Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates—Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

The following lists were nominated more than 20 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

List of power stations in Sri Lanka[edit]

Nominator(s): Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a list of India's second-highest civilian award recipients. I believe its written with the neutrality mentioning the refusals and returns of the coveted award. Looking forward to constructive criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a 2011 film about self discoveries of three friends during a trip in Spain. It is the recipient of several National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards and other major Indian awards. As this is for featured list, I am expecting constructive criticism from reviewers and I will take care of them in its entirety. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Fixed a few minor issues myself. Can't see much ado about this list. Well done, Frankie. Keep up the good work.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Questions: As per criteria 3b, why can't this list be reasonably included as part of a the main article at Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara? The main article is less than 50kB and this list, including the lead, is about 22kB and lead would not be required if it is part of main article. And why is NDTV Indian of the Year notable enough to mention? They seem to be giving awards in different possible categories every year. Sometimes the "Entertainer of the Year" goes to a film and sometimes it goes to a person. Some year they give "India's Heroes" and then no heroes are worthy the next year and some "Daughter of India" is given. Awards by media houses should be gauged properly before giving undue importance in an encyclopedia. They at many times tend to be just promotional get-together of friends and family utilizing their in-house resources to satisfy our "GNG" requirements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how a film with over 34 awards can be merged to its parent article as it, including the infobox and the third paragraph, will clutter the the ZNMD article. Besides, I have seen worse cases where they have been successfully promoted. -- Frankie talk 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You wouldn't merge it along with the infobox and few awards are already mentioned in the main article. The FA E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial also has 34 awards; but that's wins+noms. And what is the limit for forking it out? Do we have a fixed number for that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea about the required size as I have worked on a few film accolades list, but The Dirty Picture's and its accolades size are almost the same. Nevertheless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very good justification so I will leave it on @Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN: to judge whether or not this list is content fork. -- Frankie talk 13:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair. I have no experience of creating any featured content or awards-lists. So let them decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone naming[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees, Typhoon2013

So me and Jason were recently just talking about bringing the article: Tropical cyclone naming to the FLC and I agreed. It sure does meet the criteria. Well, this is a list of names for tropical cyclones in each different basins and I believe it is important, especially for meteorologists. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to reiterate here I feel that Tropical Cyclone Naming meets the criteria for a Featured List as all names are sourced and the sections have an appropriate summary that is sourced. I asked Typhoon2013 to co-nominate it with me as he has had almost as many edits to the article as me.Jason Rees (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Bowman Creek[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing yet another one of these to FLC, following my other similar successes at FLC. For those who don't know, Bowman Creek is a 26-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania. It's also a regionally famous trout stream and many of its 26 named tributaries are also very high-quality trout streams. In short, it's a pretty pristine stream system and I was fortunate enough to photograph most of the tributaries during the height of autumn colors. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shakib Al Hasan[edit]

Nominator(s):Aftabuzzaman, —Vensatry (Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My first fifers-list (of a player's) in a long time. Aftabuzzaman created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Whiplash (2014 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Whiplash is a 2014 drama directed by Damien Chazelle about a jazz drummer fighting to survive in a studio band led by a tyrannical conductor. The film received many accolades especially for the performance of J. K. Simmons in the latter role. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support about the Academy Award, I didn't see that article is FL, so it's fine to me! By the way, I have a FLC, and I would love to read your comments. It would be great if you'd review Gaga's awards list! GagaNutellatalk 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think one is allowed to have more than two open nominations. As this is your third, the other two being this and this one, I think one of these should be taken care of. -- Frankie talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I don't think there is a rule preventing more than two if so could you point me towards it? All the FLC says is you shouldn't open a second one until the previous one has gained substantial support and concerns are resolved so it follows that you could open a third one if the second has gained enough support. Cowlibob (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole point of the rule is that there shouldn't be any more than two, to improve the odds that all FLC contributors will have the opportunity to have their articles reviewed with our limited resources. Having three FLCs open at once is pushing things a bit, and is the sort of thing the 2 FLC rule was designed to prevent. If you want, you could address the remaining comment at the Blue is the Warmest Colour FLC, which is close to a promotion that would leave 2 of your noms open; otherwise, I suggest taking this off FLC until one of the other lists is promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the clarification. Blue is the Warmest Colour accolades list now has 4 supports with everything resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA space-flown Robbins medallions of the Apollo missions[edit]

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers a lesser known aspect of the space program and the realm of space-flown memorabilia. Considered numismatic in nature (specifically exonumia), the practice of creating mission-specific space-flown medallions began with the Gemini Program and have been a part of the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station missions. All but the Gemini program flights have been struck for NASA by the Robbins Company.--Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by note: I kind of take issue with the article title; it is very specific about "Robbins" "Apollo" missions, but the list itself has a big section on the Gemini non-Robbins medallions. I get that you're cutting off the list before the Skylab/Space Shuttle medallions, but the name doesn't match what you have here. And the Robbins bit is unnecessary; you're really talking about the "official" medallions, which were made by Robbins for the Apollo missions, but that's covered by the "NASA" qualifier. Maybe NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions? --PresN 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Pres- Thanks for the drive by comment. I understand what you are saying. There are a few issues with the name change. There were other medallions (odds and ends) that flew on one mission or another and the regulation of those objects was not well documented. The reason Gemini was included in a list about Robbins medallions is based on the near complete lack of information about their origin, minting process, etc. which would make them virtually impossible to stand alone in a list/article. I suppose the "NASA" qualifier could cover the legitimacy of the Robbins and Fliteline medallions. With respect, I'd like to hear from another reviewer or two about the potential title change, but if there is a consensus for it, I have no issue making the change. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the 2015 Rugby World Cup, I've decided to tak it upon myself to improve this list. After cleaning up the list I now believe it meets the criteria and is ready to be scrutinised by the community. One question I do have of reviewers is whether drop goals should be included in the list. Four players have scored a hat-trick of drop goals during RWC matches and I'm not 100% sure whether they should be included. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, my comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WCW International World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a short list but a complete one, on a topic I found particularly intriguing. I feel it meets the standalone criteria as it's niche enough that giving it a full treatment in any conceivable parent article would be unduly focussed. The list is based on other FLs within the subject area, and the text has been copyedited by Baffle gab1978, though any criticism on either is welcome. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive revamping and extending the article's scope, references, lead, infobox, and the like, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Lost in Translation is the second feature film from Sofia Coppola, a comedy-drama about the one-week-long relationship between an aging, lonely movie star (Bill Murray) and an intelligent recent college graduate in an unhappy marriage (Scarlett Johansson) in a Tokyo hotel. It won 67 awards and was nominated for 109 total (including the wins). Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support It looks great now. Congrats! GagaNutellatalk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Georgetown University alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is quite comprehensive of the Georgetown University alumni that are notable and/or have Wikipedia articles about them. Additionally, the alumni are sorted into sections by field and each section is alphabetized. Each section's table is sortable by name, school, and class year. Each alumnus/alumna has his or her own corresponding citation to a reliable source. The lead section introduces and explains the list and gives a succinct description of Georgetown alumni as a whole. There is an identifying image in the lead section that is salient to the list with an appropriate caption. There is a legend that explains the sorting and listing of individuals. The See Also section links to other related Wikipedia articles. For these reasons (and in comparing the list to other featured college alumni lists, such as List of Dartmouth College alumni), I believe the list meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Disclosure, I am close to the general topic, but my edits to this article have been limited. My only recent concern here was some dead links, but they seem to have been fixed. It is intentionally on par with other college alumni articles that are FLs, so it seems this deserves the recognition too.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lionel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lionel Barrymore was an superb actor whose career ran between 1893 and his death in 1954. Part of America's "Royal Family" of actors, Barrymore is perhaps best remembered internationally for his appearance in It's a Wonderful Life, but some in the US also have fond reminiscences of his annual broadcasts in A Christmas Carol. This list has been updated and re-worked, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers comments

I would remove the reference to America's "Royal Family" from the first paragraph. It is not even mentioned in the Lionel Barrymore article. Instead, I suggest you say "Barrymore family of actors." You might consider moving the "Royal Family" nickname and the references to the Lionel Barrymore article.

You mention some biographical information that does not appear in the Lionel Barrymore article. For example, you have a lot more information about Barrymore's feelings about acting and the reasons for his move to and from Paris. It seems very strange to me that the List article should spend considerable ink on this when it is barely mentioned in the main article. I really think you need to move much of the bio information to the main article. Certainly, there should not be anything in your introduction that is *not* in the main ariticle. INSTEAD, the introduction to this article needs a paragraph identifying Barrymore's best-known/most important roles and/or most important directing achievements, and also should state the number of films he acted in. Also, perhaps mention that Grand Hotel and You Can't Take It With You won Oscars for Best Picture.

  • Re-worked to include much of this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to identify what roles he played in his stage appearances. His IBDB page identifies some that you are missing: http://ibdb.com/Person/View/31143. Same with the film roles. I see that the Wikipedia articles on the blue-linked films show what roles he played, so you should be able to fill in these at least.

  • IDBD isn't classed as a reliable source, as far as I'm aware, and so we can't fill in the blanks on those. Ditto the Wikipedia pages for the films. I've included the roles are they are listed in the film, either at the AFI, BFI, or the filmography sources used in biographies, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
User:SchroCat, IBDB is absolutely a reliable source, with an editorial committee. See this and this. It is totally different from IMDB, which is NOT a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Even better. Cheers Ssilvers : I'll make a start on this tomorrow (hopefully) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
All now added (and a very useful resource too!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Lionel Barrymore article and yours disagree about why he was confined to a wheelchair and mentions an addiction to painkillers. If your sources are clearly better than the ones in the Lionel Barrymore article, please fix it. If not, please clarify the filmography article. In general, you need to review the Lionel Barrymore article and make sure that you make any necessary edits in it to at least harmonize with the filmography, making sure that neither article has any information that the best sources consider to be clearly wrong.

  • I've stripped out much of the biographical info from this, so it should match up now, but I'll give the main LB article a spring clean soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The filmography at the bottom of the Lionel Barrymore article is too long. It should be reduced to the most important items.

  • Removed entirely and prople pointed this way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that you are not responsible for the Lionel Barrymore article, which is only about C-class, but if we are going to have a Featured List on him, the two articles should at least be harmonized so that they are not inconsistent; it seems like you are in a good position to do this, since you know the sources. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent comments Ssilvers, many thanks. I'm working through these in conjunction with the comments from Jimknut too, first on this list to get it straight and then I'll update the LB article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You indicated in an edit summary that the intro is limited to 4 paragraphs, but I don't think that's true: this is not a WP:LEAD section; instead it is the intro to a list article. You could add subheadings, though, if the intro gets longer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it still counts as a lede, so we have to limit it to four. We managed it with John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio, so the challenge is to trim out some of the superfluous biography and add the works in seamlessly. I should be able to get this sorted today or tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. I am now pretty happy with the intro to this, but I still think you should add a couple more mentions of which film roles were Barrymore's most famous ones. Young Dr. Kildare? The Copperhead? Wildfire? Sadie Thompson? Rasputin and the Empress? Maybe just name 2 or 3 or 4 of his most famous ones. My support does not depend on you adding this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut


Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Jimknut - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note - You already have another open nomination (this being the second) with no supports or comments. Do you think it's wise to have two nominations simultaneously? -- Frankie talk 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • To be honest I'd largely forgotten the Johns list. It should be OK, given the standard of that one, and tha I haven't got anything running through FAC too at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To be open and fair (bearing in mind I'm a delegate who should know better), I'm going to ping Giants2008, Crisco 1492, PresN to make a judgement on whether I should withdraw this one temporarily until the Johns list reaches a suitable level of support. I'd hate for my non-action to be used as justification for others wanting to push a second nom onto the list. Thanks for nudging me on this Frankie. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Since it has two supports now, I don't think you need to withdraw any of the list. Thanks for taking care of my comments. -- Frankie talk 12:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Frankie. It was my error to begin with and thanks for letting me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Frankie. Since the other article now has supports, and your lists tend to be in good shape to start with, I think we can let this go. Just make sure to double-check that you don't have any early-stage FLCs when preparing future noms. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Good clear lead, ideal layout and doubtless comprehensive content. I wondered idly why put in all the full stops after Dr and Mr (rather quaint, but still current in AmEng, I know) and yet omit one after Capt. No other quibbles, and the page seems to me to meet the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

  • Question - do the images need Alt text, or are the highly descriptive captions enough?--Godot13 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm in two minds about these: I'm not sure that ALT text would be hugely useful, given we'll probably just be repeating much of the caption info. I'm still mulling it over tho. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks in excellent shape to me and anything I'd have complained about has been dealt with. This is of considerable value as I've been watching some of Lionel's films of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Doc - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments –

  • "Although he took a break from acting in 1906–1909 to train in Paris as a painter". Usually, date ranges like this have two digits for the last year. The MoS seems to back that up, although I admit that this part of the MoS has some details I'm not in love with. Still, the 1909 could probably be two digits, unless this is some form of British English I don't know about.
  • Quite right— now done. (Not that there is a difference in year ranges anyway, but BrEng wouldn't apply anyway as Barrymore is American) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The publisher in reference 14 (The Guardian) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Done - I'd used a web template not a news one.

Cheers Giants, much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One more that I didn't see before: current ref 14 needs a publisher (American Film Institute). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Great - nice catch, now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Upon reading this list I had no clue to who Lionel was but I found the list of his roles on stage, screen and radio to be vastly comprehensive and the lists easily meets the required guidelines. Good work! Z105space (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you Z105space - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Giro d'Italia[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the final Grand Tour teams and cyclists list of the 2015 season. I have already nominated List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España and List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France for FL and both have passed; I've also recently taken the main race article to GA-status. This list is closely modelled after the other two lists, although the sourcing for the Giro is a bit harder! Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Fantastic work. Kudos on improving all the Grand Tour related lists for this year! NapHit (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

João Sousa career statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it presents a comprehensive list of João Sousa's statistical achievements during his career. Sousa is widely regarded as the greatest Portuguese tennis player ever. The list's development was influenced by other similar pages, including a featured one. I thank you in advance for your feedback. SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu:

Disclaimer: I've contributed to this page with 11 edits prior to this nomination (out of 17 edits in total), mostly copyedit-related chages.
  • Section headers should not be wikilinked.
  • Section "Top 10 wins" should be renamed to "Wins over top 10 players" for clarity. Similarly, "Singles Grand Slam seedings" should be "Grand Slam singles seedings".
  • In the Davis Cup results table, the wikilinks should be on the tournament round instead of the date.
  • Ref. 14 is not a dead url but the news article no longer exists.

Minor issues that you can easily address, SOAD KoRn. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Parutakupiu. All issues were addressed. SOAD KoRn (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Just one more: is the {{Performance key}} template under "Performance timeline" necessary, when you have the abbreviations table in the beginning of the page? The only thing in that template that is not repeated is the note saying "To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated either at the conclusion of a tournament, or when the player's participation in the tournament has ended.", which you could add by yourself to the section. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I never thought about that, to be honest. It's a template used in nearly every tennis player articles, but you're right, it's duplicated in this case. It doesn't make sense to keep it. I only kept the last phrase. SOAD KoRn (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The few issues I spotted have been addressed and this list seems fit for promotion. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

Nominator(s): Poon (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This list provides a overview of the submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I look forward to the helpful comments on how to improve it. =] Poon (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Comments by Birdienest81
  • News sources whose titles are not italicized (i.e. BBC News, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, etc.) should be moved from the works field to the publishers field since they are not newspapers, books, magazines, etc.Yes check.svg Done
  • I'm not sure if using the film's poster is considered fair use in this context. The director's photo might be more appropriate in this case.Yes check.svg Done

More to come soon

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Birdienest81 =]. I will help to resolve it and check whether the image can be used or not. Feel free to leave more comment. Poon (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Comments by Cowlibob
  • Table needs rowscope and colscopes for accessibility.
  • Main image needs to be changed as I don't think the film poster will meet fair use. Director's image can replace it.Yes check.svg Done
  • Ensure that all the info in each row is supported by the references. Including language of film, title, original title, director etc.
  • PDF refs need page number where the info is found
  • Sorting needs fixing in the table. e.g. "A Few..." should be sorted under F not A. "The Circle" should sort under C not T. The and A should be ignored for sorting.
  • Director(s) should sort by last name of the director in the table.
  • Ref 33 is dead.Yes check.svg Done Cowlibob (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you =}, Cowlibob, I will try to resolve it. Do feel free to leave more comment. Poon (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Robbie Keane[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heals of Healy's list, I present the other Ireland top international scorer list. As always, your time and energy in contributing to the process is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Me again! I am almost tempted to tell you: just transpose most of what you have on Healy's page to this one and you're fine. But, I'll follow common featured candidacy protocol instead and give you my (non-copyediting-related) comments:

  • The lead image does not have alt text.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To be consistent with the table layout in Healy's list, I'd center-align the content in the "Cap", "Score", and "Result" columns.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Add to the "Statistics" section hatnote an explanation of what the "Score" column indicates.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move the statistics source citation tag to the end of the caption of each table.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that I look at it: why not adding also the also appearances to the by-competition table? If you do, don't forget to update the caption accordingly.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If possible, wikilink (at least) the first instances of the newspaper/website and/or publisher parameters in citations, as they appear on the reference list.
    Colonies Chris will just unlink them in due course though... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref. 7 has some problems. Also, can you format ref. 8 with a citation template?

I think it's better to let other reviewers post their comments before attempting some copyediting on the lead. That's it for now. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Parutakupiu Ok, addressed or responded to your comments above, thanks for taking the time again to look at this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I've also performed a quick copyediting of the lead and tweaked the format of a few references. Please, check if the changes are OK for you. Nonetheless, I'm happy to support this candidate. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

  • From an image review perspective both images are properly licenced though the lede image still has no alt text.
    Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Citations look fine with Checlinks though several BBC links are redirects but they do preserve the link, so are only a very minor issue that could be easily fixed. I fixed citation 7 that had errors.
    Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I would prefer to see many fewer wikilinks in the tables, per WP:OVERLINK even though repeated links are permitted they really don't help the reader understand the topic; 22 Lansdowne Road and 44 Dublin links is just too much. Even just linking the first instance where there are multiple instance would be so much better IMHO.
    I understand the concern. I am just trying to be consistent, not just internally, but across similar articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about all I can offer you but I like it. ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "in which he scored a hat-trick against the Faroes for the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification." for the doesn't read right to me, perhaps during?
    Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ref 9 is not formatted properly, no accessdate. Also can it be considered a reliable source?
    I don't know, it was there before I edited the list and uses a template {{NFT player}}, it isn't needed so I've removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, both addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to Support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman is an actress best known for her roles as a child assassin in Léon: The Professional (1994), Queen Padmé Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and her Oscar-winning turn as a tortured ballerina in Black Swan (2010). Here's a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her career thus far. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Ssven2 helped a lot with these. I think these comments have been sorted. Cowlibob (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. This list looks great, congrats! GagaNutellatalk 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I posted the AMPAS source, but some roles only listed the first name. So I looked for sources that listed the role's complete name (including surname). Anyways, Happy to give it a support.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

60th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1988 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • And the big five go to? And I've heard so much complaining about Cher getting an award I am surprised it isn't covered in here. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: Done: Added the major winners in the intro. As for people objecting to Cher's Best Actress win, that is a point of view issue that will not be covered due to Wikipedia:NPOV.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johanna
  • "(commonly referred to as Oscars)" why is this necessary? It's also a bit of a disruption for me…if you want to refer to them as Oscars at some point, put it closer to the top. That's just my opinion.
  • In your refs, you seem to include the owner of the publication, a field that I have never seen before? Is this generally accepted and standard?
  • I would add something about the ceremony's negative reception in the lead, as it does make up a substantial part of one of the later sections.
  • After you list the major awards, there's a space that shouldn't be there.
  • "He previously won a Best Picture award as co-producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Who was the first person to achieve this feat?
  • Done: Added Olivier reference.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In view the 60th anniversary of the Academy Awards," I'm not sure what you mean here, and it's clearly grammatically incorrect. If you mean "Because it was" I'm not sure what the hiring of Goldwyn, Jr. has to do with it.
  • I'm not really seeing anything in the sources that says that Chase was hired directly by Goldwyn.
  • "Despite the Writers Guild of America refused" it should be "refusing"
  • Done: Changed refused to refusing.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the three head writers for the telecast" should be a comma before and after the names of the writers.
  • Done: Added commas.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, how were you able to access ref 27 (the USA Today source)?
  • I obtained the information using ProQuest NewsStand available through the Los Angeles Public Library's online database (only library cardholders can access the database, unless you know of a local library that provides acceess). According Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS, "The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Like the multiple awards and nominations tallies, I'm assuming that your observations about the nominations of top 50 box office films are standard, implied across sections, and not OR, right? That's not meant to be a patronizing comment--I'm just making sure. :)
  • If you can't find any mixed or positive reviews, that's fine of course, but I would remove the "most" from media outlets.
  • Done: removed "most"
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of the verbs you use to describe the commentary are a bit questionable in terms of POV, in my opinion. I particularly don't like "whine" and, to a lesser extent, "bemoan" and "lament". "Complain" is fine, but for the others, I would tend towards words like "criticize", "denounce", or "comment negatively", as they are more encyclopedic IMO.
  • Done: Changed negative sounding words to more neutral verbs as per previous nominations. According to Cowlibob, we have to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: This looks like a very good article! As you can see, I just had a few prose comments. The tables look great and it's well on its way to becoming an FL! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Johanna: Thanks for the feedback. Right now, I have school-related work to do, but I'm addressing your comments one at a time.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, back again with the 8th World Fantasy Award list, and #34 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This list is the counterpart to the recent FL World Fantasy Special Award—Professional, and acts as the non-professional "other" category of the World Fantasy Awards, covering your editors of non-professional magazines, heads of hobby fantasy publishers, and general amateur contributors to the Fantasy literary field. If you saw/reviewed the Professional list, this is basically identical with different names/contributions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • "..and one of the three most renowned speculative fiction awards.." I assume this is meant to read "and are one" – if not, it certainly reads oddly the way it is.
  • "..fields related to fantasy that is.." "fields" is plural, so it should be "are", not "is".

Other than that, I really can't see much wrong with this. Harrias talk 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias:
  • It was meant to continue on from "critics have described it as"; now has an explicit "as".
  • Fixed.
--PresN 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, that first one does make sense when read like that, but it is more obvious now!
  • Support, a good solid list, you obviously know what you're doing! Harrias talk 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Looks good to me. The only comment is have to make is that it makes no mention of the objections that some winners expressed over having their home decorated with a bust of a racist like H.P. Lovecraft. As I understand it, the prize was changed two weeks ago so the paragraph is out of date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: I don't want to go too into it in the individual category lists, and instead go deeper into it in the main WFA article, but I've adjusted the text (+ new cite) to say that they gave out Lovecraft busts through 2015, and going forward they'll give out something else, as yet unannounced. --PresN 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't you say why they decided to change it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: I didn't want to (though it's pretty clear why they did, the title in the citation makes it plain), since the WFC actually carefully didn't say why they dropped him, but I've now added that there were a lot of complaints about his pretty appalling racism. --PresN 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Elvis Presley filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a guy who needs no introduction, Elvis Presley inspired a generation of musicians. His film career began with great promise, but soon became little more than a profit gimmick for both his manager and the studios. The bulk of this list was created by an IP many years ago, but was in need of being brought up to Wikipedia standards, which I believe I have done. Within the lead, I've endeavored to explain how the promise turned to disappointment for Presley. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – now that everything has been taken care of, I can gladly endorse it. Good job! -- Frankie talk 13:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and guidance. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now

  • "other cast members" and the TV listings (except for the specials) aren't necessary.
  • As for photos, just the Jailhouse Rock publicity shoot will suffice.
  • No need for his military service; that belongs in his main article.
  • There is nothing on the levels of critical or financial success his films had
What I've check above was taken care of. Per what Frankie linked above, there is a consensus that budget and box office do not belong in a filmography. I've looked through Julia Roberts filmography, Ronald Reagan filmography, Charlie Chaplin filmography, James Cameron filmography, Amy Adams filmography - there doesn't seem to be budget and box office (financial success) in them. I don't see "critical success" in these either, unless you are talking about winning an Oscar. Elvis didn't win awards for his acting. I think what you're asking for here really belongs on the articles for the individual films. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Awards not withstanding, what I mean is include whether critics liked or didn't like his films. See Madonna filmography for a good example. I should note that the link FrB.TG gave pertains to tables, though, does not say anything against including box office figures in lead's prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean, but I don't see that in the Featured Lists I've linked above, or in any number of others. I still believe that kind of information belongs in the individual articles for the films, and is otherwise covered in the Focus on movies section of his biography article. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just remove all the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis since talk shows and radio shows aren't supposed to be listed in filmography articles (unless hosting them), and this will be good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me make sure I am clear on your concerns. You are asking that talk shows and radio shows be removed. Well, there are no radio shows, so that takes care of that. Hy Gardner was a televised interview where Elvis and Gardner were the only people involved, not exactly a talk show, but I think it fits into what you are getting at. The Teenage Dance Party was a local version of American Bandstand. The only clip I've ever seen about that, is where Elvis and Wink are talking about a ring Elvis has donated for auction, and maybe that's all Elvis did there. So, maybe on a technicality that's something you are referring to. The other shows were musical variety shows with Elvis as the entertainment, no interviews involved, same thing as the Frank Sinatra show. Those shows have been out on DVD for a long time. I question whether or not anything but the Hy Gardner and Wink Martindale should be deleted. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Televised interviews and variety shows don't really belong either. What sets the Sinatra show apart from those is that it was a television special. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just so we get everything in a row, so there is no later question about this. I will delete what you ask, if you can provide links to policy or guidelines that back this up. This being Elvis, I can see later edit wars, maybe even during this process, if there is nothing to substantiate this. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking through WP:FILMOGRAPHY, it seems only films, TV shows (with episodes), and TV specials (which include TV films) are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe it might be more prudent to move the article, because we have Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record with "Television: guest appearances of Peter Sellers" (one of which was Steve Allen); Lauren Bacall on screen and stage appearing on 3 episodes of a quiz show and voicing a character on an animated episode; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record on Toast of the Town, which was the Ed Sullivan show , and a whole slew of variety shows; Ralph Richardson, roles and awards whose credits look to include variety and/or awards shows; David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print appearing on Jack Benny's variety show and an awards show; Stanley Holloway on stage and screen same thing. So, maybe this might work better if I just move the article. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You have brought up a valid concern here. For lack of any policy or guideline to substantiate it, I've posted a question on WT: FLC Elvis Presley filmography - TV appearances. — Maile (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
With or without variety shows, at least get rid of televised interviews. They're not exactly television credits and pretty much anyone can give an interview when on TV. What makes me inclined to remove them is that simply appearing on such shows doesn't really count as TV roles in the same playing playing/voicing a character on a TV show. Hosting such shows would be different since one is known to be running the show as opposed to just making a guest appearance on public TV. Essentially, "host" is a role, "guest appearance" as oneself on such shows isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with all of what FrB.TG says (especially with music career not belonging here). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga[edit]

Nominator(s): GagaNutellatalk and Frankie talk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC), IndianBio

Lady Gaga in less than ten years has won several awards such as the Grammys, Brits, and VMAs. After a long work, we believe it meets the criteria. The awards in this list are reliable and we've added sources for all of them. GagaNutellatalk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An oft forgotten aspect of Hurricane Katrina's devastating landfall in the United States, this tornado outbreak was actually the largest such event on record in Georgia for the month of August. A record-shattering 18 tornadoes touched down on August 29 (previous highest was a mere 2 twisters) across Georgia. The outbreak also marked the first known tornadic fatality in August in Georgia and furthermore is the costliest such event during the month for the state. Over the course of nearly five days, 57 tornadoes touched down across 8 states as a result of Katrina.

In terms of formatting, the tornado table was created in mirror of the one constructed during the List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak FLC two years back and should meet all MOS standards. Although the article title doesn't inherently imply a list, I opted to focus the content on the tornadoes themselves rather than the meteorological conditions that would be present in most other tornado outbreak articles. If these details were to be expanded upon, it would simply be monotonous repetition of the same exact situation on five separate days. Anyways, I hope you all enjoy reading this little article and I look forward to comments/criticisms to make it the best it can be! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Amitabh Bachchan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan is considered to be one of the greatest actor of this planet. He has nearly 200 acting credits. This list a well-written and well-sourced listing of his career. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment – Given the length of his career, make sure that all his films are listed in the chronological order of release date. Also, you might want to move the films that he had produced to a separate table to avoid confusion. Also, I cannot find any of his minor works (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) of the pre-90s era. There must be a few, I guess. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have arranged the films according to there release date. Out of nearly 220 films under his belt, he has only produced 15 of them. So, i don't think another table is necessary. About his TV work, KBC was touted as his television debut and he had only produced one show before. Also i'm still trying to find any of his work related to documentaries of pre-90's, but most are like his appearances on simi grewal kind-of-shows. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The table lists Saat Hindustani first. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the release dates of Bhuvan Shome and Saat Hindustani; the latter was released in Nov 1969. There are sources which say he actually entered films through Bhuvan Shome. I know it's a tedious task, but you are going to carry out this check for every single film of his. I'm not a big fan of unreleased films, but you might consider including this one as the failure was quite notable. I'm saying this because you currently have one uncredited appearance in the table. Coming to the producers list, it should be moved to another table for ease of navigation as he never acted in a few of those. If you're not very keen to have a separate table, make sure that you have secondary, tertiary, etc., sorts, separately for his on-screen and off-screen roles. I'll do a full review if time permits. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added Khabardar. Almost every source claims that Saat Hindustani was his debut film. Even in an interview with barkha dutt, he himself said about his experience on his debut film with Khwaja Abbas. Those film whose release date's are available, i have listed them accordingly. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[2], [3], [4] say otherwise. What about films whose release dates aren't available? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Listing them after the one's who have a release date was the only choice I had. What should be done about his debut film then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Although the criteria doesn't specifically mention this, I think this should really be taken care of. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
How? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We should have sources verifying the same. —Vensatry (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have taken care of his debut film issue, with two sources supporting it. Also, if there are any other issues, you can mention them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see that you have removed your own comment which was about creating a separate table for 'produced films', with a hasty edit summary. Before I can proceed further, this needs to be taken care of. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Irony! you didn't had the time to reply here, but Right after i deleted my own comments, you responded. Anyway, you know what i deleted so, you might wanna create the table for its betterment. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, I was quite busy for the past three days; I was constantly travelling. You might want to check my edit history. My routine editing resumed just this morning. What's the irony here, care to explain? —Vensatry (Talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, please accept my apologies and help. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No need to apologize, but please assume WP:AGF with reviewers. I'll review this one in the next couple of days. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

  • "Lift Kara De (Remix)" missing from "Music videos" section.
The video features the look-a-likes of Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Ajit Khan and Dilip Kumar, they aren't real ones.
  • "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" missing from "Music videos" section.
Added.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Naam Kya Hai missing from "Films" section.
This film don't even have a wiki-article, also i tried to find any source that says he was in this film; but i couldn't. So, its not important to mention it coz every film cannot be mentioned here.
Wikipedia is not complete. ref. Every film can't be mentioned. But how do you gauge which should be and which shouldn't? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any further information regarding the release date or the director of the film. If you find one, you can add it yourself. I don't, but i have been trying my best to make this list as comprehensive as i can. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Added. It was missing from the documentary section.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I also feel that his non-acting roles of being a narrator in films should be separated out.
I don't think so, because the title says "Role" and his role in these films are of a narrator.
Being producer is also a "role" in filmmaking. You need to separate out on-screen and off-screen roles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Read above.
  • Sometimes "Narrator" is written in Roles columns and sometimes in Notes column. That should be uniform.
Done
  • Are off-screen works, like concerts, etc. omitted from this list on purpose?
Yes, because its a filmography not a discography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
A discography won't include the concerts where he dances either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Its a "filmography", take a look at other ones. If there are any concerts and other stuffs, they should be mentioned in the biography or god-knows-which-graphy, but not here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And continuing what Vensatry said, how are we ensuring that the list includes most of the works? I know that not all works can possibly be included. But what are we doing to make sure that not a large chunk is missed out? My quick search shows 4 missing entries listed above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Nearly 8-10 films were missing before i started editing this list, which i added later. Most of films that are important and are known and most who don't even have a article here; all are mentioned. I have also added many uncredited roles of his. But, looking at the gigantic size of his career, again i'm saying its not nearly possible or necessary to add every film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I shall review the list when all of the comments above are addressed. -- Frankie talk 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: and @FrB.TG:, If you have any issues, please proceed with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Tinashe discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article details the discography of American R&B singer Tinashe, perhaps best known for her breakout single "2 On". Since then, she has gone on to collaborate with the likes of Iggy Azalea, Calvin Harris and Chris Brown. Thankyou for all comments in advance. Azealia911 talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Calvin999 Here are some quick initial comments at a glance

  • The lead looks disproportionate. One line, then a big para, then a short one. Try to a avoid one line paragraphs.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • (including five as a featured artist and two promotional singles). → I'm not so sure that this is completely relevant or needed.
Removed. Azealia911 talk
  • In the singles table, I'm pretty sure you're only supposed to include U.S. and then one component which is in their genre, not five of the same country. Fore example, Mariah Carey singles discography is U.S. and U.S. R&B (as she is an R&B artist and has prolifically charted on it). Celine Dion singles discography has Canada and Canada A/C (she is an adult contemporary singer)
The closest thing we have to a discography MoS is WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which explicitly states any combination of charts can be used for artists, using their success on the chart as a common sense guideline. Azealia911 talk
  • Are HotNewHipHop and InTheMix reliable sources? I didn't think Muu Muse was, either. But maybe it is now.
Switched Muu Muse, the other two references don't bring up any red flags to me in terms of reliability. Azealia911 talk

 — Calvin999 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio For the urls which require subscription, can you please have it as part of the {{cite web}} template itself? Use subscription=yes and it will auto generate the string. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Azealia911 talk

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Thanks for your comments SNUGGUMS! Azealia911 talk 11:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You are quite welcome, Azealia, and I can now support this for FL. Well done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Eurofan88

  • I don't think "Vulnerable" was released as a single. I mean she never said it's a single. It's like Taylor Swift's "You Are In Love" [5], available on iTunes but was never announced as a single.
Someone 'never said it's a single' is irrelevant. It received singles release on iTunes, while Taylor Swift announced that all of the Target bonus tracks would be released as iTunes singles. Azealia911 talk
Iggy Azalea's "Impossible Is Nothing" was also released on iTunes but the article says it's a promo single. You reviewed that article but didn't tell the nominator to change it as a Single instead of Promo single.
That's because it was released as an instant-grat track, was the track of the week on iTunes for free at one point, hence followed the conventions of a promotional single. "Party Favors" meets none of these criteria, and I can't find any sources naming the song as a promotional single. Azealia911 talk
Okay fine. A few months ago when i asked you if a song remix which is available on iTunes is a single you said yes. Tinashe's remix for "Jealous" was released on iTunes as a single. So are you going to add it in the 'As featured artist' section?
Done. Azealia911 talk
I've reverted my edit, I can't find the Jealous remix single anywhere on iTunes, only in an EP with multipe remixes. Azealia911 talk
Never mind, found it lol. Azealia911 talk
Anyway i wish there was a consensus at the WP:Discographies if we should count songs remixes as singles or not :/ I pay too much attention to this kind of issues :D

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree, do you have any other comments for me to address? Azealia911 talk

  • Only the remix version of "All Hands on Deck" features Iggy Azalea, so i guess it's not necessary to mention Azalea as a featured artist. Plus she shot a music video for her solo version.
Azalea is credited in all the chart history from the US, Australia and the UK. So if I remove her name, I'd have to only report on the solo charting history, which was one chart, the rhythmic chart. Azealia911 talk
  • Why not to mention "Body Language" and "Drop That Kitty" in the lead, as they are the only two sperate articles of songs where she's a featured artist.
It didn't seem completely relevant to her career. Drop That Kitty flopped dreadfully and Body Language wasn't a huge worldwide success so it didn't seem necessary to include. Azealia911 talk
Linked. Azealia911 talk
  • Travi$ Scott, A$AP Rocky → Travis Scott, ASAP Rocky; no need stylizations. --Eurofan88 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Changed. Azealia911 talk
  • Is that really necessary to mention singers and rappers' nationality in the lead every time? Also 'and featured' is used too many there, try changing it up like: 'and featured a guest verse/appearance from' for example.
Removed nationalities, switched up "and featured". Azealia911 talk
  • Remove "Dollar Signs" from the section 'Guest appearances'. It's already under the 'Other charted songs'.
It's deliberately in both sections, Guest appearances are non-single collaborations, it happened to chart as well so it's listed in both. This is common in discography articles. Azealia911 talk
  • "Party Favors" was commercially unsuccessful, failing to enter any worldwide charts. If that song flopped then no need to write about it with separate sentence.
Leaving it at just "The first was titled "Party Favors"" felt too short, plus the sentence about "Player" faring much better on the charts would also need changing to the very general """Player" entered...". It's fine. Azealia911 talk
music charts? oh come on Azealia, remove that music, it's not like the other times when you used just charts they were not music charts lol.
Done. Azealia911 talk
  • Support looks fine to me! Though i would still change some things, but i won't mind to see this as a featured list as i like her songs. :) --Eurofan88 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from GagaNutella It looks great after the edits above. Now I think you need to add her music videos in this article. Here are some FL examples you can follow: Gotye discography, M.I.A. discography, LMFAO discography. GagaNutellatalk 18:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd respectfully decline to do so. Music videos should technically not be apart of a discography. By definition a discography is "a descriptive catalogue of musical recordings", of which music videos are not. If I see a FL with music videos already in I just tend to ignore them as a rule of thumb and will not remove them, but adding them seems redundant to this type of article. If she ever releases enough to make her own videography, perhaps I'll add them there, or even to her main bio article in the filmography section. I again bring up the closest thing discographies have to a MoS, WP:DISCOGSTYLE which doesn't mention music videos at all. Azealia911 talk 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There really is no requirement for including videos. However, remember that directors and release years would of course need citations if videos are listed. I personally wouldn't include videos when already listed in a videography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see anything such in the discographies of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga 'cause they both have thier respective pages for their videographies. -- Frankie talk 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I just said that because I've seen many articles which include the videography. You can't just compare Gaga and Katy, who have a BIG VIDEOGRAPHY and global success, to Tinashe, who is getting fame now. I'm not saying x is better than y, but is like compared Madonna's videography, sales and other aspects, who is on music industry for more than 30 years to Gaga and Katy who have less than 10 years. Whatever, I support this list because despite this, I thinks it's all right. PS: If I knew my comment would cause all this trouble, I definitely wouldn't have come here. Like I said, I don't like to review discographies. I just did it for consideration to Azealia who reviewed our FLC and asked me on my talk page. So long! GagaNutellatalk 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • Support – with my comments addressed, I can endorse it now. -- Frankie talk 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13 - lead image needs Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It already had it. Azealia911 talk 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it did, my apologies and my error.--Godot13 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Azealia911 talk 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

  • The infobox picture is not very helpful in establishing who the artist is and what she looks like. Is there a better one?
Swapped. Azealia911 talk
  • There are subjective comments which form original research, such as "was a commercial success" and "commercially unsuccessful".
Removed OR comments. Azealia911 talk
  • The number of similar charts is ridiculous at some points. There are five US singles charts listed, including Digital Songs (a component of Hot 100) and R&B Songs (a subset of R&B/Hip Hop Songs). I can understand having a country's main chart and perhaps one genre chart, but anything more is superfluous. Consider that tables of peak chart positions in song articles shouldn't contain these minor subsets per WP:USCHARTS; it seems even more bizarre to list them here.
I've removed The R&B Songs and Digital Songs charts. Azealia911 talk
Can there be some sort of consistency between different tables? Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In what sense? Azealia911 talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
US,US R&B/Hip Hop, US R&B, AUS, AUS urban for albums versus US, US R&B/Hip Hop, US rhythmic, AUS for singles versus US R&B Digital for promo singles versus US dance for other charted songs. Why are they different in every section?
Why on earth would I include charts in sections that she didn't chart in? Azealia911 talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should include entire columns of em dashes, but pick a number chart types and use them throughout (perhaps exception for other charted songs). If a chart is not relevant for a given section, just remove the column. Basically, what I'm saying is to remove US R&B from albums. I thought "2 On" would've appeared on the Australian Urban chart but upon a closer look it seems that ARIA doesn't consider it an urban single. Strange... Adabow (talk)
How do you propose I fix this? Azealia911 talk
Deitalicise names of organisations which do not produce original content, such as the iTunes Store and HotNewHipHop (which, by the way, should be replaced with a more reliable source if possible). Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what you were requesting, what I'm asking is, how do I do that? Azealia911 talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Use the publisher parameter of citation templates instead of the work one. Adabow (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Per {{cite web}}, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work". Before suggestion arises, I can't use {{No italics}}, or manually use markup to change the display either. Azealia911 talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Never mind for now, then. I've asked a question about this at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Work parameter and italics, in case anyone's interested. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Adabow (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, Adabow. Azealia911 talk 09:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of FC Porto records and statistics[edit]

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another association football club's list of notable records and relevant statistics nominated for featured status. This one belongs to FC Porto, an historical Portuguese side with a vast domestic and European palmarès. I created this list from scratch and followed other similar and already featured pages during its development, so here's hoping that this one may have the same fate. Thank you in advance for your reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support satisfies the criteria's style and structure policy. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating another Gene Roddenberry article after the success of the filmography article. He has not received as many direct awards as others already at FL, but enough to warrant an article (especially due to the size of the main article itself. I based it on the IMDB list initially and went out with the objective to source all that were listed, although the "Executive Achievement" award from the Saturn Awards has been mentioned no-where else and so hasn't been included. I've also been through the official autobiography and two unofficial biographies in case there were anything further to add (there were). He claimed to have won a Nebula Award but aside from being recommended once for one, I can find no evidence that this is true.

I've formatted the list differently to those currently at FL, as I felt the formatting used in films worked better with one large table covering everything. In fact in Roddenberry's case, it really allows the read to track his awards through his career. Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from jimknut

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

  • Quite right, I'm not sure why I got out of the habit of doing that. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know, this is the first list of nature reserves managed by a British wildlife trust nominated for FLC. It includes photographs of all the sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – a lovely page, and much more than a mere list. Plainly meets the FL criteria in my view. Only two comments. At Pryor's Wood, should "sparrowshawks" be "sparrowhawks"? And the absence of a Description for Rye Meads looks like an unintentional omission (FL criterion 3 (a) came briefly to mind), though I am perfectly prepared to be told it isn't. – Tim riley talk 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I don't know how I managed to miss Rye Meads - very careless. Both your points dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Another interesting list.

  • I think we have discussed the capitalisation of Local nature reserve before. On this list it is capitalised but on the relevant wp article it is not.
  • Although the MOS may have something to say about this but I can't find it at present.— Rod talk 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Should Lechworth be Letchworth in "Mr Fordham of Lechworth"?
  • In the table "Description" column some of the species and habitat types are wikilinked in some entries and not in others (eg "Water rail" is wikilinked in Lensford Springs but not in Oughtonhead)
  • The lat & long is given to six decimal places which may be too exact particularly for sites which cover 100 + acres.
  • Can you advise how many decimals I should have for different areas? All the advice I have seen is vague on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is no clear guidance on this. I have been told (not RS I know) that six decimal places will narrow it down to within a few feet - probably OK for a small building, and for a large city to use two decimal places. In my opinion a site of over 100 acres I would use 3 decimal places and for small sites 4 decimal places. Template:Coord just says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines is better with "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object" and a table of differences, but the variation from the equator to 45 degree or 60 degrees may be a bit more detailed than needed.— Rod talk 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. The location of the smallest reserve, Barkway Chalk Pit at 0.3 hectares, is slightly out using the only map which shows the reserve, Streetmap. As an experiment I tried finding the exact location using Grid Reference Finder, which gave coordinates accurate to 6 decimal places latitude and 10 longitude. Putting these full coords in the table for the site I tried again but it is still out, and Streetmap seems to give a slightly different position for coordinates from Grid Reference Finder. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found this before for any conversion from grid ref to Lat & Long (or visa versa).— Rod talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the other lesser known species (eg Hornbeam) could also be wikilinked for those less familiar with the content area.
  • In Hunsdon and Eastwick Meads, I'm not sure about the wikilink to Lammas in "managed by the old Lammas method of hay-making followed by winter grazing" as this seems to be the day or celebration rather than a method for hay-making?
  • What is the rationale for the inclusion of specific sites in the see also? I thought initially these were other LNRs or SSSIs in the area not managed by the Trust, or those not included in List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire or List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire but that doesn't appear to be the case
  • Ref 3 (Charity Commission) doesn't have an accessdate (this may be a function of the template used)
  • This was added before I started working on the article, but checking the template documentation I see it is intended for external links, not citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 ("A Geological Conservation Strategy for Hertfordshire") seems to have a stray ">" before it

Most of these are minor quibbles and shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.— Rod talk 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for you review Rod. Sorry I forgot to do the final checkover before nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All the issues I identified are now resolved so I can support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds[edit]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk), ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL and one which currently has three supports, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Nice work —Vensatry (Talk) 09:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "the Oakham School Ground, which is actually located in the adjacent county of Rutland." This could do with a reference
  • The table doesn't fit properly on my screen for some reason. Could be to do with the images, whic I'm not sure are necessary anyway.

Looks good, otherwise. NapHit (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Both sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, removing the images did the trick. Support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1920–39)[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Following on from England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), here is the next in the series. This list follows the same format as that one. Although that nomination is still open, it has significant support and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias talk 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think that the names of parent companies for the publishers of references are needed as their names are same. -- Frankie talk 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They were added (in the past, not this specific article) at the specific request of a reviewer at FLC. So, I guess it's probably a matter of personal opinion, as there is no specific guideline on the issue. Harrias talk 21:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a little bit repetitive? Have a look ESPNcricinfo. ESPN (cricinfo excluded otherwise the same) BBC News. BBC (ditto). But it's just a suggestion and that you are not obliged to do it. -- Frankie talk 22:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary, but if you add it should be consistent throughout the article (for other sources too). —Vensatry (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman..." Feel like this could do with a cite, especially with the use of extraordinary (even though that is true given his stats!)
  • "The England team of the era featured some of the country's best batsmen too." Not sure if "too" is necessary here, I feel the sentence works fine without it.
  • "Their largest victory by runs alone during this period was also during an Ashes series against Australia, when they won by 675 runs in 1928–29, which is also an all-time record for any team." I would move 1928–29 to before "Ashes series" and have the link there instead, think it would be clearer what the link refers to and would make the sentence flow a bit better.
  • Maybe for the key, use a number that is actually in the list, as 123 isn't. A bit pedantic I know, but it might confuse a reader or two.
  • Could possibly make the summary table sortable?

Other than these quibbles, the list looks in great shape! NapHit (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @NapHit: I assume there was meant to be more on the final point? "Could possibly make the summary table" ? Harrias talk 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops! I could have sworn I finished that sentence! Oh well, should be clearer now! NapHit (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother[edit]

Nominator(s): Shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it was originally included as a Featured List in September 2008, however it was delisted in June 2009 - primarily on the basis that there were only 20 items on the list and that it could be merged into the main article. At the time I was of the view that criterion 3b did not specify a minimum number of items within a list. In the last few months Shaidar cuebiyar and I have reviewed the article and updated it - it now contains 40 items, which is sufficient for a stand alone list. We have also undertaken significant copy edits to bring it to what we believe is a FL standard. The article has recently been reviewed by the GOCE, who have made further improvements. Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

Unfortunate that this FLC has not received any comments for a month.

  • In keeping with other FLs of this type, the "awards section" should be merged into the lead. The lead should be an engaging summary of the list.
  • For each award, the organisation that presents the award should be cited. Any information about the award written in each subsection should be cited such as when it was first given, for what, how the recipient is determined.
  • Plainrowheaders should be used for all the tables. "wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" instead of "wikitable sortable" "plainrowheaders" should fix this.
  • What's the reasoning for inclusion in the "Other awards..." section instead of a subsection for the award itself like the Triple J Hottest 100?
  • Alttext needed for main image per WP:ALT. Cowlibob (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Stan discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article is well-referenced and well-written. Nearly all the pages that link here are archived, so that the needed information can be also seen if the citation is "dead". I tried to do my best for adjusting the article's lead and citation style. Thanks in advance!

Well done. Now I can support this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks man! So, is it already a FL, or do we have to wait for a second opinion? Happy HalloweenΔ!Δ Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
FL candidates need at least three supports to pass and have to resolve all major concerns of reviewers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Azealia911[edit]


Comment by Godot13

@Godot13: Done! Face-smile.svg Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The class the stars fell on[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list now that all issues have been resolved from the previous review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - — Maile (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments by Peacemaker67

  • there is a typo in the alt text for the baseball team pic "the their"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • otherwise, toolbox checks are all green
  • I assume plebe is a shortened version of wikt:plebeian, and that there would be sources to support it? Perhaps a note to that effect?
    Added a link to the Wiktionary
  • an explanation that First Captain was the No. 1 cadet would help
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "grandsons as well" is unclear, does this mean they were just grandsons of graduates, or sons of graduates and grandsons of graduates? Perhaps Three members of the class were both a son and a grandson of a graduate
    Somns of graduates and grandsons of graduates. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • the whole "sons" para with the semi-colons doesn't work IMO. Prose-wise, it's impenetrable, and should be a bulleted list.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "pulled some strings" is a bit colloquial
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • both commissary and post exchange should be linked, they are strange terms to everyone but Seppos.
    Probably only the ones who have lived on a base. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving the explanation of CGSS to immediately after fn31 for continuity
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the information provided, Bradley was the first to wear "a" star, not "stars". I know, pedantic, but...
    Well, there was one on each shoulder... but done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Van Fleet should be linked at first mention, also worth pointing out that Van Fleet commanded US and UN forces in Korea
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Notes section, the newspapers and websites are in shortened version as a citation and don't appear in the References section, but books are in the References section. I'd be much happier if all references were in the References section, whether books, newspapers or websites.

Otherwise, looking good. I'll allow those who have more of a clue than me about such things to pipe up about the syntax for the table, but it appears from the previous nom that issue has been addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Added my support. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate in order to review this list.
  • "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" - numbers (of a type) need to be consistent here, either numerals or words- this should be either "There were also 2 four-star generals, 7 three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" or "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, twenty-four two-star major generals and twenty-four one-star brigadier generals". I'd recommend the first.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Only 164 graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but they were still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them." -> "Only 164 cadets graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but that was still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure why an article about an American military group uses European date styling...
    Per MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's slightly confusing to call the head of the cadet battalion "highest ranking" and then talk about someone else being "ranking first" (best grades), though I'm unsure of a good solution
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the son of Major General George LeRoy Irwin a Medal of Honor winner" - comma before "a"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Harmon was preceded by his two older brothers, Kenneth B. Harmon, of the class of 1910,[25] and Millard F. Harmon, Jr., of the class of 1912.[26] Hubert was ejected" - completely threw me; maybe call him "Hubert Harmon" instead of just Hubert the first time you do that, so that the reader realizes that it's the same person
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Extraordinary times produced some extraordinary individuals." - uh, editorializing much?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "While the Army's training program attracted criticism, both at the time and subsequently, and failed in some key areas" - criticized for what, and failed at what?
    Lots of things. How long do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The first member of the class to wear a star was Omar Bradley, who, skipped" - no comma after who
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "He had been returned to the grade of captain on 22 January 1920, and promoted to major again on 1 July 1920, only to be returned to captain again on 4 November 1922." - tense shift, the rest of this section is "he was"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "During World War II, there was little time for class sentimentality." - editorializing again, and left completely unexplained; I'm assuming that there was some idea of preferring your classmates over other officers at the time, but that's a complete assumption on my part.
    Re-worded. Added a quote from Eisenhower. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Golden Knights should not be italicized.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The Henry Aurand row in the table has the refs split onto two lines; this is the only row that does that
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 42- the publisher is just Time, not Time magazine
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 44- publisher should be italicized and linked to Smithsonian (magazine)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You link United States Military Academy as the publisher on ref 5, but the first time that publisher is used is ref 2. Link the first use or all uses, please
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And that's it! Overall it's quite great, gives a good sense of the careers of the generals. Amusing that the eventual ranks of the generals and their class rankings have basically no correlation. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC up above. --PresN 16:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now Support. A very informative list. --PresN 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    There's a run of a few sentences which each begin with a similar clause ("As a result, fourteen more cadets received appointments to the class, which they joined six weeks late, in August 1911. As a consequence, they were known as the "Augustines". They thereby missing out on the infamous period of hazing known as Beast Barracks), this could probably stand to be reworded.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also, "they thereby missing out" should either be "thereby missing out" or "they thereby missed out".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    "In 1937, Brigadier General George C. Marshall felt that in merging instruction on command and staff duties, the Command and General Staff School had neglected former had been in favor of the latter". The last clause here seems in need of a re-write ("had neglected the former and had been", I think seems the intention)
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Promotion was glacially slow, as promotion was by seniority". You don't need to use "promotion" twice in the same sentence here.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    It seems strange to me that the entire "Careers" section uses no images yet we have plenty of suitable images for the article; a quick browse turned up File:EstevesWP.jpg, File:Leland Hobbs.jpg, File:John W Leonard.jpg, File:Thomas B Larkin.jpg, and File:Omarbradleywestpoint.jpg, all taken at West Point. I think the first and last of these look the best, personally, and one of them could easily break up all that text while also being pretty relevant.
    The 1915 Howitzer? Yes, I have cadet images of all of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I follow; but the new football team image is pretty nice. Might not be a bad idea to push one of the team pictures into the next section though. GRAPPLE X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Overall it seems interesting and well-presented. I'm leaning in its favour. GRAPPLE X 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support based on the changes made. GRAPPLE X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Raveena Tandon filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has also won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Seems odd to have some fields filled in, but others empty. Like "Director" field for some, but not all. Either way, should try to have increased standardization for maximum uniformity, throughout the page. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I have filled the table. Thanks for noting it, don't know how it slipped out of my mind. I was very busy so couldn't do it then.Krish | Talk 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better. Keep us posted here if you do any more filling in on the Notes sect. — Cirt (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Too many missing entries in the table re: directors, roles. Referencing needs a lot more work as they don't act as source for all the info in the table. Leads needs more work on its prose.
  • "This was followed by a series of poorly received films which continued with her 1993 releases" Needs to be rephrased.I think you mean that the 1992 film was the start of her string of films that performed poorly at the box office. Unclear what poorly received means. By critics or commercial or both?
  • "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the box-office hits — the action thriller Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale". According to table she was in nine Hindi films in 1994. BOI source goes to 1991 not 1994. What's the source for most of them being commercial successes? The first sentence says most of them were commercial successes but the next one says only two were box office hits.
  • "Her other notable film was" Can't state that the film was notable, have to provide evidence why. Should avoid words such as as hit or flop.
  • "The later year, she appeared in " What does this mean?
  • In regards to BOI, we can't use their phrasing of what a hit is.
  • Source needed for her taking a break from her films because of marriage,/s>
  • Confusing to discuss a TV show she appeared in before marriage, right after a sentence saying she appeared on occassion on television after marriage.
  • For the cameo in Bombay Velvet, you need a source that summarises multiple critics not just two as it's POV.
  • Shab needs a source that proves it's filming.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Done. Sorry for the delay, but I was very busy with my University exams. Coming to your points, her ninth film of 1994 was a cameo appearance, mentioned in Notes. And, rest tweaked, rephrased and corrected. Thanks. Krish | Talk 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To expand further on the referencing

  • Patthar Ke Phool character is "Kiran Khanna" according to the BH source. Also need to add an in line for the Filmfare Award.
  • Jeena Marna Tere Sang doesn't specify who the director is or if she appears in it.
  • Pehla Nasha links to the BH source for Parampara.
  • Kshatriya character name is listed as "Nilima" in BH.
  • Parampara director is listed as Naresh Malhotra, Yash Chopra, Uday Chopra in BH.
  • Ratha Saradhi needs a better ref. Amazon can't be used.
  • Bangaru Bullodu ref only acts to verify that she appeared in it, not the director or name of role.
  • Zamane Se Kya Darna. Is there really no reference for what role she played in this film?
IMDb says her character was named "Anju Rajpal", how about using that info to find a reliable source to verify it?
  • Laadla BH ref specifies character is "Kajol". Needs in line for the Filmfare award
  • Mohra BH ref specifies character is "Roma Singh".
  • Main Khiladi Tu Anari ref just says she made a special appearance not that she played herself
  • Sadhu. Any better refs than the director's website. It also doesn't specify her character's name as "Selvi".
  • Taqdeerwala. character name is "Lilly" according to BH. Director is "K. Murali Mohan Rao"
  • Zamaana Deewana. according to BH character is "Priya Singh".

I'll just stop there. Could you fix these and check for each film that all the details in the table are verified. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Done. Do you think it's my mistake that Bollywood Hungama doesn't write film details correctly? It's the only reliable sources for films as far as old films are concerned. I had added all names as per the films and what actually her character are named in.Krish | Talk 15:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Have struck comments that are resolved. Left comments that remain unresolved. Cowlibob (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Is Ratha Saradhi (1993) directed by Lata Mangeshkar?? Is Amazon a RS?? - Vivvt (Talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no information about this film on internet. I have tried to cite it by it's DVD. So, it's obvious I'll cite an online store.Krish | Talk 15:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • DVD cover does not mention Lata Mangeshkar anywhere. What you are citing is a store which has no authority to list Lata as a director overriding DVD cover.
  • Also, looking at the comments above by Cowlibob, I got another question. Is BH a RS? If yes, provide a WP discussion concluding BH as a reliable source for the filmography. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nor is IndianTelevision.com reliable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name). Indiantelevision is as much reliable as other sources, they are behind Indian Telly Awards. So before posting your frivolous points, it would be better to do some research atleast. Don't you think? Krish | Talk 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krish!: Hey. No personal attacks. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a chat forum. We may get passionate about editing, but we should strive to act in an academic, collegiate manneer.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
About-us of this source says that they are "online Media, Advertising, Marketing & Satellite Television resource" and "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaingns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution". Wikipedia does not promote such promotional websites; see WP:CITESPAM. And indiantelevision.com has previously also been questioned: on this FLC nom by User:The Rambling Man in 2013 and this FLC nom by User:Krimuk90 recently in June 2015. "Being behind" some award only means they can monetarily afford it but now also makes that award dubious. (I stand by my name.) Face-wink.svg §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: Indian Television is very much reliable souurce and since I don't want to waste my time arguing to prove that thing, I had replaced that source with another.Krish | Talk 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Birdienest81
  • "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films which continued with her 1993 releases." I'm stil confused about why this sentence follows her 1991 film. What about "Continued" suggests that Jeena Marna Tere Sang was also unsuccessful.
  • Recently, using Amazon.com as a source in itself has come under scrutiny as a RS as discussed at the noticeboard. If there is no reliable source, I would consider dropping that film since you don't make mention of it in the lead or make reference on a specific number of how many films she made; Therefore it's not that big of a deal.

Otherwise, it looks better since Cowlibob last reviewed.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: Done and yes all her films from 1992 and 1993 were unsuccessful as per Box Office India. Thanks for the corrections. Face-smile.svgKrish | Talk 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Done and removed the Delayed/Not released film as there are no information about its release or whatever. Thanks for your inputs. Face-smile.svgKrish | Talk 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–1959)[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

being one of India's most coveted civilian awards, I think the list should be presented in the proper format and with the encyclopaedic content. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism. With the success or failure of this nomination, I would decide to work on the similar lists for Indian civilian awards in the near future. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – good work. -- Frankie talk 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG and Pavanjandhyala: I have addressed some of your concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. All my concerns were met by the nominator. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment – Isn't there a consensus for WP:IND articles not to have indic scripts in the lead? —Vensatry (ping) 15:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thats correct. I missed that. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – After going through all of your responses, it looks like you got everything I listed. Nice work on the list, which is unique when compared to much of the fare we normally see at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. I really appreciate your motivating words. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

  • A few of the later images are missing Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And here I thought I was just making a drive-by comment... On reading the list it is a very nice summary and I have certainly learned something new.
    • Face-smile.svg
  • You write Recipients whose awards have been revoked or restored, both of which require the authority of the President, are also registered in the Gazette and are required to surrender their medals when their names are struck from the register.
    • Could you explain the possible circumstances where this might occur?
      • The official statues does not mention the clauses under which this could be done. It did not happen with any of the civilian awards so far; except for the Bharat Ratna, the highest Indian civilian award, where the award was announced but not conferred so technically was not revoked.
    • Did this happen to any of the recipients in the 1955–59 list?
      • Done
  • As opposed to having five separate lists by year, would you consider merging them into a single list with a column on the left for year which would cover each of the rows for that given year?--Godot13 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I was curious to see what it would look like. If you think it would be an improvement, I would be happy to add it in. If not, absolutely no hard feelings at all...--Godot13 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I really appreciate your efforts but I personally do not wish to club it together into one big fat list. Apologies for that! Also, when I had started working on this list initially, I came across this FL which follows the same pattern. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Godot13: Let me know if you expect any further changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been traveling. Let me give it another thorough read-through tomorrow night.--Godot13 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Succinct and interesting, nice job.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after viewing several history text timelines and after taking a look at the archived discussion of this article's unsuccessful 2008 "FLC" I set about revamping the page. There are now inline citations, more key events are noted, and more information given about those events. Also, the article now has a good introduction and helpful organizational headings. Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maile

First of all, congratulations on the reformat. It looks soooooo much better without the table.

  • The images are fine, but there's a long stretch without any images. Any chance there might be some on Commons to add?
  • There are a lot of dates with no sourcing citation.
— Maile (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Maile. I have added a couple images and will attend to the citations (plus additional images) soon. Drdpw (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Wow - time flies. I didn't realize I hadn't gotten back to this - didn't mean to hang this nomination out to dry.
  • Sources - I see you added citations to each item/paragraph. I ran Earwig's tool for copyvio/close paraphrasing. Looks to me like what it considers violations begin with You Tube, which is notorious for copying Wikipedia, and other sites that have copied You Tube or Wikipedia. The sourcing you've used all appears to be credible.
  • Images - I see you have added the captioned images as stated. Please see WP:ALT. For screen readers used by the visually impaired, each image also needs alternative text added.
  • See also section - Anything that is in the bottom navbox should not also be in this section. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: Thanks for your input and help enhancing the TL. Alternative text has been added to images and the See also section contents trimmed. Drdpw (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - You've taken care of everything I asked. Happy to support you on this. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose—there are many lines in this timeline with no inline citation. I would have expected at least one inline citation for each entry on the timeline. –Grondemar 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66:@Grondemar: Every entry in the TL now has at least one inline citation. Drdpw (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Central Committee elected by the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1934–1939. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please replace all symbols with their corresponding symbol template for accessibility, similar to what you did for the Star of David. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: They don't have corresponding template, and unlike the venus symbol and the star of david, these are random symbols which can mean whatever the editor wants.. There is no reason to templatize them. So why should I?--TIAYN (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text says some of those symbols will likely be read aloud to blind people using screen reader software as question marks. Rather than creating new templates, you could replace those symbols with symbols that already have templates. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Thisisnotatest: But this is what I don't understand.. You said to templatize the star of david because there could be some people didn't know what the star of david was.. OK, so another description was added. ... But these symbols are random; so "† Indicates that the individual died of natural causes" should be enough (and a person can read this to a blind person). --TIAYN (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need: I believe I said it wasn't accessible to blind people. The reason is that screen readers won't read it. But actually, I was thinking about it today, there's a larger issue. When it was just one symbol on that other page, the Star of David, which is well recognized for Jewish, that was probably okay. But now, this key is adding multiple symbols with meanings unrelated to their appearance. That's a lot of meaning for all people, not just blind people, to keep in their heads (or to scroll up and down and up and down) as they try to use the table. It would be better to replace the symbols with a brief word or two and just add another column to the table to contain that new word.
Abbreviations used
K "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys.
All Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo.
Pol Politburo member.
Sec Secretariat member.
Org Orgburo member.
Pol(Cand), Org(Cand) "Cand" refers to "Candidate member"
Keys
The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism, shaped as that of a hexagram, the compound of two equilateral triangles Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family.
Natural Indicates that the individual died of natural causes.
Suicide Indicates that the individual committed suicide.
Murder Indicates that the individual was murdered.
Arrested Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat.
Removed Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee.
Expelled Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938.[1]
Elevated Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member.

@Thisisnotatest: The table is to big; we use symbols so that they don't take much space. The "Keys" section is there so that people can go back and forward. There is no need for the changes you're calling for. Its normal, other FLs do the same, for instance List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches, List of Indianapolis Colts seasons, List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games, List of Silver Slugger Award winners at catcher (I could go on forever). No need. --TIAYN (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: There are plenty of other things in the table that take space. The table needs to be accessible and easily usable. One advantage of making each symbol a template as that it would also mouseover so that someone wouldn't have to scroll back up to the key. The fact that many pages use this system doesn't make it accessible or usable or that the featured list program ought to excuse it in the future. If you're concerned about space, then at least an abbreviation for each term would still be more usable than what is there now.

Abbreviations used
K "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys.
All Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo.
Pol Politburo member.
Sec Secretariat member.
Org Orgburo member.
Pol(C), Org(C) "C" refers to "Candidate member"
Keys
The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism, shaped as that of a hexagram, the compound of two equilateral triangles Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family.
Nat Indicates that the individual died of natural causes.
Sui Indicates that the individual committed suicide.
Murd Indicates that the individual was murdered.
Arr Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat.
Rem Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee.
Exp Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938.[1]
Elev Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

List of reptiles of Bulgaria[edit]

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, as with the first list in that series, list of amphibians in Bulgaria, I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of reptiles/amphibians (and other animals) by country. As I have stated in the argumentation of the first nomination, while the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries, which is surprising, having in mind the available information. I have implemented the recommendations, suggested during the nomination discussion of the List of amphibians of Bulgaria. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The refs are a bit misleading. "The family contains about x species in y genera, of which z species occurs in Bulgaria.[ref]" where ref only refers to x and y but not z. pls move the ref location after the comma, and try to find some other ref for z. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • dont use links in the section titles, and mention that Rhynchocephalia and Crocodilia are extant orders not represented in BG. Nergaal (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "there are no records since 193" should be there have been no. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • fix redling meadow lizard to Darevskia. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure, but I think the status ntoe should be linked more than once, or placed somewhere at the top of the list. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(intro should mention which of the species are threatened, since there are only like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Please fix the color contrast in the table captions. White text on light blue is hard for some people to read. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Anguis fragilis and Anguis colchica are seperate species now and both of them live in Bulgaria. --TnoXX (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have made an entry for Anguis colchica. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What about Trachemys scripta? Biserkov in his Определител на земноводните и влечугите в България gives information about this turtle, although it's an just introduced species.--TnoXX (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I added information on Trachemys scripta in the intro. --Gligan (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The same thing is about Natrix natrix and Natrix tessellata. Reptile Data Base claims, that they belong now to family Natricidae.--TnoXX (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Review by PresN

Reviewing this list, since I reviewed the amphibian list (and I like to encourage these non-sports/music/film lists):

  • A couple times in the lead, you use a spaced mdash ( — ) to make asides. This should either be a spaced ndash ( – ) or an unspaced mdash (—). Or just a colon.
  • "The foundations of the Bulgarian herpetology" - "The foundations of Bulgarian herpetology"
  • In all cases but Cheloniidae, you start off with "X are a family"; only for that family do you say "Cheloniidae is a family". This should be consistent, in whichever direction is correct.
  • "recorded up to 1100 m altitude in Lozen Mountain" - this should either be on Lozen Mountain, in the Lozen mountains, or in the Lozen Mountain region, depending on what was meant; the capitalization/wording makes it hard to tell if the grammar is just off or if it's the proper name of a region.
  • "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa, Tundzha, as well as..." - should have an "and" before Tundzha, as that's the end of the sublist. Also drop that comma, since it looks like you're not going with the oxford comma anywhere else- so it should be "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa and Tundzha, as well as..."
  • "There are 73 species in 10 genera, of them two species occur in Bulgaria." - of which
  • "Widespread in the whole country" -> "Widespread throughout the whole country"
  • "Found in the whole country" -> "Found throughout the whole country"
  • Scincidae is the only family that you don't mention how many genera there are, any reason?
  • "There are 844 species in 118 genera, of them 12 species..." - of which
  • "except for the high mountains of souther-western Bulgaria" - "southwestern (or southwest) Bulgaria"
  • "Occurs in the Upper Thracian Plan, the Danubian Plane..." - should be "plain" both times, and I'll ignore the obvious snakes on a plane joke
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha"
  • "Widespread in the whole country, up to 1600 m altitude..." - widespread throughout the whole country
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha, the southern Black Sea coast" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha, and the southern Black Sea coast"
  • "They include 329 species in 33 genera, of them..." - of which
  • Vipera aspis and Vipera berus have spaced mdashes again
  • The notes section should be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes, not spaced hyphens
  • Redirects that don't seem intentional: four-lined snake is piped to its latin name which redirects to... four-lined snake
  • I'd feel better about "The Reptile Database" being used as a source if there was a publisher in the ref or something that showed it was an RS, and not just some guy's pet project

That's it, most of the grammar things repeat a few times so it's not really that much. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC up above. --PresN 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. The review was indeed helpful, for which I am very grateful. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. --PresN 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Review by Dudley

  • I have set my computer to flag up harvnb errors, and it is flagging up most of your citations and sources. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. You show a ref as <ref>{{harvnb|Biserkov|2007|p=34}}</ref>, but you should use either ref or harvnb, not both, and you have to show the author surname the same way in the source and the ref, but you have it in Latin script in the ref and Cyrillic in the source. As you are using sources in a different script harvnb does not work, so I think it would be better to show give the ref in the form <ref>Biserkov, 2007, p. 34</ref> It would then come out the same but not give an error message.
Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "There are six turtle and tortoise species of four families" Why lump them in together? I would give separate figures for each.
Done. I have put them together, because in Bulgarian there is only one word for all turtles and tortoises :) --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "14 lizard species of four families" You have 14 and then four. I believe the rule is you should stick to numerals or alphabetical for numbers, not mix the two. Also I would say "species in four families", but this is probably a matter of taste.
Well, I generally spell the numbers from 1 to 10 and write the numerals for those above 10. This system was recommended to me in a process of reviewing another article (I don't remember which one). --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In addition, in recent years one turtle species, the North American red-eared slider, has been registered in numerous bodies of water all over the country and is not included in the list" If this introduced species is widespread, should it not be in the list?
It is my firm belief that introduced species should not not be included in any list of species. They should be mentioned/listed separately. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You have a note explaining conservation status codes as a note at the end. It would be helpful to readers to have it as a key at the start of the table.
I would be grateful if you do this yourself because I can't figure out where exactly to place the codes so that they could fit well into the list. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You say in the lead that some species have not been seen since the first half of the twentieth century. I think this should also be stated in the entry for these species in the table.
It is stated in the entry of the species - Vipera aspis, Vipera ursinii. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
But not the entries for the turtles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "With the exception of two species, they are distributed in the Western Hemisphere" Do you mean only found in the Western Hemisphere?
Yes. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I am going abroad now and will attend to these remarks upon my return next week. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is, as I said, a first rate list, but I am doubtful about the criteria for inclusion. Why exclude widespread introduced species? The title of the article is "List of reptiles...", not "List of native reptiles...". Would you exclude the European rabbit from a list of mammals in Britain because it was introduced by the Romans? If not, you have to choose an arbitrary cut-off date for a species to be listed. It also seems a stretch to include species not seen since the first half of the twentieth century, particularly the turtles, only recorded once or twice, over 65 years ago, in Bulgarian waters. I do not see how they can be considered "reptiles of Bulgaria". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Definitely worthy for FL status. I couldn't really spot any major issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Delegate comment

Putting back on my delegate hat for a moment- @Nergaal, TnoXX, and Dudley Miles: you all gave a review (of some extent); are you willing to support/not support/finished with your review? --PresN 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if @Gligan: saw my comments about classification of reptiles. After his answer I'll be able to support/not support the list--TnoXX (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft[edit]

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) & Robert4565 (talk)

After 3.5 years away from Wikipedia, I'm back at FLC with another UConn-themed list: List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft. I'd like to thank User:Robert4565 for pulling together this list in 2014; I added prose I had left in my userspace from 2012 as well as new prose, and cleaned up the list with high-quality references. I based the list restructure on the existing college team in the NFL Draft featured lists, as well as List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft.

I believe this candidate fully meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree. –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do too. Robert4565 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I believe the key needs to be split into three two-column tables and have column headings added to be accessible. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'll take a look and try to fix it this afternoon. –Grondemar 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    After further consideration I decided to remove the key entirely and to incorporate the full name of the positions and links directly in the main list, more similar to List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft than the previous NFL Draft FLs. This avoids the challenge of making the key table accessible; it also should make it easier for the reader to go to pages describing the positions without having to scroll up to the key. –Grondemar 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, that solves the issue. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks! –Grondemar 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I quickly checked in on a commercial break during the game tonight and saw that my few piddling concerns have been resolved, so I'm happy to support now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – An engaging and well written lead section; comprehensive, well referenced, and well formatted lists; nice use and placement of images. Drdpw (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "This led to a massive bidding war..." massive seems a bit POV and sensationalist, perhaps just remove it and have bidding war
  • "Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2015... " comma after 2015
  • "The most Connecticut players to be selected in a single NFL Draft were five" were should be was

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@NapHit:, all the above are now fixed. Thanks for your review. –Grondemar 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AAA Mega Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list with @MPJ-DK: because I feel it meets the criteria. MPJ and I worked on it for the last few days, merging the separate list and the main article to nominate it for FL. All issues will be addressed by MPJ and I.--WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments
  • "which effectively unified International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship" => "which effectively unified the International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship"
    • "as well as the four number one contenders to each respective championship" - there were not four number one contenders to each championship, and the word "respective" is completely unnecessary. Change to "as well as the number one contender to each championship"
    • "which was called simply Mexican Heavyweight Championship" => "which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship"
    • "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA in Antonio Peña Memorial Show" => "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA at the Antonio Peña Memorial Show"
    • The date format for the general refs is different to that used for the specific refs
    • In the lead you refer to Mesias winning the "finals" but in the bracket this match is shown as the "final". I'm not sure what the correct US usage is, but regardless they should be consistent

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll handle these shortly. They went by without my notice.--WillC 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: All concerns addressed.--WillC 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
One other quick point.....when you say "it is sometimes referred to in the English press", I presume you mean the English-language press, rather than the press in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed--WillC 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Everything seems to be in order, well done.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I feel bad seeing this list at the bottom of the stack, about to get archived but with two supports. So here's a review- recusing myself as a delegate to be a reviewer instead.

  • "compete in direct competition." - repeated word
    • Fixed
  • "In 2011, the then-AAA Mega Champion and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) founder Jeff Jarrett appeared with a redesigned version of the title on TNA programming, which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship." - difficult to parse; you seem to mean that a title match was shown on TNA with a different name (MHC), but the sentence starts off talking about stuff you've never mentioned before and then gets confusing as to what "which was" is referring to, the title match or TNA.
    • Reworded
  • "The Championship belt was the Mega Championship belt with a silver hexagonal plate covering the AAA faceplate, this was done due to Spike TV not allowing TNA to refer to AAA by name." - run-on sentence
    • Reworded
  • That whole section is kind of overweighted- you describe the belt, talk about the channel it was on... but don't do that for the regular match series.
    • Trying to do an overview like most titles about the only significant moments instead of all moments.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Title tournament bracket" - this is just the initial 2007 tournament of champions, yes? It's not clear in this section if that's so. Even just renaming the section to "Initial title tournament bracket" would help
    • reworded
  • "Title History" - shouldn't this be three rows, with AAA Mega Championship split between the first and third?
    • What?
  • The empty "Notes" fields in the big table under "Reigns" are a bit jarring- why are they empty?
    • Nothing special happened during the reigns. Just won and defended the title. No controversial finish or storyline.
  • The lead says that the current champion is Alberto, but the table says that he's no longer the champion now that he's signed with WWE- lead should be updated.
    • fixed
  • Dates in the references are formatted inconsistantly; standardize on either "yyyy-mm-dd" or "Month dd, yyyy"
    • Fixed
  • Is the ref publisher SuperLuchas, SuperLuchas Magazine, or Súper Luchas, because you use all three in the refs
    • I think they are different publishes. I don't deal with Mexican titles much. That is an issue for MPJ to settle since I'm expanding this due to its connection to TNA.
  • Ref 15- you don't need to specify the staff as the author; if no specific person is listed just leave it blank
    • Fixed.

I think this is all quite fixable. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC nomination up above. --PresN 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: I'll get this as soon as I can. I'm going on a business trip for the weekend so it will be a few days before I know I'll have free time.--WillC 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: All concerns settled. Thanks for the review.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Remaining: I fixed a couple minor things, but the SuperLuchas bit is still outstanding. Also, now I'm really confused as to what's going on with the "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" thing- I thought, especially with it called out in the "Title History" section, that the name of the AAA Mega Championship was actually changed to "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" from July 14, 2011 – March 18, 2012. But that's not true at all, is it? Nothing changed about the AAA MC; it's just that the guy who was the champion appeared on a series that didn't have licensing rights to use the name, so that (completely separate) series called it the MHC. If that's all true, you're giving that bit of trivia way too much weight in the article's lead, and it certainly shouldn't be called out as an official name change in that table in "Title History". --PresN 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
SuperLucas is fixed. The title change thing is rather simple but hard to explain to a non-viewer. Promotions change the name of titles all of the time. When the WWE got the WCW Championship they changed the name several times. TNA changed the name of the IWGP Tag Team Championship. The point is that SpikeTV didn't want to advertise AAA on their programming so TNA was forced to call it another name. Jarrett holding the title and advertising it on national TV under a different name is a pretty big deal. Do believe he defended it in TNA as well.--WillC 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Nominations for removal[edit]

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography[edit]

Notified: Nehrams2020, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not well-referenced enough to meet today's FL standards. The vast majority of roles listed here and the accolades are missing sources. Having a total of 12 in-text citations is quite problematic given how many films are mentioned. I'm also not sure if it's really necessary to include color coding for lead roles or have prose bits within the "Television appearances" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I really don't think this could be a problem, as the General General has all movies covered.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Merely placing a collection of links in "General" isn't exactly enough; all accolades and roles need to have in-text citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • At most case, I would agree that "Merely placing a collection of links" isn't exactly enough, but in this particular case, is seens unnessasery to add a <ref name=xxx />to every role and every movie, a recent example is 2014 Winter Olympics medal table, is pointless to add a citation to every NOCs, as they were all come from a same source, so list at "general". And I also feel this filmography case have more excuse, as those kind of infomation that people could simply watch the movie to find out, and this is the reason we don't need a citation for plot section in film articles (except lost films). I agree that this list could done some work like updating the lede, add citation for accolades (who add this anyway, when there's already a List of awards and nominations received by Arnold Schwarzenegger), but I don't feel the name of those movies, tv show, or roles needs this.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It most certainly is NOT "pointless" to cite individual roles per today's FL standards whether using one or multiple different sources for listings. The criteria has become more demanding throughout time even if this was enough for 2009's standards. "Simply watch the movie" is also not good enough, especially for uncredited roles. How well sourced other articles are is irrelevant to this page per WP:WAX, and that isn't a comparable example since it isn't even a filmography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Rogovin 2009, p. 175.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=691768316"