioned. Try to have more balance between singles and non-singles. See List of songs recorded by Katy Perry and List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga for good examples of what I mean. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: So far, I have included non-singles "Long Way to Go", "Bubble Pop Electric", "Asking 4 It", "Shine", "Hair Up", and "What U Workin' With?". How does that seem? Carbrera (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I now support since things are looking better Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

I would recommend you remove the “Other performer(s)” column and either place the information about the features directly in the “Song” column as done in List of songs recorded by Rihanna or create a “Artist(s)” column as done in List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift. I prefer the Swift method as it is cleaner and more organized at least to me. The issue I have with your current form is that Stefani is listed in “Other performer(s)” during collaborations but not in her solo songs so that leads to some confusion at least for me. Again, this is more of a suggestion so you could disagree, but I feel it would improve the article as a whole.

This is the only comment that I have for the article. Other than that, I support this and believe it is ready to become a featured list. Make sure to update this when Stefani makes future releases as I have noticed a few articles similar to this fall behind. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed all of your concerns @Aoba47:. Thanks as always. Carbrera (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course. I am very impressed by the work put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Did some script assisted fixes, and other than that no qualms at all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Large comprehensive list, without any flaws I can find. Chrishonduras (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks great. Just add a note or a key to explain what "TBA" stands for and why it has a blue background.--Cheetah (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: I took your suggestion. Thanks for the feedback! Carbrera (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

• Support this candidate. TheKaphox (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mymis

Mymis "with ska punk group" -> Maybe link "ska punk" "the latter of which was the first single to sell over a million digital copies" -> Where? Worldwide or in the U.S.? The source uses Nielsen SoundScan, which, I believe, tracks only U.S. sales Refs 6 and 10 have wrong authors Ref 10 says "MTV News. MTV Networks" while the previous ones say "MTV News. Viacom" The article is well-referenced and well-written. Once these minor comments are addressed, will be happy to support it. Mymis (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis: I addressed both issues. Thanks for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good, you have my support; great work! Mymis (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support The list is well-written, has a table that is easy to read, and the above issues have been addressed. Good job! Erick (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Delegate note to reviewers: (pinging @Chrishonduras, TheKaphox, and Magiciandude: specifically so they see it) - This list is pretty solid, from a brief glance. That said, bare reviews like "Looks great, support!" are generally discounted by delegates because they give the impression that the reviewer did not read the list in detail, and it actually hurts the nomination because it leads more in-depth reviewers to avoid the nomination because the count is high. I'm not saying that you didn't review properly- like I said, there aren't any glaring errors in this list. But we have had issues at FLC before specifically with discography lists with large numbers of supports for lists that later reviewers find major issues with, so when I saw that this nomination has 8 supports- double the next highest nom- I wanted to make sure that everyone understands that reviews need to be substantive, not just a vote. --PresN 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC:

• Formatting: since you are linking publishers only on earliest instance, you should de-link Billboard from ref 26 and any other/s I have missed.
• Spot-check: ref 1-5, and a few others here and there. No issues.
• Completeness: check.
• No dead links.

Impressive work. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks! Fixed the issue above! Carbrera (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! FrB.TG (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [14].

---

List of accolades received by Evita (1996 film)

Nominator(s): —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a complete list of all the awards and the nominations received by the 1996 American musical film, Evita, based on the original musical and directed by Alan Parker. Please feel free to go through the article and let me know if you have any concern else if its free to be promoted as a featured list. Please note that this is my first nomination so I apologize before hand if I have made any mistakes —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"The musical score for the film was composed by Rice and Webber"..... try using the active voice here: "Rice and Webber composed the film's musical score" "Editing was done by Gerry Hambling and choreography was created by Vincent Paterson"..... same as before "judged a 62 percent positive reception"..... reads awkwardly Best Picture from Golden Globes and Satelitte Awards are worth including in lead It would help to include some names of BAFTA noms There isn't much to work on, thankfully. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Hi @SNUGGUMS: thanks for the important points and good catch with the active voice, it really made the flow better. If possible do check if the list looks fine now. —IB [ Poke ] 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Happy to help. The bit on reception still reads awkwardly, though. Maybe go with "62% of them gave positive reviews". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Hi @SNUGGUMS:, what about now? I think it gives clarity now. —IB [ Poke ] 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I now support; everything looks good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref formatting consistent.
• Spotcheck - did so on about 10 sources and found source 7 to be unnecessary as it supports nothing.
• This reveals no sign of copyvio, though it does score high on the IMDb source but they are all the titles of the categories.
• No dead links.

Support - I made some tweaks, removed some unnecessary information and have provided a source review above with a question about a source. Other than that, it's a good list by an experienced editor. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you FrB. The reference 7 I added to support the fact that ACE has listed the url for Ref 8 in their website. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – However, there seems to be a script issue involved the "currentyear" in brackets in the lead's second paragraph. I would fix it myself but I'm afraid I don't necessarily see the problem. Carbrera (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Carbrera, but can you let me know what is the issue? Because I could not see any physical error in the article? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gotcha! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

*"did the cinematography", "did the production design" sounds too informal. Done. Good catch and it was really informal. Don't see the relevance of including inflation figures. I would just keep the raw figures from that time. Would have to disagree with you in this one. I think a 20 year old film gives a good relevance regarding inflation of ticket prices and hash dollar value. We should at least keep with the same number of significant figures for the inflation box office gross as the original. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Done with this edit @Cowlibob:. —IB [ Poke ] 08:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Suggest rewording the Rotten Tomatoes sentence. "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 37 reviews and judged 62% to be positive." Thanks for this suggestion. Evita is unlikely to win any more awards now twenty years after release so I think the article can be written in past tense. Wouldn't use the word trophies. Perhaps "with particular recognition for....." Amended this and removed the currentyear parm. Philippe Turlure deserves a red link Ken Weston, Nigel Wright deserve red links Previous three done. Any alternative source for the 1997 MTV Movie Awards, citing the ceremony itself makes it hard to verify. I searched for it a lot, but except youtube videos and some newspapers again, I could not find it. So thought of using the direct ceremony itself since it was a televised event. Sorry, got a working link from old MTV website and added it. For the AFI awards I would list the dates when they were announced. This is not available, only the year is available. This is true for some other awards also where its just the year available and not the actual date. The column name thus reflects that. New York Daily News is a low quality paper any alternative ref? Replaced. FilmAffinity should be linked. Done. Any date for the British Society of Cinematographers awards? See previous. Cowlibob (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC) @Cowlibob: thanks for these comments as they did enhance the article. Please see the changes and my response to some of the comments. —IB [ Poke ] 10:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC) @Cowlibob: anything pending? —IB [ Poke ] 09:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a very nice list, unfortunately it completely fails 3b of the criteria. This table can reasonably be included as part of this section. There is no WP:PAGESIZE problems that I can see. Even worse is that this list is larger than the original article. So, the table should be transferred to the main article's appropriate section. --Cheetah (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crzycheetah:, once the original article is expanded for GA, which it will be eventually, the list will be too large to be included there. This is a conscious decision to split the list of the article before such problem arises, and has been done for countless award articles for films. I would suggest you peruse of these kind of lists. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @FLC director and delegates: Asking the FLC delegates for their comment on this also along with other reviewers who had already commented. @SNUGGUMS:, @FrB.TG:, @Carbrera: and @Cowlibob:. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • First, let's not get ahead of ourselves, the main article currently is far from being a GA. Expecting that someday the main article will be improved violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Second, there are many FAs that have the awards list on their main articles, examples: Changeling (film), The Mummy (1999 film), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), Prometheus (2012 film) and so on.--Cheetah (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The examples you gave are all classic CONTENTFORK violation if the award list would have been separate. Not this one. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
        • What difference do you see? Anyway, this is borderline and I am going to lean on the consensus.--Cheetah (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• On balance I would say that there is no 3b violation here: there is more tabulated information here than I would comfortably expect to see in an article. To ensure there are no problems in future, I'd remove the list on the Evita (1996 film) page and replace it with a prose paragraph or two with the general points and one or two of the key awards. Others may see it differently, of course... - Gavin (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking of doing that Schrocat haha, and you commented here. Anyways, I believe the prose in the main article is better than the list like how I replaced with this edit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Definitely no violation of FL criteria. Using prose in main article was also a good choice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Changing the list to prose on the main article definitely helped this list avoid violating WP:CONTENTFORK.--Cheetah (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2016 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC) [15].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation

Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating it for featured list because I do believe that it passes the FL criteria. The article includes a list of various awards and nominations received by popular American television sitcom Parks and Recreation that aired on NBC. Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by jfhutson

• Be consistent with whether you use the Oxford comma.
• ”The Online Film & Television Association Award honors the achievements in film and television.” “The Peabody Award recognizes the excellence in various platforms of the media.” Lose the definite articles and maybe be more specific, especially on the first one.
• The show is described by the award association as: “[...] Parks and Recreation has crafted…” doesn't make sense as a sentence.
• Parks and Recreation has five nominations: three times…” are we talking nominations or times nominated? --JFH (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe I fixed the issues. Do you have any further comments? Thanks! Mymis (talk)

Looks good, I support. I reviewed the images and they appear to be appropriately lisenced (btw I find the pic of Poehler at the Peabody Awards in shorts hilarious). The sources look fine on the face of it. Awards associations might be considered primary sources but these are not controversial claims. --JFH (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – nothing problematic stands out, satisfies the criteria on style and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

*Usually in articles, people are mentioned with their full name once and the following entries are by their surname. None of the recipient(s) or nominee(s) are wikilinking in the table. I think convention for these type of articles was that the first time they are included in a table they are linked. For the ALMA Awards I think those should be n dash not m dash For Cinema Audio Society, odd phrasing of "most outstanding", how about just outstanding? For American Comedy Awards, use the past tense as the series has finished, same for Cinema Audio Society, Critics' Choice, Emmy Awards etc. Typo in Online Film and Television Awards "Parks and Recreation reveived eighteen nominations" In the notes, the award being shared should be phrased in the past tense. Cowlibob (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Hello, thank you for taking a look at my article, very much appreciated! I believe I fixed all the issues. However, I disagree with changing tenses, don't think there's anything wrong with saying "Parks and Recreation has two wins", the show still does have those wins and nominations for those specific years, even after the show ended. Mymis (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – The article is well-rounded and well-referenced. Carbrera (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with a couple of issues
  • The sitcom was nominated for, and won, a variety of different awards, including fifteen Primetime Emmy Award nominations - "and won" should be removed or just be reworded differently
  • When you mentioned Paul Rudd in the lead, I think you should mention how he relates to the series

--Cheetah (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I dealt with the issues, thank you for your support! Mymis (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Passed; do note that if you have an archive on a citation where the url is still live, if you put "|deadurl=no" it will change from "archive link. Archived from the original" to "original link. Archived from the original", so that the first link is to the (faster loading) live site.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 8, 28, 43, 64, 65, 66; refs 64-66 do not mention parks and rec at all. They do not show anything about the nominations at all, actually, and 65 is about Scandal winning a different category all together.
• Completeness: Pass.

The TV guide references need to be fixed before this can pass. --PresN 16:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at my article. I dealt with the reference formatting. Not sure about the TV Guide awards, I think I transferred them from the main article when created the award article; the current refs only have winners listed, not the nominees, however, I cannot find appropriate refs now, only IMDb which probably are not very reliable tho. I probably have to remove the award from the article. Mymis (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if no sources note the nominees, then it's not that notable of an award. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [16].

---

List of accolades received by Bridge of Spies (film)

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridge of Spies was a highlight of 2015 particularly for Mark Rylance's portrayal of a KGB spy. It received many awards and nominations which are listed here. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mymis (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Some minor comments:

• "in the United States, and Canada" -> is the comma necessary since you're listing only two countries?
• "the film in their top ten of 2015" -> top ten of what exactly? general list of best films of the year, or in a list based on best writing, acting or whatever?
• more refs could be archived, such as refs 9, 12, 20, 28 etc, as award pages tend to become dead very soon.

Mymis (talk)

@Mymis:. Thanks for the review. I think I've fixed the above points. Let me know if there is more. Cowlibob (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You have my support. I have an open FLC as well, it'd be great if you take a look. Great work; good luck! Mymis (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

• "..release of the captured American pilot.... for the convicted KGB spy".
• "..particular praise for Rylance's portrayal of Abel". We know that Rylance portrayed Abel from the first paragraph, so that part of the sentence is unnecessary.
• I have corrected the incorrect use of commas. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. Have made the fixes. Cowlibob (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Support --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Nice piece of work. - Gavin (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Pass, though note if you put "|deadurl=no" in an archived citation, it flips the links so that the first link is to the live page instead of the archive.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 4, 18, 34, 42; all pass
• Compleness: Pass

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) [17].

---

Raymond Chandler bibliography

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler was an excellent author who struggled initially with writing in the 'hard-boiled' style for which he is best known. This list has been re-written with new material added, and all constructive,comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Only two, very minor comments, both to do with the lead section:

• "British-American" – I see from the main Chandler article that he took British nationality in 1907. If that means that he was hitherto an American citizen, I think perhaps British-American would be better switched round to American-British, though the point is not of great importance.
• For the Williams quote in the final sentence of the introduction, I think the prose would flow more smoothly if you moved the opening quotation marks three words to the right, beginning the direct quote with "a touchstone..".

That's all I can find to throw in. Clear, well laid out, thoroughly sourced and referenced, and doubtless comprehensive. Happy to support promotion. Tim riley talk 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Your suggestions happily adopted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Looks fine. A few minor comments.
• Why no pictures? There is the photo in the article on him and a (small) commons category on him.

• The pic on the article is a non-free one, so we can't use it. The two images on Commons are of a house and blue plaque, which doesn't really illuminate readers. I'll have a look at Double Indemnity images, but we're moving away from the books a bit with those. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think that a bit more on his early background would be helpful, particularly his travels. For example "Born in Chicago, Illinois, he was educated at Dulwich College from 1900." seems a non-sequitur.

• Yep, I'll add a little more to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is it worth commenting on the change in his output - poems and essays up to 1912 but almost none thereafter?

• I didn't come across any explanation for it, but I'll dig through the sources again to see if there is something interesting in there we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am uneasy about having writings by and about him in the same section. I would suggest splitting the first section in two.

• Is this in the Miscellany section? All the works there are by him, even if edited by others. The Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe work does contain more of other people's work than Chandler's, but there is an original work in there. Are there any in particular that you feel would be best removed? - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I meant "Publications in periodicals and newspapers". Some of the interviews such as "Raymond Chandler Talks of James Bond" and "A Confession by Raymond Chandler" sound as if they were written by a journalist who interviewed Chandler. If he was interviewing someone else, this should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. All those interviews are listed in the main source, so I'm a little uncomfortable excluding them (it feels like we're applying too much editorial judgement if we exclude). What I've done to clarify the matter is to state that RC was interviewd by a journalist, which should at least clear up the matter in people's minds. These interviews should be mostly RC's words, even if interspersed with any background provided by the journo. Does this sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well on that point I disagree. I cannot see that it is exercising too much editorial judgment to arrange material differently. I think it would be better to have a separate section for (say) "Interviews with Chandler". The comments quoted would have been chosen by the writer, and might have quoted him inaccurately or misleadingly. Of course as you are now making this clear in the notes it is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK - I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section. Does that work OK? - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• No change needed, but is there any evidence that he knew Wodehouse? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure they did, but I do hope so. Odd though it may seem, there are some similarities between theirphrasing from time to time! - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Dudley. I'll work on some extra text to add to the background. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks again Dudley Miles. I've addressed your points again, and added new material. Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks again Dudley Miles. As per the above, I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section, which should be better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

• I... have nothing. That's a complete first, for me; I guess you've gotten these bibliographies down cold now. Support, and as I did a source review in an attempt to find something to complain about, also Source Review passed. --PresN 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• LOL! Many thanks PresN – much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I just want you to make the following three edits please:
  1. "I'll Be Waiting" was published in October (not December).
  2. "The Bronze Door" was published in the Unknown (magazine).
  3. Link San Diego Evening Tribune to The San Diego Union-Tribune to avoid that glaring red link.

--Cheetah (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Crzycheetah! All now sorted. The Tribune wasn't a red link when I wrote this, and I see the page was deleted for what I always think is the weakest of reasons: it was created by a blocked user. Your suggested link works admirably tho. Many thanks indeed. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, even though I supported this, since someone else has also supported, SchroCat can't promote his own list, and no one else is available, I'm going to close this as promoted. --PresN 03:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [18].

---

Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli was a lesser-known Reformation theologian whose influence was widespread thanks to his nomadic career. This list includes all his known published works. I've also nominated Vermigli's biographical article for FA. JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by 3family

The list is very well supported by sources, and well formatted. The problem I have with this list is the massive lead attached to it. If the list itself were quite long and extensive, then the lead would be fine, as it would be summarizing a large amount of listed content. But the list itself isn't very large, and so the lead is far, far too long. Would it be possible to work much of the prose into the list sections (e.g., move the content about his minor works and letters into the relevant section)?.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm also nominating a featured list candidate, List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae, which I would like feedback on. I know that this might be out of your comfort zone, though it just occurred to me that Lecrae is Reformed and thus might be of interest. Thanks regardless, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree, let me know what you think of it now. --JFH (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks a lot better now! I'm Supporting this article's promotion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comments

• Images should use alt text for screen-reader access
• It may be a holdover from reworking the lead, but some of the section prose is very light on links that might be useful; this isn't necessary but linking things like the biblical books or the names of people like Calvin or Luther.
• A follow-up to this, names like Martin Luther should be given in full on their first post-lead mention, then taken back to surnames thereafter.
• Kirksville, MO should read Missouri in full
• Is there a given source for the short Latin titles used? The ellipses seem an unusual styling so I'm assuming there's a set standard being used here, can we provide a reference for it (a note like your existing note a, appended at the column header for the short titles)?

• I used the short titles from the Donnelly and Kingdon bibliography, a reference for which is provided after each title. I don't have the bibliography in front of me, and I can't recall if any explanation for abbreviation is given. Often what's being cut is Vermigli's name and title. For example in the Judges commentary title "D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina" --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's fine, but a note explaining that the source is also where the title comes from would be useful. As it is the source just looks like it's used to cite the existence of the work, and that would be fine if the field was just "Title"; but when you use "Short title" it makes it clear that this is an adjustment of the original and it's worth showing who made that adjustment. GRAPPLE ^X 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added a note. --JFH (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Otherwise this seems fine to me, a thorough look at the subject and with plenty of context to it; the list tables themselves are adequately handled as well. GRAPPLE ^X 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've addressed all these. --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm happy to support this nomination. GRAPPLE ^X 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate.

• The paragraphs in the lead are quite short, and may work better merged into 2 paragraphs. Additionally, p1 ends with "He lectured on the Bible", while p2 starts with "Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible", causing repetition and linking on the second instance of Bible. Additionally, the lead talks about his posthumous works, and then goes backwards to talk about earlier works, some sentences get a bit choppy, and there's some ambiguous pronouns. I think the lead would be better reworked as (links removed):

Peter Martyr Vermigli (8 September 1499 – 12 November 1562) was a Reformed theologian of the Reformation period. Born in Florence, he fled Italy to avoid the Roman Inquisition in 1542. He lectured in Strasbourg, Zürich and at the University of Oxford. Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. His lectures on I Corinthians, Romans, Judges, Kings, Genesis, and Lamentations were turned into commentaries.

Beginning in 1549, Vermigli became involved in controversy regarding the Eucharist. He published his disputation with Catholics at Oxford University over this issue along with a tract on the subject. He later wrote treatises against Catholics as well as Lutherans. After Vermigli's death, Robert Masson collected the doctrinal passages scattered throughout his commentaries into a systematic theology called the Loci Communes, which became Vermigli's most well-known work.

• "Major theological and philosophical works" does not link Eucharist.
• Is there any way to link the items in the Peter Martyr Library to the original works with an "Original work(s)" column? Or are too many of them a hodgepodge of different publications and letters grouped by theme?

--PresN 20:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: I've never seen a sources section done like that, with indentations and longdashes to blank out repeated authors of works. Huh. Not sure I like the dashes, though presumably it's not something you invented. Anyways: "McLelland 2009a" has wandered off to between Hobbs and Kirby, which makes McLelland 2009b look like Lim 2009b... which is the downside of this dash thing. Speaking of dashes, the last book, Zuidema 2008, needs one.
• Spotchecks: Since all of the sources are locked in purchase-needed books... I'm going to take your word for it.
• Completeness: Nothing seems obviously missing.

--PresN 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much PresN. I added some notes only where the original work wasn't obvious in the PML list. The indentation thing in the sources was Ham II's doing, but I actually kind of like it. Ham II also made this change to Peter Martyr Vermigli before it was promoted to FA. --JFH (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PresN, using the dash for repeated authors is something I've used in papers before. It's in the 16th edition Chicago Manual of Style (see sample paper.)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Now Support, and Source Review passed --PresN 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

Some observations:

• Not sure about such introduction, I see that it was split into sections throughout the list which is fine, however, it still needs to summarize the article. For instance, nothing from sections "Minor works" and "Peter Martyr Library" is mentioned in intro.
• "exchanging news about the conditions in England" -> what kind of "the" conditions? I'd assume you meant church stuff, however, later in the sentence you say "theological matters as well".
• "adding to it considerably" -> adding what?
• In the notes section, you list how many letters he exchanged, with some numbers spelled out and some written in numbers. I'd say it would look better if you choose one way.
• In the ref list, it's not consistent where you use pp and p.

Mymis (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mymis, I think I've addressed all these.--JFH (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1980–89)

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

I am nominating this for featured list because with some inputs from you this can easily become a featured content. It is inline with the past FLs of Padma Bhushan of past decades; the 1950s and the 1960s.
Note: Vivvt & i independently have one open FL nom each. But both those noms have received supports and have no pending open points. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mediran

• It looks good, but I observed that the lengthy second paragraph seems a repetition. It also appears in the other FLs you provided. Don't you think it's better if it were cut out and placed somewhere else (e.g. its main article) since this list, after all, is only about the awards given out in the 1980s? Take a look at the 68th Academy Awards for example. It doesn't include the history of the Oscars because it's already in some umbrella article but it has all the information about the Oscars of 1996. I don't know. What's your say?
  • I think its okay to mention only about the brief history and medal specification. Some of other do follow the same pattern (Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients: 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945)
• "registered in The Gazette of India, a publication used for official government notices and released weekly by the Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development". Is the "Ministry of Urban Development" another name for the "Department of Publication"? This should be clarified for "backgroundless" readers (like me).

  • Done

• Fix the dimensions of Hosur Narasimhaiah's image so that it's uniform with other images.

  • Replaced

• Fix the quote in the refs per MOS:SINGLE ("Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks").

  • Done

• Since you provided archive links, use the parameter deadurl. Set it to yes if the orig link is dead or to no if not.

  • Done

• In the notes, "Indicates a citizen of United States". There should be a "the" between "of" and "United". The same with "United Kingdom".

  • Done

• "In a career spanning over sixty years, the 1983 recipient filmmaker Richard Attenborough is best known for his eight Academy Award winning film Gandhi (1983) and is considered as 'one of Britain's best-known actors and directors'." Could use a hyphen there: "eight-Academy Award-winning film" or "eight Academy Award-winning film". "The 1983 recipient" suggests that Attenborough is the only awardee of 1983.

  • Done

• "(CCMB), who". The comma is unnecessary.

  • Done

• Remove "then-" in "then-President Zail Singh".

  • Removed

I'll add more. — Mediran [talk] 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: I have fixed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing some of the minor errors I observed. I did minor changes to the list, and here's more

• "returned it in 2015 in protest of the Dadri incident". What incident?

  • Done

• The colon in "The order of precedence is: Bharat Ratna..." is unnecessary.

  • Done

• "Non-citizen recipients" to "Foreign recipients"?

  • Done

• In the refs
  • Should be "ESPN Cricinfo".

    • Done

  • The publisher of The Hindu should also be specified in other refs.
    • The Hindu is a newspaper and mentioned as |newspaper=The Hindu. Per Template:Cite news, "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)."
      • Got me there. I thought the word inside the parentheses in Ref 9 is the publisher.

@Mediran: I have fixed the above comments as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The list now looks better, but I'm still not sure about paragraph 3. I think it still needs to be worked on. You could copy-edit it yourself or tap our editors at the WP:GOCE. — Mediran [talk] 08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made edits myself, but I have not much time to do more. I wish this will get through. Cheers — Mediran [talk] 08:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tentative support (for now). Don't see changes, but I am hoping it will be fixed soon. My concern is the wording of the third paragraph. What's the change in government? What was it before? Maybe this can be told in a better, more understandable way. — Mediran [talk] 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: I have made the changes. Please see if that's alright with you. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add {{nbsp}} between the day and the month in dates (e.g. 25{{nbsp}}January). — Mediran [talk] 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: Done. Please check now. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(In all) dates. There are other dates that are not yet fixed. Please link whatever are necessary in this: The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, with the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and the Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and the Governors of States, and the Members of Parliament including private individuals. Also, specify when is the Republic Day; maybe you can write it like "Republic Day (DAY MONTH)". — Mediran [talk] 07:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Done now. Please check. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nvvchar

I support the nomination as it is well drafted. However, I have the following observations for action as you deem fit.Nvvchar. 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the second sentence 'it is given for" could be changed to "conferred on"

  • Done

• In "The conferral of the award is not considered official without its publication in the journal", "journal" may need be made specific

  • Done

• In the sentence, "After being inaugurated Prime Minister" could be changed to "After assuming office Prime Minister"

  • Done

• In the fourth paragraph "art" could be changed to "The Arts" as its is awarded to many disciplines of arts

  • Done

• In "None of the conferments .... have been revoked or restored", the word "restored" may be superfluous. This sentence also needs to be cross checked with the last sentence which says "Pushpa Mittra Bhargava,.... returned it in 2015".
  • Removed the word "restored". As far as Bhargava is concerned, he returned the award himself and government has not revoked it. So his conferral is still valid.

@Nvvchar: I have fixed your comments. Please let us know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Second word of "under of the Ministry of Urban Development" should be removed. Done The List of recipients heading could lose the first two words. Done The K. G. Ramanathan photo caption should have "Number" decapitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Done @Giants2008: I have made the necessary changes. Please let us know if you have any further comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's Comments

• File:Veena S Balachandar 1950.jpg: Questionable copyright as may not be 50 years since death of photographer. Same problem with Hebbar img.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Have removed both images. Will take them to DR on commons soon. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• File:Nikhil Banerjee.jpg as well as File:Gopinath Mohanty 01.jpg are uploaded by single-purpose accounts; they have uplaoded only 1-3 pics of the subject and have no other established activity. It may be better to use other pics with well-established sources. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Redtigerxyz: Replaced these two images with Mrinal Sen. Please let us know if you see more issues. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Added two more images of Mitra & Sakurauchi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - the lead reads fine, but I have issue with its length. It's long with over four paragraphs; try pruning it a bit. FrB.TG (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Prose follows similar text as that of past 3 FLs with each being between 4-5kB of readable prose size. Any pruning or shortening will make this one odd in the set. Any more comments? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate. --PresN 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand why there isn't a navbox at the bottom linking the whole Padma Bhushan series together...

The Template:PadmaBhushanAwardRecipients 1980–89 currently used at the bottom has whole PB series at the very end. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I also don't like how each year is its own table, instead of one big sortable table with a year column, but since the prior 3 FLs did it that way it would be a major change.

I think we had discussed this somewhere... let me see. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It was first noted at the 1954–59 FLC by one of the reviewers. But as the list has only 94 entries, so I did not prefer to go with the suggestion. The similar suggestion came again with Padma Vibhushan award recipients FLC. This time it was 294 entries so I merged them all together. Looks like we may have to make the changes for all the lists. I will do it at the end of this FLC, irrespective of its success or failure. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead length is fine, though it is a bit on the long side; if you wanted to make it shorter, then for example I don't think it's absolutely required to repeat the exact description of the medal in all of these lists, instead of just in the parent Padma Bhushan article.

As this is a repeat comment maybe we can have some WP:Consensus on this. Pinging co-nominator @Vivvt:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do here. I thought of following the same pattern as of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients where the text is repeated across the FLs (1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945) - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to keep it as it is, I just mentioned it if you want to make the lead(s) shorter. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• "pink riband" - why "riband" and not "ribbon"? The award isn't old enough to warrant the archaic variant

A riband is a ribbon especially when used as a decoration/award. Isn't that right? Am ok with using either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're correct, I've just never seen the word before. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, with the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and the Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and the Governors of States, and the Members of Parliament including private individuals." - "from all [state] governments, with [x, y, and z] including private individuals"? That reads oddly. Would be better as "The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, as well as from Ministries of the Government of India, Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, Ministers, Chief Ministers and Governors of States, Members of Parliament, and private individuals."

Done.

• "this was subsequently modified for the January 1955 statute" - "in" the statute

Done.

Support. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Pass, though having a "subref" on refs 17 and 22 from a different site is strange.

• @PresN: Is it mandatory to have same publisher for all the subrefs? Let me know so that I can make that change. I am unaware of it as of now. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Usually, for subrefs, you're combing multiple parts into a single ref- 4 sources about the sales numbers of a 4-part thing, for example, or a 2-part article by a source. Here, you're just... combining 2 refs because they're used in the same sentence. It's fine, it's just odd. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: checked refs 5, 13, 20, 22 (online) - pass
• Completeness: pass

Source review passed. --PresN 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [20].

---

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list. I came across this list while trying to save it from deletion at AfD some months back. The list was later nominated by Harrias for FL. Unfortunately, I guess due to his real life commitments, Harrias withdrew the nomination and could not work upon the changes recommended by editors like Cowlibob, Nergaal and NapHit during the first FL review. I've seen all suggestions and worked on all of them. You can see the first FL review here. I am replicating a few paragraphs from the first FL review below for the sake of reviewers. These paragraphs were the ones where reviewers had left their suggestions. My new comments are added after each of their suggestions in small letters within the first review. Thanks Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The archive of the first FL nomination discussion with my new comments in Red
Please add new comments above. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Ayrton Senna doesn't have the most Grand Prix wins; that accolade goes to Michael Schumacher. But Senna, perhaps due to the manner and timing of his death, is revered as one of the best Formula One drivers of all time. Each time a driver passes his wins total, as Vettel and Hamilton have done recently, it is considered a significant milestone. I put off nominating this list for a while, as I had concerns about stability, as I knew that the WikiProject weren't widely in favour. However, it has since survived an AfD, and so I am happy to now list it here. As always, all comments, thoughts and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Maybe mention the rivalry with Prost? Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Comments I have no problem with this list meeting 3b or being notable, as Harrias states, when Vettel and Hamilton passed Senna's total is widely covered in the mainstream media. "He entered Formula One in 1984 with the Toleman team, but after one season, he bought out his contract and moved to Lotus." ref? It's there in Ref 1. "Feeling Toleman couldn't match his ambitions though; Senna bought out his contract and moved to Lotus in 1985" Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "McLaren. With McLaren..." not great having McLaren twice in quick succession. Perhaps Senna would win all three of his world championships...with the team? (Edited it appropriately. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "He wanted to move to Williams after 1992, but was prevented from doing so by a clause in Alain Prost's contract." ref? (Provided. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "He did make the move for 1994,..." -> He moved to Williams in 1994,..." (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) You need to add a symbol to go with the colour in the table for accessibility purposes (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Maybe the Race column should be Grand Prix, seeing as that is what they — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs) (Not done. The general usage is races. So...but this is not a sticky issue. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Key needs to explain why 1988, 1990 & 1991 are in yellow. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) (Done with the dagger legend. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Review by Cowlibob "is considered by many" perhaps "some" would be a more neutral word here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "21 April 1985" no need to the repeat the year as we already know it was in 1985. (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "In 1988, " reword needed to avoid saying 1988 twice in short succession. (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) For the references, is it possible to have more a diverse set of sources as the vast majority are cited to ESPN F1? (Where ESPN has been used in the commentary, I've added additional source. The usage of ESPN in the table is, in my opinion, acceptable, as these are numerical figures and are simply replicated in other references. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Less shouting in the references. AUTOSPORT should be Autosport, F1PULSE should be F1 Pulse (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) What makes F1 Pulse, speedcafe, Formula One Art & Genius, StatsF1 reliable sources? (They are generally considered reliable. But I have provided alternative additional sources with each one you've mentioned. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Need info in the key that 1988, 1990, 1991 are highlighted in yellow because those were seasons he was world champion. (Done with the dagger legend. Xender Lourdes (talk)) That's a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "With McLaren, Senna won all three of his world championships..." I would change this to 'Senna won all three of his world championships with Mclaren...' (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• "In the subsequent three seasons with McLaren..." I feel like there should be a comma at the end here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• ref 15 needs the author and date of publication (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))

Cant' see much wrong otherwise. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit . Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria, good work. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• This list looks so much better that the just-promoted Schumacher one. Support. Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support My only complaint from the first review has been sorted, looks good to go now. Joseph2302 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• The books for ref 2 and 3 are not specified (Done. Lourdes)
• What makes prostfan.com a reliable site? (Replaced with BBC and another source. Lourdes)
• Same with Speedcafe.com (This was pointed out in the first FL by another editor Cowlibob. I have already provided alternative reliable sources for the same. Lourdes)
• Same with F1 pulse (Per above, alternative sources provided already. Lourdes)
• Likewise Formula One Art and Genius (Per above, done. Lourdes)
• ref 5 needs the publication date and author adding (Cited inside the template. Lourdes)
• Checked a few refs and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of close paraphrasing

NapHit (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• • NapHit, thanks for giving your Support already. I have addressed all your queries above. Lourdes 04:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself from closing. Comments, all from the lead:

• "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Prost" - Prost has not been mentioned up to this point, nor any rivalry- you first mention him a few sentences later.
• "Senna won all three of his world championships with McLaren in 1988, 1990 and 1991, during six seasons." -> "Senna won all three of his world championships during his six seasons with McLaren, in 1988, 1990 and 1991."
• 'and the light very poor."' - period goes outside the quote, as you're not quoting a full sentence.
• "He won two races in each of his three years with Lotus, before moving to McLaren for the 1988 season." - no comma
• "That year, he secured his first Formula One world championship" -> "He secured his first Formula One world championship that year"
• "His eight victories that year was a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven set by Jim Clark." - 'victories...was' is off; to avoid using "set" twice, try "His eight victories that year set a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven by Jim Clark."
• "Subsequently, Senna managed" - drop the "Subsequently", as you used it in the prior sentence.
• "forty-one victories were for McLaren, and 32" - mixing number types; use "41" to be consistent with other uses
• "where he won six times during his career, including a record five consecutive times, between 1989 and 1993" - drop the comma before "between", unless you meant that all 6 wins were between 1989 and 1993

Not too many. --PresN 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks PresN. Will get on to this in a couple of days. Lourdes 06:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• I added more rowspans for the const/engine cols, hope that isn't bad. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am also getting onto this on this weekend. Tried but couldn't find time last weekend. Thanks for chipping in. Lourdes 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• • PresN, thank you for giving so much time to review. I have incorporated all your suggestions. The first suggestion regards Prost, I have handled by including a wikilink to Alain Prost and describing the line as follows: "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Alain Prost, a leading Formula One driver, came to the forefront, with particularly notable race incidents and collisions occurring between the two." Thanks again. Lourdes 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Omg my first featured content!!!!!!! Thank you all (the reviewers and the editors) for helping me get this through (esp. Harrias who wrote the article). Lourdes 10:50, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Davis Cup champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as I have worked hard on it recently and believe it is close to featured standard. As always, I look forward to your comments, and thank you in advance for those. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• it is run by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), who describe it as the "World Cup of tennis." Unreferenced - does the ITF officially describe the Davis Cup and not the Fed Cup as the real deal?
  • Referenced and yes it is known as the World Cup of Tennis. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "The first event in 1900 was between Great Britain and the United States" I think it is worth clarifying that only these two nations were invited to enter. (I know you do below.)
  • Amended NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "five singles and doubles matches" - four singles and one doubles would be more informative.
  • Changed. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "The Davis Cup was founded in 1900 as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge." When did the name change?
  • Added NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "Australasia became the first nation outside of Britain and the United States to win the tournament in 1907" Australasia is not a nation. Maybe "Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) became the first victors outside of Britain and the United States when they won the tournament in 1907"
  • Changed NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "British Isles" Why not Great Britain?
  • Changed NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• The history section is far too detailed, stating what is repeated below. A summary of the highlights would be better.
  • I'm going to try and reduce this and mention more structural changes to the tournament, as some are missing at present. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok I've had a go at reducing the size of the history section and i've added more about the restructuring of the tournament @Dudley Miles:. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• In the template I do not think that there should be a separate section for the 2016 World Group. A template should not be designed so that it becomes out of date each year. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The template is separate to the list, so I don't think that should affect this at all. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Dudley Miles:, I should have addressed them all. I will tackle the history section in due course! NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Addressed comments from - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• The history section is still to repetitive and overly detailed. You basically talk about most Davis Cups and who won them. The list does that. Try to cut it down a bit, mentioning the real standouts and also any changes in structure/regulations

Very close to FLC standard just needs a bit of cutting down of the history section. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've shaved a bit more off it now. Let me know what you thibk @Yellow Dingo:. NapHit (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Support looks good, well done! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comments Support I am confused regarding the walkovers.
  • There is no reason mentioned why there was no tournament in 1901. Also, if there was no tournament, why the US team retained the title? Maybe 1901 should be listed as "Not contested"? If there is no available information on this, maybe this article should mention that.
  • Regarding the 1910 walkover, no mention at all, total disregard.
  • And the biggest confusion is the 1974 walkover. The "History" section mentions that India refused to travel to South Africa, as a result, the South Africa team walked over. The list, on the other hand mentions that India, the away team, won the tournament.

Cheetah (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • I've added info for the 1910 tournament, no team wished to challenge Australasia. I believe this was also the case for 1901, but I can't find a reliable source to back this up. As for 1974, it says South Africa won in both the history section and the list, so I'm not sure where the confusion is. Thanks for your comments @Crzycheetah: NapHit (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
      • The list key states that the blue background means an away team won. The 1974 is marked in blue. India was the away team. --Cheetah (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah silly me, I missed that! Fixed now! NapHit (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Source review: all formatted correctly that I could see. Spot checks show the information is supported with no copyvios. - Gavin (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [22].

---

List of cities and towns in Montana

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is my 9th nomination for list of local governments. I have completely reworked this one to now include more demographic data than anyone really needs. I've also tried to standardise formatting to be consistent with other local administrative lists (List of cities and towns in California, List of cities and towns in Alabama etc...). This time I've tried using more templates to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be nice if in the Type Column, you also mention the class of the cities. For example, Billings would be City (First Class).Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have tried what you proposed in my last list, List of cities and towns in Alabama, but I'm actually considering removing them for several reasons. I'm unaware of any single source that lists which city is which class. Population doesn't automatically change the class, there is some procedure to do so, thus it is impossible to know what class any particular city is (see Birmingham, Alabama for one such anomaly). For the Alabama list, I assumed this to be the case, but no source backs it up, which is not very encyclopedic and is the main reason I'm going to remove them. Secondly, they don't actually mean much functionally. If you have a source that gives either the classification of all cities, or what the functional legislative differences are (there may not be any), I will be happy to add both/either to the list. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I can see you take care the sort problem this time, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jarodalien, getting better each time. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have just a few minor points. Other than these, it looks fine. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 23:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Havre is a county seat but is not indicated as such.
• Belgrade has the cross icon when it doesn't need it.
• You should keep the accessdates consistently formatted. Refs 1 and 2 are in Month Date, Year, while the remainder are Year-Month-Date.
• Refs 3-6 could have publisher information, probably the Montana Legislature. That seems to be common among these lists (California, Utah) and having more information in references never hurts.

• Thank you for the review, and your eagle eye, especially catching the first two errors! I've made all your changes, and appreciate your time looking it over. Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nice work. Happy to support. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 08:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

• It's a bit odd that you're using British English for an American state (organisation, reorganised, etc.), but whatever Y
• You're linking municipality twice in the leadY
• "municipalities are divided into four classes by state statute based on the population of each municipality" -> "municipalities are divided into four classes by state statute based on their population"Y
• "Under certain exceptions municipalities with a population of between 9,000 and 10,000 may elect, by resolution to be either a First or Second Class city" - no comma before "by resolution". Same for the next two sentences.Y
• "And finally, municipalities" - don't start sentences with conjunctions.Y

Not too much. Also did a Source Review: Pass. --PresN 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've made all your changes, they were good catches. Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, and Source Review passed --PresN 15:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Support; my only suggestion would be perhaps to right-justify the population and growth columns, since they're numbers, but as it is it's great. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I agree that numbers normally should be right justified, but I tried it and it actually looks better like this (I don't know why). If you noticed I also left justified the density column for the exact same reason. It just looks better this way (subjectively of course). Mattximus (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [23].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it only failed the previous review due to a lack of attention from reviewers. All the concerns from the previous review were addressed. Hopefully this time it will get some more attention.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by jfhutson

• "No. 1" spell it out I think
• Wikilink Billboard charts not the mag
• "In 2011, his fourth album..." Long complex sentence and the first comma might not be necessary.
• The Sketch the Journalist article seems (forgive me) a little sketch. It seems promotional, especially with the exhortation to prayer at the end.
• "In 2013, Lecrae became the first hip hop artist to win the Grammy Award for Best Gospel Album for his sixth album Gravity (2012)." Could mean the achievement is winning with one's sixth album.
• In the intro to the BET Awards list, you don't say which award before "this award".
• Be consistent with "hip hop" vs. "hip-hop".
• "The Stellar Awards is an awards show that honor artists" honors
• Couple WP:DUPLINKS, check out this script

Overall it looks like a complete and well-formatted list. Let me know when you've addressed the above and I'll give it a second look. --JFH (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made all the fixes (and I forgot that I'd installed the duplinks script). With the Sketch the Journalist source, I agree that the tone is rather informal and seems promotional. With the exhortation to prayer, I've often seen this done in Christian hip hop-specialized media (possibly some Christian media in general, I don't remember well). The piece as a whole is an opinion essay, but Sketch is a professional journalist, and so I thought that for the statement it is supporting (that Church Clothes was the to date the most important CHH album) the source was fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim that it's the most important album rings alarm bells (WP:PEACOCK). I expect it to be backed up by a very good source, and then you'd want to attribute the source in-text (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) unless you can show some kind of consensus among critics of this music that this is the most important album. I also looked closer at the article, and I think it'd be more accurate to say Sketch thinks this may be the most important album. Another problem is that he's writing about an album that hadn't been released at the time of writing, so it's not credible that he could have a well-founded opinion on its importance. --JFH (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll concede to that argument. I'll take that bit out on all the articles where it is mentioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, a second pass:

• I'm not sure whether "Cypher" is a proper noun in this context. Also, is there another word you can use or a wikilink? I'll let you be the judge of whether that word will be understood by the audience for this page (I had to Google it).

• I linked "2011 BET Hip Hop Awards Cypher" to BET Hip Hop Awards#2011, as this is a proper noun in this case but the wikilink will explain that it is the name for the performance.

• I think "Gospel Albums Chart" is a proper noun?

• Correct.

• For the "most important album" claim, even with the reliable critical source, you need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The critic is providing a subjective judgement.

• I added an additional source, Atlanta Daily World, and attributed the statement to Rapzilla and World.

• Don't spell out "one hundred fifty" (WP:NUMBERS)

• Done.

• "Lecrae has received five Stellar nominations, of which he has won three." He won three awards, not nominations. There are several similar constructions. You could say he was nominated for five awards and won three, or he has received three awards from five nominations (as the featured List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry does).

• I think I fixed all of these.

• FN 8, don't need a publisher which is nearly the same as the work (Template:Cite web#Publisher)

• Done.

• FN 12, the via param is for the content deliverer. This would be if the article was first published somewhere else and then you read it on the AP's website. In this case, it looks like the AP has copyrighted the article, but there's no indication it was published anywhere else, and if anything Billboard would be the content deliverer. I would just delete the via param.

• Done.

• FN 19 link doesn't work

• I added an archived version of the url.

• FN 23 is a case for a via param. The document appears to be a news release of the GMA (I would see if you can find it direct from their site and I would use Template:Cite press release). You are getting it via News Release Tuesday. It does not appear to be part of any larger work called News Release Tuesday, so nothing should go in the website parameter.

• I replaced this source with an archived version of the Dove Awards nominations page.

• I'd say NRT Media is another case where the publisher param should be left blank as substantially similar to the work News Release Tuesday.

• Done.

Overall the sources look reputable. I don't see them as making controversial statements (except the "most important album" one), so I'm not worried about the fact that I don't know much about them. --JFH (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All issues mentioned here are addressed. Any others that are outstanding?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support, all my issues have been addressed. --JFH (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mymis (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mymius

• If you decide put comma after "In 2007, "; then put commas after "In 2011 his f...", "he following year L...", "In 2011 his four...", "The following year he gar", "That year Le"
• "number 1" -> "number one"
• before Billboard add U.S.
• "in Christian hip hop history" -> I think "the" is needed
• "and the Billboard 200" -> U.S. needed too
• BET Awards already happened for this year
• "sponsored by Billboard magazine" -> add "the"
• "and streaming data, as well data on" -> remove first "data" or paraphrase to avoid two "data"
• "over one hundred fifty" -> over 150
• you can add "External links" section with his Allmusic entry
• Grammy.org is not needed together with National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences
• Soul Train is a TV show, should be linked to awards how article
• Prometheus Global Media is linked twice
• Billboard Music Awards. Billboard. -> Billboard Music Awards

Mymis (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

All but one of these were addressed in my latest edit, please let me know if I missed a link or something. However with "'in Christian hip hop history" -> I think "the" is needed'" - can you please explain? The sentence already says "the most important album in Christian hip hop history." Do you think it should read "the most important album in the Christian hip hop history?" Isn't that a little superfluous?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. Some more suggestions:

• Stellar Awards -> Stellar Awards. And "Central City Productions" not necessary

Done.

• Grammy.org -> National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences

Done.

• About.com -> About.com, same with AXS, BET, GMA Dove Awards, Christian Broadcasting Network

Done.

• Ref 25 should be formatted the same way as Ref 21

Done.

• In the infobox, the number of nominations is nominations+wins, so BET Awards -> wins: 1, nominations: 3; the same for all sections.

Per the template documentation, the nominations numbers are only nominations that have not won.

• It's not necessary, but if you're up to, you could add another section for references in all the tables, like in List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry, for example.

Done. Thanks for that suggestion.

• "Lecrae has received five Stellar nominations" -> "Lecrae has received five Stellar Award nominations" or just "five nominations"

Done.

• "Lecrae has received one nomination for this award." -> just "Lecrae has received one nomination".

Done.

Mymis (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued input. I've addressed all the issues, but please see my comment on the nomination numbers in the infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• That is very odd, I just checked featured lists of awards and nominations (here) and almost all of them are formatted in the way I said. It's up to you I believe, really not sure.

• You added another section for refs, but the tables do not look good as "notes" section is too wide. {{awards table2}} does not seem to be very useful, you can format them by adding:
  

{{awards table}}
{{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
|-

• The article looks good, I'll be happy to support it once you fix the ref sections.

Mymis (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've encountered this same discrepancy on other FL awards lists - I'm surprised that there is this inconsistency, I'm not sure where that developed. For now, until it's resolved, I'll opt for the documentation, as that is something that is explicitly stated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Both the awards tables apparently are not that useful for artist awards, so I'm not sure what they are actually good for. I'll work on implementing your recommendation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mymis How do I implement your suggestion? I've been trying to get it to work, but I can't get the table to work correctly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's realy not that hard, just use some other article like an example to properly format it. (like List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry, for example) Mymis (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it to work. Before I was using a pipe character instead of an exclamation point in the wikitext. Everything should be finished, now. Any other outstanding issues?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

All the issues were fixed, you have my support, good luck! Mymis (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate

• "for his sixth album Gravity (2012)" - in the end of the last paragraph you already talked about Gravity coming out in 2012, so you don't need to repeat the release year
• The tables are missing rowscopes, which are required for WP:ACCESS-compliance so that all screen readers can parse them correctly. That is to say, every row that is e.g.

| [[BET Awards 2015|2015]] || {{won}} ||... should be

!scope="row"| [[BET Awards 2015|2015]]
| {{won}} ||...

If you don't like the way it bolds the first column, you can instead use '!scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"|'.

• The first BET table is really wide for some reason; it can be fixed by changing the initial code to

|-
!scope="row"| [[BET Awards 2013|2013]]
|rowspan="3" | Lecrae
|rowspan="3" | [[BET Award for Best Gospel Artist|Best Gospel Artist]] ||...

• There's a wandering ">" in the GMA Dove Awards table after 2013
• Other than that, looks pretty standard. --PresN 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Refs 15,16,30,31,32- drop the ALLCAPS for words in favor of title case (Grammy, Hip-Hop Award, etc.). Ref 26 is a dead link- should be archived or replaced.
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 6, 11, 23, 29, 33, 38 - ref 11 covers only his nomination for that award, not his win; same for 29 for his 2 Dove wins it solely covers
• Completeness: Nothing obviously missing.

--PresN 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what I did wrong, but, as you can see, something went wrong. How do I have only the first column "year nominee award result" be bold, and the rest normal font?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it for you- other than a few extraneous "|" symbols that got left behind, the two problems were that a) if you declare a rowscope, you have to have a line break before you have the rest of the row and b) you only declare rowscopes for the first cell in the row; if you have a rowspan, you don't need to declare rowscopes again for the 2nd cell of the joined rows. Now Support, source review still pending. --PresN 19:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I figured I was doing something wrong, but I didn't have the patience to trouble-shoot it last night. I'll work on the sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

All sourcing issues should be resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review passed --PresN 01:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – Gavin (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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