Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} 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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any 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 leave a post on 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. When 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 vote 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 (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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 almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

AFL Rising Star[edit]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my fifth instalment in a campaign to increase the number of Australian Football League FLs (there have been four successful promotions since August 2018). The AFL Rising Star is a prestigious annual award presented to a standout young player in the league. Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a comprehensive list of the material and a great addition to Wikipedia's featured list of episodes. After reviewing the criteria for a featured list I believe this list meets all the criteria. I also looked at all the similar lists and realized that no reality show has a FL list of this nature so it would be great for a reality TV show to have a list of this nature pass the FL process. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've given it a complete overhaul in the last week or so to expand, reference and tidy the existing base. I believe this now brings into line with other similar managerial lists. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by comment: the photo caption "A photograph of a man with blind (sic) hair" made me chuckle :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Haha oops, fixed that. Kosack (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Even after the fix you still had the alt text showing as the photo caption. I have fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "This chronological list comprises all those who have held the position of manager of the first team of Cardiff City. Each manager's entry includes the dates of tenure and the club's overall competitive record (in terms of matches won, drawn and lost), honours won and significant achievements while under his care. Caretaker managers are included, where known, as well as those who have been in permanent charge." - I would say that this should be immediately above the table, not in the first paragraph of the lead. Obviously this will significantly reduce the lead, but I think it needs beefing up anyway.....
I used the base of this opening explanation from other FLs such as List of York City F.C. managers and List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, both of which have significantly shorter intros as well. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Those lists were both promoted quite a while ago (nearly 12 years ago in the case of the York one!) and standards have changed over time. I would say that the lead needs to be more of a summary of the whole article, and the above quoted text should be moved to above the table.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I've moved the opening paragraph to above the table and expanded the lead to a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • No source for anything before Fred Stewart's arrival
    • positioning of ref 5 looks a little odd - why not at the end of the sentence?
The ref only supports the first half of the sentence. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "two years after the cup triumph, Cardiff were" - earlier you had "In 1920, Cardiff was elected" - so is it singular or plural? - fixed
    • "Spiers had previously been assistant manager under Frank Buckley at Wolverhampton Wanderers but his move to Cardiff was his first managerial appointment" - no source
    • "wages during Wartime" - wartime is not a proper noun, doesn't need a capital
My phone autocorrect keeps insisting on a capital for some reason, that one slipped through the net. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • "The board were able to persuade Spiers to rejoin the club and he led a side built around players brought through by his youth system to the First Division in 1952." - no source
    • "Morris claimed his only silverware during the 1955–56 season by winning the Welsh Cup but was unable to prevent the club's relegation from the First Division the following year." - no source
    • "He left the club in 1958 to manage Swansea Town and was replaced by his assistant Bill Jones who had previously managed Barry Town and Worcester City. Jones led the team back to the First Division in 1960 where they spent two years before being relegated." - no source for any of that
    • "winning the Welsh Cup, a feat he achieved seven times during his tenure." - no source
    • "He led the team to the semi-final of the competition during the 1967–68 season," - as the most recent competition referred to was the Welsh Cup, this reads like that is the competition being referred to, when it clearly isn't - fixed
    • "However, O'Farrell departed after 158 days in charge after being appointed manager of the Iran national side." - no source
    • "First team coach Jimmy Andrews took over as caretaker manager......becoming the youngest manager in the club's history at 34."- no source for any of that
    • "Morgan was moved into a general manager role" - no source
    • "In March 1984, he left the club after being offered the managerial role at Sunderland. " - no source
    • "Alan Durban....replaced by Frank Burrows who won promotion in his second season" - no source
    • There's clearly a pattern emerging here where large chunks of the text are unsourced. Perhaps you could go through and check/fix the sourcing and I'll then complete the review? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Hi, all of the information above is sourced to the ref that immediately follows it. Rather than finish every sentence with the same ref, the ref is listed once it stops providing info or there is a paragraph break. Kosack (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A list on the songs that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, arguably the most notable record chart in today's music industry, throughout the 2000s. Comprehensive, detailed and well sourced, this list is up to FL criteria in my opinion. I look forward to comments, (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

  • Change chart date to Issue date. Chart date sounds more like the period the charts are compiled. The charts are issued on the date.
  • Weeks at number one could be abbreviated as Wks. with Template:abbr. The column is quite large for 1 and 2 digit numbers. <- goes for all tables
  • Looks great otherwise.--Lirim | Talk 05:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of abbreviating "Weeks" I did so with "Number one". Otherwise everything's done :) (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Another issue I see in the table is the old syntax. align="center" – Old version; |style="text-align:center;" – New version :: Shoul be replaced everywhere--Lirim | Talk 06:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter (I think the latter is the old syntax anw, how can one tell which one is new and the other is not)? (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — Old syntax still works, even though I'm not a fan of it. Overall great list.--Lirim | Talk 00:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

  • I was about to say that I appreciate that the list consolidates the decade much more efficiently than individual year lists, but then I realized there are lists for every year as well. I'm really confused, why do we need this article and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000, etc. duplicating the exact same content? If we can have a featured-quality article that effectively gives every number-one hit for the 2000s, there should absolutely not be articles that show the exact same information with no additional content.
  • The list for the 2000s decade summarize the chart data for the decade overall, while respective lists for years elaborate further on music trends/statistics of that year only. For instance, the 2004 list mentions the rise of urban music with specific data on chart entries, and the 2005 list contains information on successful artists of that year that is not very significant compared to the decade as a whole i.e. Kanye West. Hope this helps :) (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a "Trends" or "Genres" section would be a great way to discuss various genres! A single paragraph there doesn't justify the duplication of the list itself, and the last sentence applies broadly to several years. The info about artists like West isn't exactly additional information, it's just selected facts from the table in prose form. The decade list is still welcome to include year-specific mentions (A sort of "Highlights" section would look great even). Reywas92Talk 08:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think for a list on chart data the discussion of genres or music trends should serve only to provide readers a glimpse, as the in-depth discussion can be found in 2000s in music; therefore I'm hesitant to add a separate section analyzing such subject matter. "Highlights" can be seen from "Statistics", I believe. (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 1990s's -> 1990s'
  • I think the usage of the apostrophe here is correct per Oxford Dictionary. (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm I guess that's a fair interpretation of whether it's singular or plural to begin with but actually I'd suggest just "1990s" as an adjective modifying "trend"
  • "accumulating...spent..." should be parallel
  • Done
  • acts -> act
  • Done
  • over -> at least
  • Done

Reywas92Talk 05:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the comments, (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Allied45[edit]

Have not done a full review, but a quick glance shows the table does not meet WP:ACCESSIBILITY due to the column headers in the middle of the table for each of the years. Allied45 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks so much for the crucial issue, (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of Australia[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Following in the footsteps of FLs Territorial evolution of the United States and Territorial evolution of Canada, I offer Australia. Unlike the others, it includes the colonial period because, helpfully, no colonies joined it after it became a country so I avoid that complication. (and the colonial period was a lot more interesting!) Well-sourced, well-illustrated, and, at least at this time, appears comprehensive. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • A longer lead would be nice, maybe summarize the major events and the difference between a state and territory.
  • Along with that, the timeline overall is amazing but lacks context of what were relatively minor procedural changes and bigger ones that affected people. Some discussion about changes related the most populated areas could go in the lead.
  • I recall seeing a gif somewhere, would go well at the top, especially since the images are somewhat small, with more blue sea than Australia in the maps. I know the table has all the same information but the maps are simply illegible.

Reywas92Talk 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Lede: I've tried to flesh it out a bit.
    • Context: When I originally made these articles, I wanted them to be just ... facts. No context, just say what happened and don't bother with why. But now that the initial information is in, I feel more confident going back and trying to supply context. I'll work on that today.
    • You might have seen it on Reddit, where I posted it last week? :) The maps I guess are designed to be clicked if you want to see what they say, I hadn't considered making a tiny version of the maps, without text, just showing the change in a visible form... do you think that might be worth the effort? --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that was it! Found it again at List of proposed states of Australia. I may let others comment if they think you should go through that work but honestly I think the tiny unreadable text in the thumbnails doesn't look great, and they didn't need to be extended through the sea for just two changes about uninhabited islands. They're terrific when bigger but not as good as thumbnails. Reywas92Talk 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you're referring to about 'two changes' to 'uninhabited islands' - you mean Heard + Macdonald? Removing those only shrinks the map a little bit- all of the other corners (Nauru, Cocos, South Island) are pretty close to their edges. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • And that gif was made by someone else based on an earlier version of the article. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Haha I only read until I saw your name credited for the original file, but it looks good. I did mean Heard and MacDonald but yeah the others are out there too. I suppose as a reader I'm not as interested in the low population territories but they're certainly parts of Australia that shouldn't be left out, but most changes don't involve them. Perhaps use different maps for Australian mainland and external territories (or pre and post-independence)? I guess the maps have the same small text as in the US and Canada map and it's not that necessary to read them – maybe just increase the size to 250px like the others! I thought your test change looked good though but I don't want this to be a ridiculous amount of work. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
            • It's not ridiculous, it's actually fun, but... I'm worried that if I put these up, the more detailed frames will be lost. Very few people will click through to see them... --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  1. As above, the lead isn't long enough for a list of this size; one paragraph just won't do. You could try summarising the major events in rough chronological order and defining the scope for "Colonial history" and "Federation", ultimately to fill the lead to about three paragraphs in length.
  2. One of the two Australian history GIFs could go in the lead as well.
  3. Legend: is it necessary to indent it? I feel it should be flush against the left-hand side, although this is really more of a matter of taste.
  4. Capitalise disputed and area in the legend.
  5. Also, another entry to the legend could be made for the grey areas on the map.
  6. The dates in the first column of the tables don't look good text-wrapped – especially if they're broken into three separate lines; they should ideally be formatted to appear on a single line each.
  7. The Change Map table header can be simplified to just "Map".
  8. Your tables have scope attributes for rows, but not for columns.
  9. The Proposals for new Australian States link in the See also section should use the actual article's title, avoiding a redirect.

Overall, this list isn't bad and has potential, but it needs some work, especially on the lead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • How's the lede now?
  • Personally I'd kill the legend, if no one else minds then I will. It was never my idea.
  • Added scopes and nowraps. Fixed the link. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

List of national memorials of the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Writing this list I saw just how terrible the government is at doing anything with consistency. This was originally just going to be the National Park Service units like List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States but then I doubled my workload with the memorials that are independently operated but don't receive the billing the NPS sites do. Legislation varies in whether sites are called "national memorials" or are merely commemorative works so it took a lot of reading the texts of bills and other official sources; in some cases the law authorizes construction of memorials that may or may not be built and in others it names an existing site. Anyway I look forward to your comments. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is in a very good shape at the moment, it is well-written and sourced. I wanted to have it as a GA nomination, but it turned out it had too many tables for that. I'm very apperciative of comments. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z[edit]

Comments from Chris the Dude[edit]

Support from Eddie891[edit]

Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits; please revert if you disagree with them.

  • Per MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD, "Romania" doesn't need to be in bold in the opening sentence.
  • Could the Year column be centralised in the two tables?
  • Could you maybe write a couple of sentences to introduce the Commentators and spokespersons and section? Maybe just say what the purposes of the roles of commentator/dual commentator/spokesperson are, and who has normally done them.
  • Rather than having empty cells in the tables, consider using Template:TBA.
  • Per MOS:OVERLINK, common languages (such as the ones in the Contestants table) don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Alina Sorescu is sorting incorrectly in the table.
  • I may have more comments coming.

Incidentally, my current open FLC is Radio Times's Most Powerful People. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Hi and thank you for your (first) comments. I believe I have adressed everything, but please check out the text I wrote for that section since I'm not sure it's alright. I'll also look over your FLC tomorrow. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 1962 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A fourth Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC), 2013 (FLC) and 2014 (FLC). The 1962 Tour de France article became an FA last month. BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Camila Cabello[edit]

Nominator(s): H9v9n9 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because all the information from this list is qualified and sufficient to meet the criterion for featured list.H9v9n9 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the current standard is to have all the awards in one table like in List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, not in lots of tiny tables..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks! --H9v9n9 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Any plans to change the article to that format......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure! Thanks! --H9v9n9 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Apologies for interrupting the conversation, but the list still has not been reformatted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if @H9v9n9: is failing to understand my comments, but there has been no attempt to update the table to the current standard, so regrettably I have to oppose until such time as it is done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suggest closure - No attempt is being made to update the article to the new format. It's also not up there in terms of prose quality with offtopic fancruft-y brags like "her hit single 'Havana'", "Her debut album [...] debuted at No.1 on the US Billboard 200 Chart", etc. thrown in there. Off grammatically and references do not have a consistent date format.--NØ 09:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Mersal[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian Tamil film, Mersal starring Vijay. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fifteenth attempt at an accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • "It was a commercially successful venture," how bout just "It was also a commercial success,"...?
  • In the second paragraph, should "Vijay's performance" by performances since he portrayed more than one person?
  • Should there be refs in the third paragraph? (currently has none)
  • "S. J. Surya" is spelled as "S. J. Suryah" in the table (multiple times)
  • Fix the disambiguation link for Business Today in ref 11

Everything looks great as always. Great job on this! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, BeatlesLedTV. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I’m not able to find any problem in the list. Mr. Smart LION 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Smart LION. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • Mersal is not an English word, so you may consider adding the translation. Many Bollywood FLs have this.
  • Consider moving the page for WP:PRECISION. List of accolades received by Madras (film) was moved to List of accolades received by Madras.
  • [[Tamil language|Tamil-language]] [[Action film|action]] [[thriller film]] - you may not want to violate WP:SEAOFBLUE, so try reducing the consecutive links. Either write [[action thriller]] film or [[action thriller film]] (because redirects are not broken links), or [[Action film#Action thriller|action thriller film]] if you prefer to avoid redirects (personally, I typically use links that redirect to sections).
  • Ruben and G. K. Vishnu was in charge of the editing and cinematography respectively - They were in charge, not was.

That will be all from me. Once addressed, this FLC will have my support. In return, do help me at Mullum Malarum's PR. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Kailash29792. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Support: All good to go. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources are all reliable and formatted properly except wiki-link IBN Times first in ref 16 and de-link in subsequent instances. FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved the "IB Times" source now, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Veera Narayana
  • With all due respect to the great Atlee, Mersal never thrills during its run time. Though I see a source supporting your argument, Action film would suffice to be honest.
  • No mention of Qutub-E-Kripa in the credits. Why dear?
  • Indian Express to be wikilinked in ref 6.
  • Rest looks just fine. The image has no issues with its licensing and all, though a more "clear" image would benefit the purpose. However, upon checking the Commons, i don't think so that you can find one. Hence, discounted.

Let me know once you have addressed the comments. Veera Narayana 07:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Veera Narayana. As for the Indian Express one, I've already wikilinked it at ref 4 if you look closely in the references section. I've resolved the rest. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. Didn't notice that. Well, now that my concerns are met, this nomination has my support. Regards, Veera Narayana 05:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • I would say that the film title needs to be in italics in the article title (using the DISPLAYTITLE template)
    • "and Vijay's performances have received" => "and Vijay's performances received"
    • The last three footnotes are not complete sentences, so shouldn't have full stops.
    • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That was quick! Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ChrisTheDude. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this sentence (Mersal features Vijay in triple roles for the first time in his career.), I am a little confused by the last part (for the first time in his career). It implies to me that he would play a triple role in future films, but I do not see that in his filmography list. Also, are triple roles common enough in Indian or Tamil-language films that it is noteworthy to be his "first time" doing so?

That is my only note. Once my comment is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, the sentence also implies that in his 27-year long career as a mainstream actor (in protagonist roles), he has never done this before and he is playing a triple role for the first time through this film, which is considered a significant milestone. I do think it is okay for his filmography list but its your call if I can keep this sentence as it is or remove the "first time" bit.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The sentence still strikes me as odd as it implies to me that he either would go on to do more triple roles or that triple roles are a major trope in this type of cinema. I am not sure if I would consider it a "significant milestone" in his career, in the same way that I wouldn't say something like Lindsay Lohan played twin characters for the first time in The Parent Trap. However, that is probably just my personal preference and I will leave that up to other editors. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, I also wondered about the triple roles bit, but that seems to have been sorted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Hypericum species[edit]

Nominator(s): Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This list has been my pet project for right around two years now, and I have been working on it sporadically. It is an ambitious project to have a comprehensive, helpful, organized, and complete list of a genus 500 species large, of which no other attempt has been made to my knowledge. The genus Hypericum, also known as the St. John's Worts, are perennial herbs, shrubs, and small trees that grow all over the world. They are cultivated for their medicinal and antidepressant properties, as well as their large and colorful flowers. It is divided into 36 sections of varying size, each of which has its own section in the list article. Every species has its binomial authority, distribution, and common names and synonyms listed, and many have range maps and/or illustrative images. I believe this list has greatly progressed from where it started and meets the requirements necessary to make FL. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
There are so many description sections empty.--Lirim | Talk 20:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikilink section (biology) at the top, I was surprised I'd never heard of this term.
  • I'd put the description paragraph before the distribution
  • Link other technical terms like glabrous, decussate, and nothospecies (which should be defined since it's in section headers)
  • When the distribution is an image, it needs alt text.
  • All of the "Description" subheadings are unnecessary. It's obvious what you're talking about and it doesn't need to be separated from the sentence giving the # of species
  • Inconsistency whether the Synonyms column is empty or says "None"
  • The type species are bolded and centered – for accessibility an asterisk or similar is better, leave the formatting the same (the color is enough of a visual cue).
  • Concinna and several others are missing a description.
  • Sect. Coridium is missing a summary and description
  • The only footnote is that H. atomarium is naturalized to Portugal. That could just be in parentheses within the table cell instead.

Reywas92Talk 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • The title at the top should read List of Hypericum species per MOS:ITALICTITLE
  • All tables need scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS
  • All dashes should be en dashes (–) per MOS:DASH
  • Image cols should be centered
  • On top of this, many don't actually have images, so they should have centered en dashes
  • All integers zero through nine should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • I agree with Lirim all these description sections shouldn't be empty
  • Arthrophyllum Jaub. & Spach contains five species – why is it written like this in many instances?
  • Agree with Lirim ALL images need alt text
  • Many links are green, blue, and brown. Also many are just urls

For me there's too many problems right now. I'm sorry but I have to opposeBeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose This list is nowhere near a featured list. Interesting topic, but the list is unfinished.–Lirim | Talk 02:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - multiple empty "description" sections suggest that the article simply isn't finished -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I like lists like these but the structure is overwhelming.
  • I think the species could be one (non-collapsed) table. Just need a column for the Sect/subsect.
  • There is no need for a whole heading and 2 subheadings dedicated to each Sect. There should be a single heading for the details of each Sect, each of which can have a short paragraph within this single heading. This will significantly reduce the page length and the table of contents would be less ridiculous without the hundred subheadings.
  • I would break off all notospecies into a new page called List of Hypericum notospecies which would make the single table suggested for this page much more manageable.

I would be willing to help with this new formatting if you are interested in collaborating. Mattximus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea of breaking off the notospecies and I've started removing the extraneous headings. I think that would at least be a good start, but one table for 500 species? I just think it may be too much... I'd never turn down an offer to help though, and I am committed to getting this list to FL-status just as soon as I can. Thanks to all for all the input and constructive criticism, it'll be put to good use. Thanks again, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It is a long way from featured list sadly, there are sections that are entirely unreferenced for example. Are there 500 species excluding notospecies? Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

List of poker hands[edit]

Nominator(s): Hpesoj00 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article to be of great interest to many readers, and I have no doubt it is referenced by many poker players. I revamped the article approximately two years ago hoping to get it to FLC, but it did not pass because of the low number of reviews (partially because I didn't have the time to make reviews for reciprocation). I certainly believe the article is of high quality, and if it isn't ready to be a FL, I would certainly like to know what needs to be improved (it has already been through peer review in pretty much its current state). Hpesoj00 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The first thing that jumped out me was a "citation needed" tag against a statement - that definitely needs addressing......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I forgot to check back. My only other comments are about a couple of references:
    • What makes codethrowdown.com a reliable source? I would check the content but I am at work and browser security settings have blocked it, which isn't a good sign.....
    • The ref entitled "How many poker hands are there?" lists no work or publisher, however a quick check indicates that it seems to just be some random person';s blog and therefore not a reliable source
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hpesoj00: are you still active? I notice you haven't edited for more than two weeks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Municipalities of Baja California Sur[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm continuing my goal to create an "encyclopedic atlas" by bringing all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (progress can be seen here for those interested). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Basshunter discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

According to sources, it's complete discography of Swedish musician Basshunter. It meets the criteria for a featured list, passed GOCE and received peer review. I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I spent quite much time adjusting every detail of this list. Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The thing that immediately jumps out is that there are a lot of sources missing. Currently the Compilation albums section, the EPs section and the Remixes sections are all completely unsourced. You also need sources for any album or single that didn't chart anywhere. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • How Chris already said, refs, are missing
  • The tables are a mess
  • A discography should look like this: [1]
    • There are examples of FLs with different styles. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the year column
    • There are examples of FLs with year column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The table should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;"
    • Missing only at first table.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Albums need to be listed in italics with in the first column
    • There are examples of FLs with albums listed in second column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Chart position should be in one row
  • It's IFPI DEN, BIP, RMNZ, IFPI AUT, IFPI SWE, IFPI FIN
    • There are examples of FLs which have certifications by country code name. "RMNZ" or "BIP" doesn't says anything to people not faimiliar with the music industry but "NZL" and "UK" are obvious and name of organisations are included in the link. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "—" denotes album that did not chart. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory."
    • In singles table changed "territory" to "country".  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't link CD multiple times
    • It's linked once per section. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • EPs: Label: None "Label: Independent
  • Singles: The title column should be the first and has scopes, the year one the second; Same goes for the other tables
    • As above. There are examples of FLs with different tables. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use all caps in the references
    • I used original records. In certain cases in may be helpfull to find content. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs with authors: Surname, first name
    • It's not sorted in any way and eventally links to Wikipedia article so first name, surname. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For IFPI AUT certs. [2]
  • Sources which are not in English need to be translated with |trans-title=
    • Isn't it violation of WP:OR? Eurohunter (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Added. In two cases I will look for people that know Swedish and French to help. Eurohunter (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All these FLs you mentioned are old. A discography should have the proper modern style. Independent is not a label; Independent record label. WP:OR has nothing to do with what I mentioned. Caps: MOS:CAPS.--Lirim | Talk 13:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • This album also wasn't relesed by independent record label if you mean that. Eurohunter (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did some fixes to the tables and refs: I have some more comments later.--Lirim | Talk 13:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lirim.Z: Why you removed sale based on certifications? You removed even Finland with extact data sales. Eurohunter (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Certifications can't be used to source sales. i'm sorry for removing Finland, I'll add it back later.--Lirim | Talk 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Why they can't be while they are used in singles and album articles? I restored sales in Finland. Eurohunter (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Some more comments
  • it was certified tripe platinum. it was certified triple platinum by IFPI Denmark.
    • Could you provide example? Is name of organisation that important? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • His second studio album LOL released on 28 August 2006[8] charted in the top five in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The album was certified platinum in Finland[10] and double platinum in Denmark.[11] ... LOL was released on .... and charted in the top five of ... . It was later certified platinum by IPFI Finland and double platinum by IFPI Denmark.
  • In the second half of this same year, In late 2006, Basshunter published his third studio album The Old Shit and rereleased The Bassmachine through his website Note: Was this a re-release?
    •  Done If I correctly understand word "re-release" yes. Is release released 3 days after original release a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The album was supported through seven singles including "Now You're Gone", which reached number-one in the UK and Ireland and "All I Ever Wanted", which received similar success in the beforementioned countrys.
  • It also reached platinum in the UK and New Zealand. It was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ).
  • His fifth studio album Bass Generation was released in September 2009 and was supported through two singles. The album reached minor-commercial success in Europe and was certified silver by the BPI. Calling Time his sixth studio album was released four years later and wasn't able to reach the charts in any country. Six singles were released to support the album; two were able to reach the charts; "Saturday" was later certified gold by RMNZ.
    • I don't guess we are here to give a ratings saying album reached "success" or not. Numbers are enough. I added information about silver. Calling Time reched number 25 on US Dance/Electronic Albums. Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I still have comments for the references, but that should be everything for the lead. There is no reason to mention every single released. Only mention what is relevant.—Lirim | Talk 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lirim.Z: Could you let me know what is incorrect with references? Eurohunter (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lirim.Z: I changed parameter publisher to website and supply publisher where is it needed to references so Apple Music has perameter website = Apple Music and publisher = Apple. Is it what you meant? I didn't use Cite magazine because I don't know if these articles were published in paper versions. Eurohunter (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Could you please incorparate my comments for the lead?
    @Lirim.Z: What you mean? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything that is not a website or a newspaper needs to be credited with |pulbisher= and not |work=/|website=
    • I think there is no thing which can be called just a "website". Every reference links to website of organisation, shop, encyclopedia, database, news paper, new agency etc. so I don't know what to do at this point. Question would be what can be called just as "website"? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Every hyphen (-) needs to be changed to en-dashes (–)
  • It's |via=Itunes Store; the publisher is the label; no need to give a language for an itunes ref
    • Did you mean cite AV media notes reference number 21 and 24 which used "via = Apple Music"? I changed them for standard web cite. Eurohunter (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use Discogs as a reference--Lirim | Talk 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Discogs isn't used as reference. Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • en dashes only for refs, not for words which are writen with an hyphen like self-published--Lirim | Talk 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lirim.Z: Done. Why only for references? What is the difference? I used one em dash in case of title like "50-2018". Eurohunter (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Slovenia international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because all the issues from the previous nomination in 2017 were addressed, and the article meets WP:WIAFL criterias. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Prior the Slovenian independence" => "Prior to Slovenian independence"
    • "Shortly after the independence" => "Shortly after independence"
    • "Since 1992, a total of 197 players have represented" => "Since 1992, 197 players have represented"
    • "Only the players with at least ten" => "Only players with at least ten"
    • "Prior debuting for Slovenia in 1992" => "Prior to debuting for Slovenia in 1992"
    • The last three footnotes are not complete sentences so should not have full stops
    • "Represented Yugoslavia prior Slovenian independence" => "Represented Yugoslavia prior to Slovenian independence"
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1983[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There are now 23 FLs of these year-by-year lists of Billboard number one country songs, and a 24th has been open for more than a week, has multiple supports and no outstanding issues, so I thought I would nominate a 25th, and as it's the 25th I thought I would jump to the 25th anniversary year of the Hot Country Songs chart , which began in 1958. Let me know what you think, people........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Just remember: The first column=scopes.
  • Reba McEntire (pictured in 2010) had the first number one of her lengthy and highly successful career. Why do you mention pictured in 2010 for this picture but not for the other ones? What does "lengthy and highly" even mean? Way to vague.
  • Reba's picture isn't the only one where the year is mentioned - Larry Gatlin's also did and I have just added a couple of others. I mention the year when the picture was taken many years either before or after the year the article is about, so as to indicate that the artist didn't look like that in the year in question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • {{abbr|Ref.|References(s)}}
--Lirim | Talk 12:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All other points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportLirim | Talk 23:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For the caption for the lead images, I am confused why Rogers only has the (pictured...) part. I believe Parton should also have that, particularly since it would be helpful for a reader to know when the picture was taken.
  • Do we know when the Thomas picture was taken? It is just odd that every other image has the (pictured...) part except for him. If the date is unknown though, I would understand.

Everything else looks great as usual. Once my two comments/suggestions are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks great as always. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by the Smiths[edit]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that Lennon's list is featured, it's time for my next song list, this time by the English rock band the Smiths. I believed they deserved better than this so here we are. This one was a little more challenging since out of the 74 songs they recorded, maybe 40–50 were singles, so I made separate symbols for regular singles and for B-sides. B-sides I have the compilation album they were released on and what song they were the B-side of. I did this because having both as the same color seemed to overfill the page, which I thought was too much. As always I'm open to any comments or suggestions anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "of which included 70 originals" => "which included 70 originals"
  • "The Smiths' often addressed" - there should not be an apostrophe on Smiths
  • A major query is how you indicate the album against some songs. You list "Oscillate Wildly" as being from "The World Won't Listen", but you list "Shoplifters of the World Unite" as simply "non-album single", even though it was on the same album. You show "Panic" as "non-album single" but with a footnote saying it was later on "The World Won't Listen", which "Shoplifters...." doesn't have. And "Rubber Ring" is shown as being from "The World Won't Listen" but also with a footnote saying it was later released on "The World Won't Listen", which makes no sense. So that's four different inconsistent ways of indicating tracks that are on that album. Similar problems occur with tracks that are on "Hatful of Hollow"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Sorry I've been away but now I'm back. I think I got everything taken care of. I must've missed the times I listed both albums in a note and in the table. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would remove note a. The songs in question were originally on an earlier album, so I don't think you need to note that they were also later on another one......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2
  • "The band formed in Manchester in 1982" — "band was formed".
  • Done
  • Is there any wikilink related to one-off recording contract for readers who might not be aware of its meaning at first?
  • There actually isn't
  • "Despite their chart success, tensions began growing in the band, mainly between Marr and Morrissey and the band's label;" — Could there be a little more explanation as to the cause of this? Just to let readers know.
  • Done. Put it into a note.

Other than that, nothing more to add from me. Neat list though, BeatlesLedTV. Address my comments and thou shall receive my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ssven2 Thanks again for the comments! :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome, BeatlesLedTV. You have my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

List of felids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In a complete break from my usual video game-by-company or scifi award lists, as well as my usual editing, a couple weeks ago I decided to start a new project and build up a taxonomic list article instead. I pulled the data into a file, wrote a program to build wikitables out of it, and here's the result: List of felids, a list of all 41 species in the Felidae family, otherwise known as "cats". I based the format on the relatively recent FLs List of parrots and List of fruit bats, and the taxonomic structure on the thankfully recent IUCN classification update, like our articles (mostly) do. I got some small but positive feedback from people who work more often in the biology area, so I'm hoping that this FLC will be a good proving for what I hope to turn into a series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I love these animal lists! A few thoughts:

  • What is the purpose of the colored boxes? I see the fruit bats list uses them to distinguish the taxonomic levels, but this uses a purple instead of teal for genus, in case they were selected for a reason. I think the framing around the entire table is a bit much and the format at List of cetacean species is a lot cleaner.
  • Now unframed. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Where are the sources for the species table itself? A couple general sources would be fine but they need to be specified. "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" looks like it but mark it somewhere that it's for the whole table and not just the in-line use.
  • Added an explicit heading that calls out the source. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The other articles all have the genus name, describer name/year, and number of species in the same line. You know I'm a fan of consistency, so consider using the same format here.
  • Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "conservation dependent" is a deprecated category, it does not need to be listed in the IUCN key.
  • Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to add additional informational columns? The cetacean list has population and size, and I think both of those would be useful here since many felines are endangered and they represent a range of sizes.
  • Redid columns; added one with size, habitat, and hunting info, and add population counts to the IUCN status column. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Basically the only articles that link here are the others in the Mammal species navbox – not even Felidae links here! You should advertise your fine work by adding links to eg Felis and perhaps Template:Carnivora if there's a good spot on that.
  • I note the above two because this should actually serve a unique purpose – we got by fine without this article before you created it last month. I mean, Felis and Leopardus already have tables with much of the same information, so I'd like to see what can stand out as a definitive resource that clearly passes 3b. Someone just pointed that out on the talk page today, and while a merger to Felidae is certainly feasible (34 species is not that long) for once I'm not going to push for one.

Reywas92Talk 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started on this- I've converted the genus tables to just have a header like the Cetacean list instead of a surrounding color, and added a population column which I've filled with the data present at the IUCN site. It doesn't have data for all species, so I'll look further. The list isn't linked in a lot of other pages because one user dislikes these types of lists and has decided to prove that it is duplicative by removing the seealso links I made and instead add in subsets of this page onto Felidae etc.. I'm not going to argue about it with them unless/until I get a wider consensus. --PresN 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay I see they're now copying your work into the Felidae article and it doesn't look anywhere as good by combining columns. I think either that should be left as it was as bullets, linking to the list, or your list should be merged there. I would be glad to back you up on that because otherwise this wouldn't pass 3b and their table is ugly. Reywas92Talk 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. Jts1882, who is also active in the area, has added some suggestions for reorganization on the talk page which I'm taking up, so the list will be in flux for a bit while I add data into the new columns. --PresN 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Now addressed all of your points, @Reywas92:, so this is ready for another look. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing any further problems, Support Reywas92Talk 23:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I love animal lists so I'm happy you put effort into this but I have two questions. It looks like you excluded all extinct felids despite mentioning at least one (Proailurus) in the lead? I don't think this can be considered a list of felids without including all felids in the list. Also this list appears to be copied in the Felidae page. Is this a duplication issue? Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I excluded extinct felids for two reasons: 1) the other animal lists exclude them (unless they went extinct post-1500CE), so I followed suit 2) extinct species are much more chaotic as to how they are divided into genuses etc.- a lot of time it's just one skeleton someone saw in the 1800s that some minimal research (compared to how much goes into extant species) has put into a category. It didn't seem to fit with the more robust table of extant felids.
As to duplication, see above- one editor disagreed with this list's existence and has tried to inject a table into Felidae to force its merger. It's overwhelming the article a bit in my opinion, and I'm also expanding out this table with additional information at the moment in order to further justify its separation from Felidae. --PresN 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Drive-by comment I realise that you've already been discussing this subject on the article's talk page, but, speaking as your average zoology-ignorant pleb, I had absolutely no clue what "felids" were until I opened the article. I do know what felines are, though. For what it's worth, I think "felines" is the more WP:COMMONNAME and would therefore make this technical article more understandable, but that's really a discussion for editors who have spent more time on the article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors:. To be fair to User:PresN that was the original title and it was changed as a compromise. The problem is that felines is used both broadly for all living cats and more narrowly for subfamily Felinae, exluding the pantherines of subfamily Pantherinae (e.g. lions and tigers). This sets up a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and use of an unambiguous term, although I doubt many people seeing list of felines would be surprised to see lions and tigers included. Perhaps the issue should be reopened.   Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fair enough, it's just that I read "A member of this family is also called a felid or feline" in the lead, and my immediate thought was "Well, why isn't this article called 'List of felines' then, since everyone knows what a feline is?". But, like I say, that's for better-informed editors than me to decide. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2001[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spent the last 10 hours working on this list. Should meet all the FL criteria. Thank you all in advance for your comments.—Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Support - I don't believe you did :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • Thank you. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Giants2008[edit]

  • CommentThe only thing I see that's worth noting is in the first section heading. The second word of "Issue Date" probably shouldn't be capitalized since it's not a proper noun. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Done, thank you.--Lirim | Talk 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1944[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Following two promotions earlier today, there are now 23 FLs for lists of Billboard number one country songs by year, so for the next one I thought I would do something a bit different. This list represents the number one songs from the very first year in which the magazine published a country songs chart, way back in the dark days of the Second World War. At the time the term "country music" had not come into standard usage, but this chart (which began using the term in 1949) is regarded by noted chart historian Joel Whitburn and others as the beginning of the lineage of the current Hot Country Songs chart. As ever, I will respond promptly to any queries or concerns raised. All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
WP:Tables The scopes should be the issue dates in this case
The main issue in this list are the references. All these Google Books references need to be cited with Template:Cite book with page numbers, year, etc...
Lirim | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportLirim | Talk 20:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to get the google books links to go to the actual page rather than a search result list? For example, have ref 13 link to this page rather than this one? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No problem, I didn't know you could do it like that. I'll get that change made over the next day or two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done - didn't actually take that long once I figured out the syntax.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Great. I just think it helps the reader go to the direct page for confirmation. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment SupportI reviewed the list and have only one nit-pick: the ranges in the titles of references 4 and 9 need en dashes. Other than that, the list is in good shape. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Bordering counties and local governments are irrelevant to SSSIs and are not needed here at all but if you're going to insist, they at least should not be the first paragraph. Start with the actual topic of the list.
  • This information has been supplied in many SSSI lists by myself and others and has never previously been objected to. I prefer to stick to the generally accepted format, but I have moved the paragraph as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Banstead Downs duplicates "scrub" and "which"
  • Blackheath: scientific names are italicized
  • Blindley Heath: "a rich flora"
  • OED shows "a rich flora" as correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No other major issues then. Support Reywas92Talk 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
  • I do not believe there should be a full stop for the infobox image caption as it is not a complete sentence.
  • For this part (she became the first person to win four Logie Awards at one event, and the youngest Gold Logie recipient at nineteen), I do not believe the comma after “event” is needed.
  • I have two comments for the image of Olympiapark, Munich. I do not think the image caption should have a full stop because it is not a full sentence. And I would also add ALT text to the image.
  • I have a question about the citation method used for books. I see two methods currently being used in the article. The Smith source includes the page number in the “References” part and links down to the full citation in the “Sources” section, while the Baker/Minogue source has the full citation in the “References” part. I would be consistent with one citation style. It is completely up to you on which way to go.

Wonderful work with the list. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into the list. Minogue has a long career so it means more work on tracking down the references for each award. My comments above are rather nitpicky. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Aoba47. I made some changes per your suggestions above. Let me know what you think. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "released her self-titled debut album, Kylie in 1988" - needs a comma after the title too, to close the subordinate clause
  • "Her subsequent studio albums....were nominated for ARIA Award for Best Female Artist." - firstly it should be "the ARIA Award". But more importantly, if the award is Best Female Artist then it wasn't the albums that were nominated, it was Kylie herself
  • "her duet with rock band Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "Where the Wild Roses Grow" won" - missing closing comma again
  • "which was nominated ARIA Award for Album of the Year." => "which was nominated for the ARIA Award for Album of the Year."
  • "Its lead single, "Can't Get You Out of My Head" garnered" => missing closing comma again
  • "were nominated for Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, winning the latter in 2004" => "were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, the latter winning in 2004"
  • "For her work as songwriter in "Love at First Sight"" - someone can't be a songwriter "in" a song. "For" would be better.
  • "Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked" => "The Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked"
  • "by Australian Recording Industry Association" => "from the Australian Recording Industry Association"
  • "her contribution to the Australian live entertainment" => "her contribution to Australian live entertainment"
  • "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree by Anglia Ruskin University" => "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree from Anglia Ruskin University"
  • "for services to Music" - no reason for capital M here
  • "for contribution to the improving of relations between Britain and Australia" => "for her contribution to improving relations between Britain and Australia"
  • I can just about remember enough of my schoolboy French to know that "Chevalier de Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" should be "Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres"
  • Note b - again, you can't be a songwriter "in" a song. Use "for" instead.
  • Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I fixed everything you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I made one little English grammar fix but am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me. Very impressive article. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Damian Vo (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Eurohunter
  • Why awards name in the plural form? She received one "American Choreography Award" not "American Choreography Awards". Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Many FL cite awards name in plural form ([3], [4], [5]) Damian Vo (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is even "Award" instead of "Category". How is this possible? Eurohunter (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Support – Sorry I completely forgot to support this a while ago. Hard to believe you can be nominated for so many 'best' and 'worst' awards during your career (in some cases for the same thing). I still liked her in "Voyage of the Damned" – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Radio Times's Most Powerful People[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Radio Times's Most Powerful People was a series of listings created by Radio Times from January 2003 to June 2005. I have been working on this list for a while now, and I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • In the first sentence of the TV comedy section, comedy randomly has a capital letter when it doesn't anywhere else
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Gervais, Norton, Lucas and Walliams are not linked in the prose in this section at all. I realise they were all linked in the lead, but standard practice is to link again on the first usage in the body.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Risque is usually spelt with an acute accent on the e.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • TV drama section starts with "Following the success..." - this may be pedantic, but is there any evidence that the previous polls were a success? On what basis were they a success?
  •  Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "As of May 2010, Ross keeps" - I would change "keeps" to "kept" giving that May 2010 was nearly nine years ago.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is no station listed for Chris Evans? As far as I can see from his article, he was broadcasting on Radio 2 at that point.
  • Simply because that's what the sources did ([6] [7]). I'm willing to change this if it's an issue. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough on the last point. Maybe you could add a footnote saying something like "the poll did not identify Evans with a specific station" or something like (better-worded than) that, just because it looks a bit jarring to have it missing for one person....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice one, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (Following the publication of the Most Powerful People in TV Comedy polls, in July 2004 Radio Times), I believe there should be another comma after “2004”.
  •  Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (was the highest new entry and the highest-placed female), I would say “woman” instead of “female”. Something about using “female” as a noun always seems off to me, but it could be a cultural/American v.s. British thing.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any information on why the Radio Times stopped doing these listings?
  • None that I can find, unfortunately. They were never exactly a massive deal; I suspect that they were simply quietly retired. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is what I thought, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves[edit]

Nominator(s): — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Something slightly different than my previous two nominations – one list for two conclaves only two months apart (the John Paul conclaves) and the most recent ones before the advent of the information age. The style and referencing is naturally a bit dissimilar to the other lists. Comments welcome. [PS: Due to personal commitments, I probably won't be nominating any more lists after this one for the time being.] — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • Romano Pontifici eligendo Give a translation in () behind the term.
  • who took the papal name John Paul II I'm not quite sure how the naming of popes works, but shouldn't it be "who was appointed the name John Paul II"?
  • a gigantic part of the article relies on one book by Lentz. It's mentioned 101 times. Are there no other sources usable?

*–'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. Romano Pontifici eligendo is the title (incipit) of a document, not a term. Per convention, these aren't typically translated, except in their corresponding articles.
  2. Popes do choose their own papal names, so no.
  3. Lentz is generally a reliable secondary source for 20th-century cardinals. While there are certainly other sources out there, I found this one to be accessible and adequate for the purposes of the list. The AAS, a primary source, does provide lists of cardinal electors for each conclave (refs 4 and 7), making Lentz by no means the only (or even the main) source on which the list depends, but these do not pertain to the individual cardinals.
@Lirim.Z: See my replies above. Thanks for your comments. — <span style="font-family: 'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">'''[[User:Ravenpuff|<span style="color: #22254a">RAVEN</span><span style="color: #996e00">PVFF</span>]]'''</span> <b>·</b> ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' <b>·</b> 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. You don't need to mention that Puerto Rico is a Insular area. Just say Puerto Rico or US.
  2. West Germany should just be Germany. Officialy it was and still is Germany.
  3. Maurice Michael Otunga article says he was born 31 January. Is this wrong? These sources claim the same: [8] [9] [10]. This needs to be checked.
  4. align="left" is old syntax, it should be style="text-align:left"
  5. All tables should have scopes.
  6. I don't see a reason for the * in the legend. The coloured background is enough
  7. Cardinal electors by continent table: The percentages do not add up to 100 %. Both are 99,1 %.

:: —'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. I think it's still useful to point out that Puerto Rico is part of the US, while denoting that it's not a core part of the country. Simply indicating Puerto Rico would not fit the column header of "Country".
  2. In 1978, there were indeed two Germanys, which are referred to on Wikipedia as West Germany and East Germany (see also List of sovereign states in 1978); this list follows that convention, regardless of the fact that West Germany was the predecessor to the present-day Germany.
  3. Lentz simply states "January 1923" for when Otunga was born, which is confirmed by the Vatican's biography. This may have been converted to 31 January by mistake (perhaps by following the table here). In any case, his actual birth date is probably unknown.
  4. Syntax fixed.
  5. Scopes added (seem to have only been missing from the continent total rows).
  6. See MOS:COLOUR. This is essential for blind or colour-blind users, who have to rely on text-based means to make use of information otherwise conveyed only by colour.
  7. Fixed.
@Lirim.Z: — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a discussion about the political situation of Germany in the Cold War, even though it should be discussed since the West/East is formally wrong, but different topic.....
Support—I don't see any other issues.—Lirim | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • As I have commented previously, I think you should say that the election is by secret ballot. This is far more important than some of the details you do include, such as precedence.
  • Having a separate section for sources is standard Wikipedia practice. In my view it is better than putting them at the top of the references section as you have done.
  • Support. Neither of these criticisms are deal breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. Regarding your comments, after some thought, I've added a brief note about the election process into the lead. The sources have also been moved into a separate sub-section underneath the main references, per MOS:NOTES. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Mexican National Tag Team Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the feature list criteria. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments
    • "contested for by Tag teams only" - shouldn't have a capital T on tag
    • "the lineage began in 1957 when they were by Los Hermanos Shadow" - I think there's a few words missing here??
    • " In December 1995, one-half " - shouldn't be a hyphen here
    • "Los Guerreras was never" - Los Guerreras is plural, surely?
    • "but did not defend them between March 14, 2009, and December 25, 2011, but not since then" - doesn't really make sense. I would suggest simply "but did not defend them after December 25, 2011"
    • "There has been at least 41 championship reigns" - "there were at least...."
    • "Los Metálicos (Oro and Plata) has" - had, not has
    • "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 to uncertain" - that sounds really weird. Maybe "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 for an uncertain length of time"
    • "Uncertain who Espectro" - uncertain whom....
    • This applies in several other places too
    • "Championship vacated when Promo Aztecas" - Promo Azteca (no S)
    • "Atlantis, held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca." => "Atlantis held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca."
    • "Máscara Año 2000, champion with his brother Cien Caras." => "Máscara Año 2000 was champion with his brother Cien Caras."
    • "Héctor Garza (black shirt), one time champion." => "Héctor Garza (black shirt) was a one-time champion."
    • Individual reigns table has a heading of "Team"
    • Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude thank you so much for your input, I have implemented all changes suggested. Please let me know if you see any other issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just had a quick glance and the first paragraph now says "it is generally accepted that the lineage began in 1957 when they were defeated by Los Hermanos Shadow", which still seems to be missing some words..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Dang my reading comprehension skills are way off point today. I believe I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I just spotted one more thing - the wrestler who partnered Octagon in the final champion team is referred to sometimes as La Parka and sometimes as La Parka Jr. His article says that he is known by both names, but you should be consistent within the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
His name was changed shortly after his second championship victory. I refer to him as "La Parka" for anything past the name change, but the first reign still lists him as "La Parka Jr." since that was his name. Added a couple of notes to help, did that clarify it any? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Abolutely. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment the table sorts terribly. And the colspan headers within it sort terribly too (i.e. they bunch up when sorting rendering them pretty much useless). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • So each column sorts by the data there is - for the colspan rows it sorts it as if there is no data except for #. Not sure how else it can sort? the # column resets the whole thing, keeps each row in order as they are numbered to reset. Do you have an example of where a colspan sort works like you had in mind? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well no, the date column (for example) doesn't sort correctly, irrespective of colspan'ed entries. I think there's a real question here, i.e. what benefit does sorting give the reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the date sorting problem, glad you caught that. Sorting allows the user to sort on individual reign length, location etc. if they are interested. It is start of the standard template for professional wrestling championships and part of every PW FL passed. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well those colspanned rows are still sorting badly, so I wouldn't be able to support as-is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing, so please bear with me because I want to make sure this is done right
  • Date - Sorts by date, the "Unknown" bars are grouped together, looks okay t me
  • Event - Sorts alphabetically, the "—" sorts before the "Unknown" bars, looks okay to me
  • Location - Sorts alphabetically, "N/A" and "—" sort differently (one is when it is not known, the other where the data doesn't apply) and again the "unknown" bars are grouped together, looks okay to me
  • Which of these are the problem? On and follow up - what browser are you using and skin? Maybe that's why I am no seeing what you are seeing. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Sorting for real data works now, but those colspanned rows clustering together is unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ':How would you suggest it sorts rows with no data? I don't understand what your "acceptable" state is. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    I would probably make it unsortable. As I asked before, what benefit does it bring with those nasty colspan rows collecting together incorrectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    The entire list? That feela a bit like throwing the babyvoutbwith the bathwater and make thiz FLC inconsistent with every other pw FL in existence. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not really, if it doesn't sort reliably, it shouldn't sort, nor should the others at the other wrestling FLs. It's unprofessional looking and not intuitive to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    So this is the part where we are fundamentally off kilter here - you say it does not sort "reliably", but it does. It is rock steady, consistenty no matter how you sort, you just don't like it it seems. It sorts the column like it would any table where there is an empty cell - why? Because there is no data for date, there is no data for champion, location, show, length etc. so it sorts appropriately and consistently on the "null" value, except if you click on the "#" where it sorts by order. How does it look "unprofessional" that the table sorts "null" as lower than "0"? Because that's basically what's happening. Should tables with blank cells not sort? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, until we can fix the problem of all those rows clustering unprofessionally together, they shouldn't sort. It probably only affects a handful of tables out of millions, and should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    It sorts correctly, I 100% disagree with your assessment and you have not explained how it's "Unprofessional" to sort "null" as "null". If that means you oppose it so be it, I cannot help that. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think our readers will be commensurate with the idea of a "null sorting as a null". They'll just see them all cluster together unprofessionally. It looks junk. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes because sorting that "groups all the things that are alike" is a problem? So here is the thing, you've said "unprofessional" plenty of times, yet not actually explained what is "unprofessional" about the unknown being grouped together when you sort, just repeated the word. Basically it's your subjective opinion being stated, not based on anything factual. The other option to get your support is to make this one championship list inconsistent with all other PW FLs. Not gonna happen. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young classical pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to other FLs of the discographies of other classical artists, including Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography, Oregon Symphony discography, and Kronos Quartet discography, this article has a more engaging lede and is more detailed in terms of the actual lists. This is my second nomination of this list; the first was stalled after an editor expressed concern that #3b of the criteria was violated because the main article was small. It is now more than four times as large as it was when I nominated this list for the first time, with a large bulk of further expansion pending! As such, I hope any concerns of 3b are now alleviated, at the very least... Thank you very much for your consideration in advance, Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • First off, I don't think using Vladimir Horowitz discography is a good template for this because honestly that list is very out of date in terms of discographies (promoted in 2010). It doesn't even have the discography infobox listing all the albums, nor does this one. You honestly need to have that here in this one.
  • Most FL discographies start off with something like "So and so has released __ studio albums, __ compilation albums, etc." Why isn't that here as well?
    • See above.
  • The tables need scope rows on the albums/singles (you have cols but not rows)
    • Argh, will fix asap. Fixed
  • Don't think Discogs is seen as a reliable source (It isn't (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC)
    • I’ll remove minus Removed
  • Trifonov Live should be in its own col like the rest
    • Will fix Fixed
  • Why aren't the album titles anywhere in the first paragraph?
    • Will add them plus Added
  • General question: Why are his albums referred to as 'CDs' when many were released as digital downloads as well? Why not just 'albums'?
    • I’ll look into that I  changed all mentions of "CDs" to albums

All I got so far. Still needs lots of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: THank you for your comments; please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
More comments:
  • Put scope rows on the albums not the years (Lots of discographies don't even have a year col because it already says the year in the details)
    •  Done
  • Separate titles on video releases
    •  Done
  • Move refs to their own col at the end
    • I'm not sure I understand why that is necessary...most discographies have the refs with the album title
  • "The Magics Of Music / The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" – don't need to capitalize 'of'
    • Fixed
  • Why is details in video releases table sortable when every other details section isn't? (hint: unsort it)
    Fixed
  • Continuing from last statement, "The Magics Of Music" and "The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" should be italicized (not in quotes) (see MOS:ITALICTITLE)
    • Fixed
  • Gotta keep date formats consistent
    • Fixed
  • Remove the external link to Discogs (as discussed earlier)
    • Why? It's inappropriate to use it as a source for information, but I think it's fair to use it as an external link.
Still has a ways to go. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks again for comments, and please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: Wanted to follow up; any further concerns? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportLirim | Talk 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick question - how do you differentiate between a studio album and a live album? The second "studio" album says it was recorded at "Concert Hall of the Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg", which clearly isn't a recording studio, and the fact that it was recorded in a concert hall implies that it is in fact a recording of a live concert. Or was it recorded at the concert hall but without an audience and therefore isn't really "live"? Could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: More often that not, concertos for piano and orchestra cannot fit in a normal recording studio. Huge solo instrument, conductor’s podium, 90-100 players in the orchestra... Piano concerto studio recordings are thus usually taken in a concert hall. Acoustically it’s still great, maybe even better, and most major concert halls already have a professional microphone system (which they use frequently for radio broadcasts). For albums of classical music, it’s quite the “norm” to label live recordings as “Live Recording” or “Recorded live at...” because of how different they can be (and always are) from studio recordings Face-smile.svg For instance, his two Rachmaninov concerto albums were also recorded in a concert hall- Verizon Hall in Philly - but watch the trailer, or even see the photo on the back cover of the Variations album - it’s on AllMusic- and you can see that it’s not a live recording. Same case for the Tchaikovsky album. Hope that clears things up! Zingarese talk · contribs 15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That makes perfect sense, thanks. I'll do a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @ChrisTheDude: Wanted to follow up vis-à-vis your full review. Regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 03:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @Zingarese: - humblest apologies, I completely forgot. I am about to log off, but I promise (promise!) I will do it in the next 48 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was of a live recording from a recital" => "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was a live recording of a recital"
    • "such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus" => "such as those of Verbier and Lockenhaus"
    • "as well as Rachmaniana" => "and Rachmaniana"
    • "The first DVD included a documentary which included" - repetition of "included". If the first DVD only has this documentary, I would suggest changing the first "included" to "contained". If it has other stuff, change the second "included" to "featured"
    • "ranked on Billboard Top Classical Album charts" => "ranked on the Billboard Top Classical Album chart"
  • Each album only has a ref against the release date - can you confirm that these refs also support everything else (the recording date and location and the contents)
    • "Format: CD4" - is that a typo? Never heard of a "CD4" before.........
  • Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it merits recognition as a list of high quality. It is modeled on List of Nashville Sounds managers which is a FL. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • This may be a dumb-ass question from someone who isn't hugely familiar with baseball (although I did once throw the opening pitch for the Peoria Chiefs), but it sounds from the second paragraph like bench coach is a pretty damn important role. If that's the case, why has the team never had one before this year? Might be worth clarifying that......
  • What is a "relief corps"?
  • And who are the "staff" that Dabney coached?
  • What is a "roving crosschecker"?
  • Think that's all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've explained the relatively-new-to-baseball bench coach role, reworded jargon from the second two points, and linked "crosschecker" to "Scout (sport)" which sort of explains it.) (A crosschecker is like a scout supervisor. Let me know if you think anything more is needed on these points. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Nice one - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

List of German airplay number-one songs of 2018[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Relatively new list, but I think it meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick question - why does it use "chart week" (a number) rather than the date, as all other chart lists do? If I look at the list and see that, say, "Shotgun" was number one in "week 37", it's really not apparent (without doing a lot of mental arithmetic) when exactly that was...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see now that that is how it shown on the official website. Is there no way of converting a week number to a date? I look at "week 37" and think "ah, so George Ezra got to number 1 in September....no, wait, October.....or was it September...?"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: It seems that the charts are published simultaneously with the single and album charts each friday. I compared other sources who give accurate dates and it matches with the official dates. [12] [13] or [14] [15]. The problem is that sources which show specific dates don't have proper archives. I could change the calender weeks to the dates, based of the official charts.--Lirim | Talk 14:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it going to be possible to do it without needing OR....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from MaranoFan
  • There's a typo in the opening sentence and "broadcastet" should be changed to just "broadcast" (preferred) or "broadcasted".
  • "Lost Frequencies' & Zonderling's "Crazy", dethroned P!nk after her two-week reign and topped it for five consecutive weeks" -- The comma after the song name is unnecessary, optional but I would also try to remove the excess repetition of the word "it" in this area.
  • "The number-one single of the year was "Flames" by French DJ David Guetta and Australian singer Sia." -- This sentence is a bit confusing since the phrase "number one single of the year" is vague. I'd give preference to "best-performing single of 2018" as you've done for the key.

Good job with this article!--NØ 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Done. Thank you very much for your comments.--Lirim | Talk 20:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Great list overall!--NØ 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Further comments from me
    • "In 2018, 19 different songs by 18 different artists reached the top" - I count way more than 18 artists here. Presumably this refers to only the "lead" artist? If so, that needs to be made clearer. Also, how are you counting instance like Lost Frequencies & Zonderling or Liam Payne & Rita Ora, where there doesn't seem to be a clear "lead" artist?
    • "first number-one of the year" - don't need the hyphen there
    • " "Flames", released in March,[4] reached the top in the 19th week" - need to say who it was by (I know it's in the image caption, but it should be in the prose too)
    • "Namika's "Je ne parle pas français (Beatgees Remix)", featuring Black M, was the only German and French song atop the chart in 2018" - could do with a source for the German element (the French element is obvious from the title)
    • "The year concluded with Ava Max "Sweet but Psycho"" => Ava Max' "Sweet but Psycho" (or "Sweet but Psycho" by Ava Max)
    • Neither entry in the key is a complete sentence, so remove the full stops
    • As the table is sortable, I would link artists and songs that appear more than once every time they appear, as the linked instance might not always be the first
    • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done and i checked System description of the BVMI again and apparently charts are always conducted between fridays and thursday and published the following friday. This means that the airplay issue dates are the same as the official single/album ones. i'm gonna to change it.--Lirim | Talk 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Have your concerns been adequately addressed?--Lirim | Talk 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely forgot about this one. My only issue is that you still don't have artists who appear in the list multiple times linked each time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Should be fixed now, unless I'm blind.--Lirim | Talk 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of minor changes but now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Questions regarding notability. The German airplay chart is severely lacking any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, so what makes reaching number one on it significant? This only seems to review what occurred on the charts during the year, and the only sources seem to be the charts themselves, meaning there's really no difference between what's number one on the chart or number 99, they're are just one song on the chart along with 98 others. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Airplay charts are one of the oldest official charts in Germany. Since 1989, airplay plays an immense role for the weekly single charts. 27% of music consumption in Germany is through radio. There are sources and I'm definitely going to work on German airplay chart later on.--Lirim | Talk 01:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Lists of number ones of the weekly singles charts make sense because it compiles from 100% of music consumption and songs often receive independent coverage when it reaches number one on the main chart. When a song reaches number one on this chart, is it significant, and if so, where is it discussed in independent reliable sources? To me, this is just having a list for list's sake because they are easy to do. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: For e.x. [16][17][18][19][20].--Lirim | Talk 13:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for those Lirim.Z, although two of the links were the same. I'm just disappointed these featured lists of number one songs don't incorporate references more like these into the prose, rather than x number of songs reached number one this year, with such and such being the first, then this one, and then this one which stayed at number one for y number of weeks. If that's the criteria for featured lists, so be it, but I would want more than just music chart trivia and a summary of what songs reached number one, when and for how long. Nothing against the writing and effort done to put these together, but such lists are very cookie cutter and don't tell me anything that the list itself doesn't already tell me. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I added more independent sources to the lead and two numbers of plays in evaluated stations. For whatever reason, they didn't publish any numbers for the number one song.--Lirim | Talk 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, please note that per Help:Tables, use of "scope" in tables is not designed to provide/add emphasis to a certain row or column but to distinguish the top row or the first column from the rest of the information listed. This should be fixed. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done.--Lirim | Talk 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Have your concerns been adequately addressed? Lirim | Talk 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
They appear to be addressed but if this is all that it takes to meet featured list status, the criteria is rather flimsy. Not meant as a slight to the amount of work you put into it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Great list overall. These are of triviality, but some of my concerns are:

  • Lacking retrieval date for ref#5
  • Germancharts.de should not be italicised since it's a non-print source
  • Lacking work/publisher for ref #2

(talk) 01:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @: Done and Germancharts.de is in italics, because the template cite web does this through the |website= parameter.--Lirim | Talk 02:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This list covers the torpedo cruisers built for the Italian Royal Navy in the 1870s-1890s - the ships had relatively uneventful careers (largely a result of the fact that they were built during a relatively peaceful period, and they were no longer front-line ships by the time Italy fought in the Italo-Turkish War and the First World War in the 1910s). I wrote the list last year and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (link here if you're interested). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

  • All pictures need a year in the text
    • I've added years where they're generally known, but all but one are approximations and the rest aren't known.
  • The lead needs references
    • No it doesn't, it's all repeated in the body, where the material is cited.
  • Other than that I don't see any problems. I don't know much about torpedo cruisers, but I think this article is written great and understable for people who don't know much.--Lirim | Talk 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • "laid down in 1875, and was one of the first torpedo cruisers built by any navy" - source for that (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body)...?
    • Good catch, added a line on her being one of the first torpedo cruisers to the body
  • In the Pietro Micca section, do the two refs right at the end support everything from "By the 1870s" onwards?
    • Yes
  • In the Tripoli section, do the two refs at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
    • Yes
  • In the Goito section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
    • Yes
  • Did the Folgore class actually have no armour, or is the info simply not known?
    • Yes, no armor
  • In the Partenope section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
    • Yes
  • In the Argodat section, my maths teachers always told me that a 0 should always be placed before the decimal point for a number below 1, so ".8" should be "0.8"
    • This may be a UK/US thing

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The decimal point with no 0 still looks inherently wrong to me, but if it's simply another thing that's down to the ocean between us then so be it ;-) Support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • As it turns out, this came up in another review, and per WP:DECIMAL, the leading zero is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Consider linking displacement, laid down and commissioned in the first header.
    • In the table? I think the MoS discourages linking bold text - but I've added a link to keel laying in the lead (and the other two are linked in the table key
      • Huh, I've been using links in the ship tables in class articles for a couple of years now and nobody's complained, although I don't know how recently I sent one of them to FAC. Good enough for me though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Link knot on first use, register, gunfire support
  • By analogy to the Queen song, shouldn't it be "flat-bottomed hull"?
    • Good point
  • Partenope class spent much of its career BritEng?
    • No, that's AmEng - it'd be BritEng to say the "class spent much of their careers"
      • I think you've got that backwards 'cause I wanna say "their" and "its" reads very strangely to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agordat became a gunboat without any guns?
    • They had guns, just not the 4.7-inch guns of the earlier classes - I kept the light guns out of the tables to keep things from getting too cluttered.
  • Fix the missing ampersands in the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This list seems comprehensive and is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • towards the end of the lead, could you add something about what type of ship replaced the torpedo cruisers in Italian service?
    • Good idea
  • is it worth listing the 4.7 in gun on Tripoli given it is mentioned on Confienza and the Partenopes?
    • Yes indeed
  • the service dates for Montebello don't match her article
    • Wonder what I was looking at
  • same for Monzambano, I think they might have been swapped somehow?
    • Must have been
  • the sources all appear reliable and of high quality and what you would expect to see for ships of this vintage, the formatting is up-to-scratch. No spotchecks done, as the nominator has a long history at FLC.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - have I addressed your comments satisfactorily? Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt, Nate. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • Is it me or are there a lot of imperial/US units who are primary units in the article? Oughtn't metric units be the primary?
    • I don't see why - was Italy on the metric system at the time? That the armor thicknesses are measured in obviously imperial units and not metric (for at least the first several designs - which is to say, a half-inch or three-quarter inch thickness is more obvious than 13 or 19mm, which seem rather arbitrary), which suggests the ships were designed with imperial units. Of course, it could be a rounding issue in the source, but then I don't know that I want to reverse convert from the rounded number without knowing what the actual figures are.
  • @Parsecboy: This book [21] claims (p. 8) it was and started in 1861 probably due the establishment of Italy. The City of Milan even used metric as early as 1803 probably by Napoleon. So I guess yes it was. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I see - but that still leaves the question of accuracy and rounding to be addressed. I would hazard a guess that the decks weren't exactly half an inch (i.e., 12.7mm), and that Gardiner simply rounded the figures, but that raises the question of how much and in what direction did he do the rounding? Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: Doesn't the sources say that about the accuracies of the ships? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, and the problem is, whatever sources the author used for the ships presumably were in metric, so they'd have had to have converted them to imperial. If we then convert back to metric from the rounded conversions, we'll likely end up playing the telephone game. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the ISBNs have hyphens?
    • You can do it either way, but whatever way you choose should be standardized.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Newbery Medal[edit]

Nominator(s): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a preeminent children's literature award. I have modeled parts of my work on this list on the Aurealis Award for best young adult novel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, a book award list (I did the Hugo/Nebula/World Fantasy lists at #Literature and theatre). Not going to do a full review yet, but here's some quick comments from a skim:
  • Single-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; a paragraph should have at least some flow to it.
  • "is given to the winning author at the next ALA annual conference" - ...the next? You didn't way when it's announced, so when would "next" be?
  • The lead seems not to be covering a good chunk of the "history" section; it reads like a (slim) intro to a table-only list, but then there's a good section on history that means that it should be a real lead? In any case, it feels slim- compare to Hugo Award for Best Novel, which has a more substantial lead for an objectively less important award.
  • The table has the winner/nominee in a column titled "Citation". I think it's just the column title is wrong, assuming that the whole table is cited to the reference tagged on the heading.
  • The table needs colscopes and rowscopes so that it can be parsed by non-visual browsers or text-based browsers; see MOS:DTAB or copy out of that Hugo list I linked.
--PresN 07:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Responding in order:
  • I did some rearranging and incorporated those sentences into existing paragraphs
  • While this was present in the text I have inserted the timing of the selection into the LEAD
  • I have incorporated some more information from the history section into the LEAD such that I hope it better complies with MOS:LEADREL
  • Citation is frequently used in this context - it was given the Newbery Medal citation but for clarity I have changed the column header.
  • I have attempted to fix this. This is new for me so please let me know if I did something wrong.
Thanks PresN for your early comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@PresN: Do you have any further comments or feedback? I"d love to get your support if you feel it merits it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had this on my watchlist for a while, I'm glad to see it expanded.

  • "masters and doctoral theses are written on them" (should be master's) is a rather specific yet broad statement. It could be something along the lines "they are written about in academic writings" to be more general and not just copy the source.
  • "fifteen person" needs a hyphen, as does "ex president", as does "then ALSC President"
  • Missing period after unanimous.
  • "first winner of two Newberys" -> a second Newbery
  • space in "year,with"
  • given to the "author of... does not have a closing quotation mark
  • The image of Melcher should be in the section that discusses him
  • ellipses do not need spaces on either side
  • Several books that start with "The" do no sort correctly
  • Would be worth having a small table with the multiple winners/honorees

Just a start, that's enough problems I may have missed some. Reywas92Talk 00:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

All done except the last one. I started doing that and quickly found it wasn't such a small table. If the feeling is that it should be done, I will happily do it but ending up removing the whole multiple winners section as more TRIVIA than encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It could certainly be limited to 2+ wins/3+ honors or whatever combination you think would keep it to an appropriate size, but I think it's relevant to point out the most prolific authors besides just the several we have a license-free photo of. Stuff like that is what makes Wikipedia more useful than just directing folks to the source for the bare list. Reywas92Talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I will work on the table. In the interests of disclosure I have not included all the authors for whom we have license-free photo because it seemed at a certain point it was "another person." If in the interests of completeness you/others think we should include all, I will add in the authors for whom I have skipped (I looked at every medal winning author; have not done so for all honor authors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean including all images? No, the current gallery is fine, I was just commenting that most of the pictures were of multiple winners and that was the only place where such status was mentioned, but there are plenty of photos already. The table looks terrific! Linking to the books is above and beyond, just leave a note in the text above that since readers wouldn't assume that's what's linked from the year. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made a multiple winners table. I am still skeptical about this as I don't notice any such table in any other Featured List. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen it done somewhere before, though to again use my own lists as an example, the Hugo/Nebula etc. lists just list the notable multi-winners or multi-nominees in prose in the lead, like "A has won 5 awards, the most of any author, out of 8 nominations; B and C have won 3 times out of 4 and 6 nominations, respectively. 7 other authors have won twice.", or something like that. Might be difficult to do with this table, though, depending on how detailed you want to get. --PresN 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Lead: five.To → space
  • Beverly Cleary image missing alt text
  • Combine years into one box, ex. only one 2014 instead of five.
  • Whole second table should be centered
  • Keep dates consistent (some are Month Day, Year, others are YYYY-MM-DD)
  • Random double comma in ref 4
  • Ref 10: p. vii → p. 7
  • Add date of publishing for refs 12, 13, & 14 (June 3, 2016 for all)
  • I'd personally archive all the website references

Looks good to me otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions except if I combined the 5 into one box it would make the sorting feature much less useful. I think the current format serves readers better. I've changed Ref 10 but since I took that citation from the John Newbery article and haven't seen the source myself, I am assuming you know that it really should be p. 7 and not vii. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sortable tables can actually deal with cells spanning multiple rows now, it just splits it apart with a different sort. I just did a bunch to see how it would look (easy in visual editor) and it's much less cluttered. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reywas92 for doing that. It actually looks better visually when they're all merged and besides, sorting does fix itself. Having every year in every row makes it more cluttered so it's confusing to the reader, especially me when I was crafting my comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks much better now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Source review from Aoba47 (Passed)

Great work with this list. I just have a few questions/comments:

  • There are a few inconsistencies with the date formats in the references. For instance, Reference 19 uses Month Day Year and Year Month Day. Would it be preferable to use the American formatting for all of the days (i.e. Month Day Year) as this is an American award?
  • For the The Newbery & Caldecott Awards : a guide to the medal and honor books source, is there any reason why the subtitle does not have any capitalization?
  • The references used in this sentence (The Newbery was proposed by Frederic G. Melcher in 1921, making it the first children's book award in the world.) should be in numeric order (i.e. reference 3 before reference 4). Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do a source review Aoba47. I have fixed the subtitle and ref order. I fixed source 19. In general I use VE for content creation so try to default to its Year-Month-Day format. I just looked over the list and dind't see any further issues like that, but bibliographic details have never been my strength (just ask my 6th grade social studies teacher). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I am pretty terrible with keeping all of the bibliographic details in oder. You can ask my English professors about that lol. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is the name of the award the Newbery or the John Newbery medal? I would expect the intro and the name of the article to be consistent.
  • Is there just one medal or does each recipient get to keep a carbon copy?
  • And the medal is it, no monetary value?
  • Doesn't Publishers Weekly have an article?
  • You refer to Caldecott as both "Medal" and "Award" interchangeably, isn't it just Medal per the article?
  • "five books named a Newbery Honor " either add "each" or make it "named Newbery Honors".
  • Avoid using the hash/pound symbol to mean "Number" (per MOS:HASH).
  • "of Total ..." -> "Total number of ..."
  • I don't like the easter egg links in the summary table, particularly as to the reader, the same year links to different book articles, and some not linked at all because those book article don't exist at all.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review The Rambling Man. I'll address your thoughts in order:
  • The full name is the John Newbery. Everyone, including the awarding organizations, shortens it in nearly all contexts to just Newbery. Changed MOS:FIRST to reflect this.
  • Each gets a copy. Noted this w/citation.
  • No monetary value.
  • Fixed.
  • So the Newbery Medal refers to the winning book. Newbery Honor refers to runner-ups. The Newbery Award refers to both. I think I did this distinction correctly throughout but it's possible I missed the mark somewhere. The same nomenclature is true for the Caldecott - this is reflected correctly in the article.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • I don't like that whole table, which I added as suggested above, and don't think it should exist. But I removed the links.
Thanks again. Please let me know if you have other suggestions to improve this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Very nice improvements, just one more thing, citation date formats seem to be mildly inconsistent, Ref 3 (for example) has an mdy publication date while the others are the horrendous ISO format. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Fixed. I too don't like the format but since it's what VE defaults to and I do like writing major content with VE it's what I end up defaulting to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Okeydokes, I could easily reformat it all to human-readable MDY if you prefer, but no worries really, as long as it's consistent, which is what MOS demands. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:shrug: I like to do MOS stuff right because I'm a rules follower but have no real passion for it. I only work to keep what I write in ISO (which I couldn't have even told you was its name) so that when I'm adding content to it with VE I don't have to change the source dates it generates automatically knowing that MOS prizes consistency. Since this article likely won't have major future expansion, absent a whole bunch of new sources being written, if we consistently changed it to something better that's fine with me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. I support this nomination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Giants2008 Sorry this is my first FL. Do I need to do the 4 steps at WP:FLC/ar or is that done by a director/coordinator? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Man'yōshū poets[edit]

Nominator(s): Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It feature professional standards of writing, its lead clearly defines the inclusion criteria, layout and style, etc., it is comprehensive in that it includes every single poet with an entry identifying them as the writer of a poem in Nakanishi Susumu's authoritative Man'yōshū Jiten. It is structured in English alphabetical order with alphabetic section headings, and the layout/organization style was checked by a number of other editors when I requested assistance in formatting it, it complies (as far as I am aware) with all MOS guidelines, and is about as stable as could be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment - the lead definitely needs a lot of work. Lists shouldn't start "This is a list...." and the lead should be much longer than five sentences. At the moment the lead is basically a key written in prose form. I would expect to see two or three paragraphs giving much more background/context on what the Man'yōshū is, information on the most prominent poets, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I've done a bit of work in giving a brief outline of the anthology and its most prominent poets (as determined by Donald Keene, who gives multi-page bios and critiques of the poetry of those poets he considers noteworthy). I had been assuming linking to our Man'yōshū article would be sufficient for this purpose, but it is in a rather sorry state I'll admit. I might have misinterpreted your second sentence in outright removing "This is a list..." despite having already added extensive commentary above that so it was no longer the "start". Your opinion on the new content would also be much appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll give it a proper review later when I have a bit more time, but the lead looks immeasurably better now. Re: your point about simply linking to the main article, in essence each article should stand alone, so a reader shouldn't have to leave this article to get the background/context of what it's about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I really think this list would look better in a table format, the way it looks now in columns is very confusing and messy. Also try to avoid "in the following list " as stated above. An alternative would be "Numbers are assigned to...". Also the prose needs a bit of work, it's a bit clunky in places, but that will have to wait a full review. Mattximus (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I'll get working on your prose/wording suggestions shortly. As for the table thing, I'm amenable to that, but it seems like a pretty big project and so I'd rather wait for more people to weigh in before starting to implement it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus: See my response to BeatlesLedTV below. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Opinion from BeatlesLedTV

I agree with Mattximus, I think the list would look better in a table. Right now, the list looks odd because K's are right next to O's and so on. Just make a table format with their name, maybe birth and death year (if applicable) or KKTK number(s), notes, and a ref col then you'd be good to go. Make sure they have scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB). Also, are their any pictures you can add? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Okay, two is enough, so I'll start implementing it now. It's my first time, so if you see anything I'm doing wrong please don't hesitate to tell me. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88 Make sure you have scope rows in the name col. Also, make the note and ref cols unsortable. And shorten "Reference(s)" to just "Ref(s)" BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: I think I've done most of it all right, but I'm not entirely sure what "scope rows" are. I may have accidentally done so, but I somehow doubt it; but I've definitely done the rest and if you can clarify what I should do regarding the scope cols I'd be happy to do so, even if I've accidentally made more work for myself by doing everything else before checking. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid in my opinion it doesn't meet the FL criteria, failing 5a, specifically a minimal proportion of items are redlinked., I would guess that 75 to 80% of the items listed are redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: It is my intention that English Wikipedia will ultimately have articles on all the poets listed here, since every single poem in the MYS has been subjected to a high degree of scholarly scrutiny, and so even those poets whose biographies are unknown to us could still have good articles written about their work (and they definitely all meet GNG). However, would you prefer that in the short term I address your concern by unlinking all the entries that don't already have articles? Technically it is not a criterion for FL that the linked articles already exist (and it's certainly not a criterion that entries actually have articles, or even theoretically meet GNG), just that the list be visually appealing, so unlinking all of them in the short term would definitely solve that. However, it's pretty subjective -- you're not the first person to tell me you think my redlinks are not visually appealing, but I don't personally agree (I personally find them neither attractive nor ugly) -- so I'd rather not move ahead on that unless I'm certain you'd support this promotion if I did so. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I would rather wait until you have created the majority of the articles before nominating this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait, you think I should write the majority of 500 articles on mostly obscure historical figures before nominating a list of said figures? That's not actually one of the FL criteria... Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If each of them are notable then yes, that's my personal opinion. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There may be no deadline, but I've gone to a lot of effort to make this list meet the FL criteria specifically as they already exist, and while I would like to create all those hundreds of articles eventually, I really would rather not see this nomination fail in the short term because the list doesn't meet a separate unwritten criterion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it's just my opinion as a reviewer. If indeed each entry is notable then they should be linked. If there are too many redlinks, it fails the criterion. That's just how it is as far as I'm concerned. And your work has not been wasted in any sense, simply a case of creating the majority of the redlinked articles and you no longer fall foul of that criterion. Unlinking them is, in my opinion, inappropriate and tantamount to gaming the FLC process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but the criterion actually just refers to the visual presentation of the list, not whether it should be failed because there are too many entries on the list that meet the notability criteria but don't have articles yet. The redlink issue could be dealt with very simply by unlinking the entries that don't have articles yet, but I don't agree that the redlinks are ugly so I don't want to do that unless I think doing so will change your opinion on whether the list should pass. The majority of entries must have standalone articles" is not one of the criteria, and the criterion you have been citing refers exclusively to unattractive presentation of a large number of redlinks; removing the redlinks until the articles are created would not be "gaming the FLC process" at all. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. If we think these are notable individuals, they should be linked. I'm sure others will have different opinions, but I cannot support this list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage sites in Malta[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
  • "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
  • Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
  • "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
  • "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
  • Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
  • I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dudley Miles has Tone fixed your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Further comments
  • "between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" It would be better to say "during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" as in the source.
  • "were likely important ritual focus of a highly organized society" This is ungrammatical.
  • "dating back to the Antiquity" This is both ungrammatical and vague.
  • "transformed into a purely military outpost" This is an exaggeration. The citation mentions non-military structures, including the cathedral. It would be worth mentioning that the citation emphasises archaeological deposits and Baroque architecture.
  • "Series of catacomb complexes, developed from simple Phoenician and Hellenistic rock-cut tombs to more complex types in Roman Empire." This is misleading. If I read the citation correctly, the site is late Roman and Byzantine (mid 3rd to 7th century).
  • I have checked a selection of citations. The article is improved but still some way off FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: Checked. Thanks for the eagle-eye reading :) I reworded some parts. The "purely military outpost" is from the source but I added a mention of the cathedral, makes sense. Ready for the next review, I think. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking through this again I still find issues:

  • "was again discovered in 1902". "again" implies previous discovery, which is incorrect.
  • "Pottery and stone and clay amulets". This is ambiguous. Maybe "Pottery vessels and stone and clay amulets"
  • "including The Sleeping Lady". This will mean nothing to readers and needs a few words of explanation.
  • "among the oldest free-standing structures in the world" This should be oldest stone free-standing structures.
  • "Malta was recording seven such sites on its tentative list". This is an odd construction. How about "Malta had seven sites on its tentative list"
  • I have not checked the tentative sites but the details are excessively brief considering that there are only ten in total. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I follow the example of previous FLs where more attention is on the sites and less on the tentative ones. See Croatia for example. --Tone 18:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The details on tentative sites in Croatia are grammatical. The Malta ones are an odd mixture with the first sentence not grammatical and succeeding ones grammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

  1. Why is it once "UNESCO data" and in the other table "UNESCO criteria"?
  2. Are there any other sources? Literally the entire article is sourced through UNESCO sources. An article should incorperate sources by different authors.
Lirim | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lirim.Z: Regarding the data and criteria, this is a style we have decided to use for these lists. Tentative lists often get renominated or modified while the WHS have their fixed numbers. This is why we don't have the serial number on the tentative list. As for the sources, I see your point. However, the unesco pages are considered reliable and the most accurate sources one can get on the topic - I often consider including more information in the description but ultimately stay with what is there in the nomination. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Only using one publisher to cite this article fails: WP:FLCR Comprehensiveness.--Lirim | Talk 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lirim.Z: You're right. I added two more non-UNESCO sources. Does that work? --Tone 20:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support— No other issues in my opinion.Lirim | Talk 23:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tone: Do you plan to continue with this nomination? --PresN 19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was waiting to see if there were more comments to address them in a single editing session. I think I can get it fixed by next week, does that work? --Tone 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Tone I guess "next week" is now "last week", what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
We had another round of comments, I fixed all that was found to be missing. --Tone 16:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Just checking in as nobody had responded to your question. No problem, I can probably take a look at it myself tomorrow? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I have source checked the WH sites and they needed substantial changes but I am happy with them now. I have not source checked the tentative sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lonsdale Belt[edit]

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z[edit]

Question

Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.--Lirim | Talk 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lirim.Z, i don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: Guys, can you clear this up?--Lirim | Talk 08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. --PresN 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

General

  • The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
  • assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
  • In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done

References

  • Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
  • Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
  • Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
  • Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.
--Lirim | Talk 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Some more comments
  • Sorry for the late answer
  1. The lead should be bigger. It needs to tell something about the history and the winners. It's not enough to mention who introduced it and who was the first champion. - done, but didn't want to add too much that i repeat myself. Feel it's important the article sticks to telling the belts's story. Don't want to waffle.
  2. The champion column should be the first in all tables - done
  3. All tables should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" and all champions given with scopes (! scope="row"|) - done
Lirim | Talk 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Response[edit]
Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Okeeffemarc are you still active, it appears you haven't edited for two months? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I am still active, will be updating current champion tables today. Have been quite busy at work recently and am waiting on the conclusion of this process too.

kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I'll do a review of the list in due course, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to waste my time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude

In a last-gasp bid to spring this one to life....

  • At only five sentences, the lead is too short and needs expanding - done, but as said above, didn't want to add so much that i repeat myself
  • No need for the "main article" links to NSC and BBFC as they are linked in the prose immediately afterwads - done
  • "A 9-carat or 22-carat gold belt composed of two heavy chains with a central enamel medallion depicting a boxing match;" - this is a not a complete clause - sorted
  • "In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year." - spot the issue ;-) - sorted
  • "who continue to make the belts as of 2018," - sentence randomly ends with a comma - sorted
  • Don't use grey text in the current holders table - sorted
  • The big block quote references someone called Smith, but there is no indication who he/she is - sorted
  • "One first of the belts" - makes no sense - sorted
  • "they all were all sold together." - don't need two "alls" - sorted
  • Theft section should be converted into prose - done
  • The info on three-time, two-time and one-time winners should be merged into one table. Multi-time winners would appear more than once, with a symbol/colour to indicate second/third wins - done, looks much better!
  • No need for "See also" link to Championship belt as it is already linked in the text - done
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude andLirim.Z apologies have been very busy at work lately. Could you please bear with me till the end of next weekend? i will work on the changes then. Many thanks for your helpful tips. kind regards - Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Okeeffemarc:, good to see you back. Ping me when you have made the changes as I probably won't remember to check back otherwise..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: and @Lirim.Z:, ive finally had time to go through all the points/suggestions you made. I believe i have addressed them all now. The article certainly looks much better for it. It's amazing what a different pair of eyes can notice! Thanks for your patience. Kind regards -- Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WRT the outright winners table, I was more thinking that you'd have multi-time winners listed multiple times, with colour/symbol to highlight the second/third wins, so Henry Cooper would appear three times. As it is, the table gives no indication of when he won his first or second belts, and using this methodology if a boxer currently with one belt to his name won a second, the first would disappear? Also, I still think the lead is too short and could do with beefing up a bit, also a seven sentence lead really shouldn't be broken up into four paragraphs, two of them only being one sentence long..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: You're right, in my head the reference link would explain, but just adding the individual outright wins makes more sense, so done. I have beefed up the lead, now only 2 paragraphs, covering every part of the article. Hope this is better?

Kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support — I fixed the table and some CS1 errors and now I'm happy to support. Great article.--Lirim | Talk 06:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

Periodic table (detailed cells)[edit]

This was nominated for removal back in 2008 and I don't believe it meets today's FLC expectations, if it even did then. The lead is fairly short with little background about the table, just pointing out some features of the table and the difference in the two layouts, both of which are just transcluded templates. But more importantly, this fails 3c, since it simply duplicates the table already at the FA Periodic table. The only difference is that this supposedly "detailed" version gives the atomic mass twice, in rounded and non-rounded formats. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Half of the citations are broken, too. The short citations with the anchor "IUPAC 2016" don't point to any long citation with the same. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Glee (season 1)[edit]

Notified: Frickative, CycloneGu, Glee task force

At over 115KB in size, this article satisfies the criteria of a Featured Article rather than a Featured List. I was puzzled why this was considered to be a "List" in the first place. The content appears to be in good shape, so I'm primarily concern with its status as a Featured "List". Looking forward to comments on this issue, (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep This could easily be a FA, but it meets all the criteria for a FL. More than 50 % of the article are lists. There is no reason to delist.--Lirim | Talk 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep can't see any issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Close without FLRC On second thoughts this qualifies as a list more than an article. The quality still satisfies the criteria of a Featured List. I hope moderators can close this without removal of Featured status. Thanks, (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

List of state and union territory capitals in India[edit]

Notified: Vensatry, Crzycheetah, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject India

A lot has changed since the FL check in 2012. Entire key table has been removed which was better formatted. Nagpur is entirely missing from the article. Until recently Naya Raipur was being listed as the capital of Chhattisgarh (till I fixed it to Raipur). The notes have all been altered completely. Also, significant developments have happened since then: creation of the new state Telangana; new capitals Naya Raipur, Amravati, Dharamshala.

Keeping all of this in view, the list definitely needs a review on its FL status. Gotitbro (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist This list is a mess. The lead has only two references and is to short. How Gotitbro already said, the list is outdated.—21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist In it's present state, it is a mess. There is a note from the table in the lead for some reason? The dates are a bit strange, because for example, it lists the former capital of Assam to be before the state of Assam was created. If it's a capital of a country before India, then wouldn't it be consistent to do this to other states? Very messy. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delist the lead is very weak but the rest of the article appears to be just about satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – Lead is too short and it has almost no references to back anything up. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

List of heads of government of the Central African Republic[edit]

Notified: Nishkid64, WikiProject Africa

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criteria 2 of the criteria and has not been updated at the same level of previous entries. Tropicanan (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tropicanan: you left the "notifications" section with the examples - did you notify anyone/should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Tropicanan (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – clearly no longer an FL. It was promoted in 2008 and it shows. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It may need a copy-edit here and there, but overall, it looks good to me. It doesn't matter what year it was promoted.--Cheetah (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist whoa, almost the entire lead is completely unsourced, this would take quite a bit of effort to bring up to featured standard. Mattximus (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Clear delist referencing and WP:ACCESS problems are obvious at even the quickest of glances. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Agatha Christie bibliography[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer represents out best work. The addition of new sections since it became an FL are unsourced, as is much of the other new material added. SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @SchroCat: Could you please be more specific about the problems you perceive, as I am not seeing them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Focusing on "better" v "worse" is a false dichotomy. The previous version of the page had less information on it, but that information was on a separate page. The project as a whole contained all the same information, so we had two pages with specific purposes. This page contained books and scripts, not short stories. That doesn't make it "worse", it means that the perameters of the page were changed when two 'specialist' pages were combined to one larger page. We now have a section that is inconsistent in the way it deals with the sourcing of the new information. The use of the secondary source is needed to show that there were no previous versions published elsewhere, and (as is often a problem with short story collections) that the actual first edition claimed contained those actual stories, not that a new edition by a secondary publisher has been mistakenly added with changed contents.
As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It took me far longer than I'd anticipated for the book I need to arrive, but it is now here, so I expect to get to this in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's great. If there is anything you'd like my input from or assistance with, please let me know - I'd be happy to chip in, as and when. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat any update on your feelings here, now we're around two and a half weeks down the road? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi RM, I'm happy to leave this open a little while longer as Brad has the info needed. I wouldn't want to see this delisted then have to go back through FLC a week or so later once the info is added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Okeydokes. We'll leave it another week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)