Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2013

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Presidents of Pakistan

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I worked on the list for a while and it also went through a PR. I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. as always, comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated. Thanks, Zia Khan 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the comments I left at the peer review were sorted out. Regards..--Tomcat (7) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. Zia Khan 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

;Comments I'm a bit concerned about the party colours used in the table - a colour blind user may find it hard to read the text on some of them. It would be a good idea to use more contrasting colours for the text according to the background colour. See WP:COLOUR for further details and also some tools that you might find useful. For colour blind users I've used symbols per WP:COLOUR. They cannot see colours but they can see these symbols. Zia Khan 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Not exactly. Sorry if I wasn't clear, my concern is that some of the background colours are quite dark and the symbols on them are dark as well. Therefore a colour blind user may only see a dark block and no symbol. Contrast between the background and the foreground text is the important point here. For example, in Help:Using colours, white text is used on darker backgrounds like blue or black. The recommendation for Wikipedia articles is WCAG 2.0's AA level, which you can check with this tool. It shows that black text on blue background, for example, don't meet those standards. Chamal T•C 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Made a little change. Zia Khan 18:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC) I think it would have been easier to change the font to a more contrasting colour like white on some of the darker backgrounds, but it's better now than it was. Looking back at the article, the party names are mentioned next to the colours so the symbols are less of an issue for accessibility anyway (strictly speaking in that sense, the symbols wouldn't even be needed). I'll just take another look at the article and see if there's anything else before I add my !vote. Chamal T•C 07:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I don't like white text on colours. Other editors may ask for the symbols. Anyway, take your time, I'm waiting. Zia Khan 07:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC) This is purely aesthetic but I think it'd look better if you could crop the image for Zia-ul-Haq to show it as a portrait shot, so it looks consistent with the other images. Done. Zia Khan 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Chamal T•C 04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) More comments After looking at the lead, the following issues need to be addressed: The second sentence The president holds an important title de jure... is long and confusing. Are the "true executive powers" different from "the powers to make decisions and executive authorizations" or are you explaining the executive powers with that phrase? Removed the sentence as this was not supported by the ref. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) It says the president has limited ruling powers, and performs ceremonial duties after the 18th amendment, but two lines before that it implies that the president can make decisions on key matters with consultation and final confirmation of the prime minister. If the latter powers existed only before the amendment and is not the current situation, please mention that. As above. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee → Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee ? Done. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Six presidents have been members of a political party before taking the position. – By "before taking the position", do you mean that they gave up membership of said political parties after assuming presidency? If they were still members, make that clear and drop the before part. If you're trying to say that some other joined parties after becoming president, make that clear too. Changes made according to the suggestion. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Four presidents were active party members of the Pakistan People's Party... – Is the PPP not a political party? If it is, then why are these four not included in the previous line where you mention six presidents being members of a political party? The distinction between them is not very clear. Rephrased the sentence. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Three of them gained power through one of the successful military coups – All three of them gained power from the same coup? That's highly unlikely considering the gaps in their tenures, but that's the impression this line gives. Fixed. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) All in all, I think the prose could do with some improvement for better clarity. There's technically no limit to the length of the prose even though it's a list article, so make sure that the points you give in the lead are explained adequately. Perhaps you could ask another editor to copyedit it; as the author you would know what the article says so having somebody else do it would help spot any errors more easily. Chamal T•C 12:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the revisit. Zia Khan 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Comment: Sorry for taking so long, I was a bit busy the last few days. I think the lead looks much better than it was, but there's a new problem. The sentence Since the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed..., while mentioning the situation after the amendment, leaves the reader completely in the dark about the situation before it. Did the president have considerable powers? What was Pakistan before becoming a "parliamentary democratic republic"? The reader is left with questions like this and no answers. A featured class article shouldn't leave the reader wondering or guessing; it should cover the necessary information properly. Chamal T•C 06:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Added a little information. Zia Khan 08:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC) More Comments ... the President have → has Done. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) military coups followed by political governments – All governments are political. I think you mean civilian governments as opposed to military rule, but again, reword it to make that clear. Done. Zia Khan 06:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC) The sentence Changes in the Constitution by... is not very clear, so I'd suggest rewording to something like These powers were repeatedly modified through amendments to the constitution, which were introduced as the results of military coupes and changes in government. Done, as suggested. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Why is the publisher of the first ref given as "presidentofpakistan.gov.pk" and the rest of the refs from that site give the publisher as "Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan"? Fixed. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I feel the article is overly reliant on presidentofpakistan.gov.pk as a source when it doesn't need to be. You should try to find better, secondary sources whenever possible. For example, there are plenty of detailed news sources on the 18th amendment like 1 and 2. Chamal T•C 04:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Replaced "presidentofpakistan.gov.pk" with news sources. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: All the issues I raised were resolved; the article has been improved a lot and is of FL quality now, I think. Chamal ^T•C 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Suggest you link "British monarch" in the hat note. What happened between "Zulfikar Ali Bhutto" resigning and "Fazal Ilahi Chaudhry" taking control? There appears to be a day (or part of it) with no-one in charge...! "with the United States and the allied powers in" -> "allied powers" should just say NATO if NATO is what you mean. "Retrieved 16 january 2013." capital J. Where is Daily Times published? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Zia Khan 06:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Senate of Pakistan linked twice in the lead Fixed. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) WP:ALT suggests try avoiding having the same details in both caption and alt text Done. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) The alternative text should name the subject since this list isn't particular to one subject. I cannot see the names in some images (alt). —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Link "National Assembly of Pakistan" in refs Done. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "President of Pakistan" isn't the Publisher for ref #2. Also I could not find any date of publishing in the link Done. Removed date. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) There seem to be some discrepancy in the publisher info in ref #1 and the rest from the same source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) "worldstatesmen" is a Tertiary source. Not sure if it can be used in place of a secondary source The tertiary source, such as an encyclopedia or dictionary, resembles a secondary source in that it contains analysis, but attempts to provide a broad introductory overview of a topic. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) So what's your stance? —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Who said that it is a tertiary source and why it can't be used in the article? Zia Khan 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Repaced with other sources. Zia Khan 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) It's an encyclopedia just like WP. Hence qualifies under tertiary sources. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC) We can use this per Wikipedia:PSTS, but I've already removed this. Zia Khan 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) It cannot be used in place of a secondary source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Is Time Warner a news agency? This is a imultinational media corporation which operats in film, television and publishing. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Is it a news agency? Removed. Zia Khan 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) ate inconsistency in ref #22 Done. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Ref #18 has authors info missing Done. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Since you've used Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in references the same shouldn't be used in External links Removed. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Not sure if the images are acceptable in public domain in US; the source of some the images is unclear. I'm not an image expert, so I'd leave it to you, and thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 08:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC) As far as I can see all images seem fine with the exception of Iskander Mirza. You can ask some one like TRM or Harrias to look into it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll ask them. Zia Khan 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I've been asked to comment on this. The picture probably is in the public domain, but the File: page does not provide evidence of that. Until the File: page is expanded to include such evidence, use of the picture should be considered an WP:IUP violation. Goodraise 18:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I've removed the image. Zia Khan 03:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Additional comments Constitution of Pakistan linked twice in the lead A caption for the table could be added In the key you say symbols but I cannot find any such ones except plain colors —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Zia Khan 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC) One last question - The table being unsortable, why items in the "Political party/Pakistan Armed Forces" column are overlinked. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed now! Zia Khan 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to support/oppose the candidate as I have limited knowledge on the topic. However, since all my comments have been addressed, I have no issues with the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• You could use "the" before Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in the first paragraph.
• Same goes for the two Pakistan Muslim Leagues in the fourth paragraph.
• In ref 17, the parenthetical "newspaper" should be piped so the readers don't see it. They only need to see the newspaper itself (Dawn). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed all! Zia Khan 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —indopug (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

;Oppose While I appreciate the effort you've put into articles such as this and the PMs list, I feel this article currently falls short of meeting the featured list criteria, mainly for the quality of sourcing and the visual appeal of the table. Table: Portraits: I recommend enlarging the pics to 100px, and uploading more closely cropped photographs of the following Presidents especially—Bhutto, Zia, Ghulam, Leghari, Tarar—although all the pics could use a closer crop for easy visibility. (see how much more elegant List of current Canadian first ministers is in this aspect). I think this is sufficiently done now. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) "Political party (Alliance)" None of these seem to be alliances, so why mention it in the header? Changed. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Pakistan Armed Forces is a political party? Fixed. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Does a President officially even belong to a party? Here in India, the President must resign from his party before contesting the elections. The current president Zardari is the co-chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party, for example. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) What is the purpose of having (difficult to read) party abbreviations (and those strange symbols) inside the coloured band, when the full party names are just besides? I again recommend looking at List of current Canadian first ministers for a better (more aesthetic, less redundant) way of doing this. You can also get rid of the key. Actually they are party colours and the symbols are for those users who cann't see colour, per WP:COLOURS. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) But colour-blind people have the full party name right next to the colour band.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Removed the symbols. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if the Note(s) column is a good idea at all; I think this article should confine itself to being a simple list of presidents. Otherwise, the column creates several complications—a need for good prose, neutral POV, high-quality sourcing ("Tarar was merely a figurehead" - very biased + source makes no mention Tarar at all) and length of the note (why is figurehead Tarar's note longer than Ayub and Yahya Khan's?). I've worked on the list keeping in mind pre-existing FLs like List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka. Also, shortened Tarar's note. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1928–1979 → 1928–79 per WP:YEAR. Fixed! Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I'll comment on the lead and the sources after we resolve these.—indopug (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your kind review, I expect more from you. Zia Khan 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Revisit The table's appearance has significantly improved with inclusion of the bigger, better-cropped pictures (I've replied about the acronyms+symbols within the party colours above). However, I can't redact my oppose on account of the poor sourcing. in the table, the notes have refs within the text, and there is a separate ref column as well. I'm really confused as to why this is so, and what references what. Adjusted the refs. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Where are the references for the Took office and Left office dates? Done. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Why is "Mirza served as the last Governor-General of Pakistan and became the first president of Pakistan after the 1956 Constitution was promulgated, which established a republic" sourced to the 1973 constitution which 1) is a complex legal document and primary source, and hence not really a good source anyway and 2) doesn't even mention any of the things it is supposed to be backing. Replaced the ref with the The Frontier Post. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Another example: barely anything in Farooq Leghari's note is backed by the three references in his row. This is just one example I checked at random, please audit throughout. Replaced the refs with another one. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Several iffy sources and citations: the constitution (for reasons above), PakistanHerald.com (which is not the Herald (Pakistan) monthly magazine), DailyPakistan.com (again, which is not what the Daily Pakistan article is about; that is the Urdu newspaper DailyPakistan.com.pk). Should be fixed by now! Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Elections and terms: wouldn't elections occur before the start of a term? What is the logic of Ayub's second term, 1962-69, having its election in 1965? Same goes for Musharraf's first term. Added notes there. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) These are just a sampling of the problems I've listed here. I feel the primary issue with this article—(often contentious and opinionated) information being inadequately backed by reliable sources—is quite serious and require some detailed study to fix.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the revisit. Zia Khan 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I'll take another thorough relook tomorrow, but in the meantime, I urge you to check the lead and all the notes to see if the text is backed by what's in the source. For eg: "President Zardari has been a consistently strong U.S. ally in the war in Afghanistan" isn't really backed by the source, which only mentions Afghanistan in relation to an earthquake. As I said, I've listed just a sampling of the problems. Another option is to rewrite the notes more objectively like in List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka (which you linked to above): how the person got into office, and how he got out; no mention of what he did in office as that could be subject to bias and be better left for the president's individual articles.—indopug (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Removed a little text from Musharraf and Zardari's entries. Zia Khan 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Further Good job, I've struck my oppose. A few more issues before I can give my support: The note at the top is unnecessary. The clarification in the main President of Pakistan article. Done. Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Lead, first para: can be trimmed a little. Remember that this is only to give a brief idea of what the office is; President of Pakistan has the details anyway. Done. Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Lead, last para: not sure if going into detail about the incumbent president is needed. Treat him like you do all the others; "The current president of Pakistan is Asif Ali Zardari of the PPP. He was elected president on 6 September 2008" should suffice. Done. Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Not a fan of "Political party/Pakistan Armed Forces" either (looks strange). I think you should leave it at "Political party", and for the military rulers, have a "None" under that column instead of PAF. Instead maybe you should add a symbol and give a colour to the entire row to indicate that weren't democratically elected? Done. I've added a symbol to the corresponding cell, it would be odd to colour the entire row!? Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) What was the election date for Presidents 5, 7, 8, 9? Added. Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Last thing: is there a source for this?—indopug (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Not really, but supported by EL. Zia Khan 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) "...merely a figurehead, while the real power was exercised..." (2 occasions) seems a little too colloquial. Try something like "was the constitutional/de jure head of state, while de facto executive authority rested with..."—indopug (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Done, as suggested. Thanks for the revisit and consider to include the comments to Resolved comments' template. Zia Khan 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Support pending the resolution of one last reply above. FINALLY, we're there, excellent work. I hope you'll incorporate the relevant points into the prime ministers article as well.—indopug (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support! Zia Khan 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the criteria to be considered as such. Overall, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most busy on record, with nineteen named storms. Despite the high number of systems, none of hurricane intensity or major hurricane intensity struck the United States. I hope you like this timeline as it took a lot of work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --12george1 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

*Hello TropicalAnalystwx13, I got a few queries before I support: "400 UTC (12:00 a.m. EDT) – The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins." - I believe the Atlantic hurricane seasons start at 0000 UTC on June 1, not 12:00 a.m. EDT June 1. Not sure about this either. Will email the NHC and find out. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) "80 mi (130 km)[nb 3] north-northeast of Puerto Lempira." - You should probably mention the name of the country (Honduras), since most people have probably never heard let alone know where Puerto Lempira is. Puerto Lempira is already WikiLinked, so I'll pass on including Honduras. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) "Tropical Storm Alex makes its first landfall near" - WikiLink "landfall"  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) "Hurricane Alex attains its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 946 mb (hPa; 27.94 inHg), and simultaneously makes its second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." - Avoid using "its" more than once in a sentence. I would suggest revising the latter part of the sentence to: "and simultaneously made a second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." By the way, WikiLink "maximum sustained winds" and "barometric pressure", and add the parameter

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments "on record" only just thought about this, when did your "records" begin? Worth noting (e.g. "one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons since records began in xxxx"). Added. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Although Hurricane Alex formed on June 15, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30," I don't understand at all. Are you suggesting that the season's official start date was such in spite of Alex forming 14 days later? No. It's just meant as a comparison for when the first storm formed against the start of the season. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Well I'd say it the other way around, like "the season officially began on June 1 with the first hurricane, Hurricane Alex, forming on June 15..." or similar. RIght now the sentence is completely confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure you need to keep repeating "Hurricane" in front of the storm names, it's pretty clear that you're not suddenly talking about some bloke called Igor and removing the repetition would improve the prose. Tweaked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Is there a definition or a link for "gale diameter"? Not that I know of. I linked gale though. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Timeline image needs to comply with WP:DASH for the speed ranges. Corrected. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, becoming the first hurricane of the 2010 season.[6]" three times hurricane in one sentence! Removed one instance. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Is there a link for inHg? Non-experts may not get this at all. Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "a non-convective remnant area of low pressure" what is one of those? Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Tropical Storm Gaston on September 4" but Gaston had become a "non-convective remnant" by September 2... Corrected the image. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Tropical cyclones of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season" Template fails WP:ACCESS using colour only to display the hurricane strength.
  • Not sure what to do about this. Will bring up a discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • After talking about this with other members of the project, we've decided no change is needed. For one, the letter of the storm (or number in the case of a tropical depression) is still given, and two, if you mouse-over the little square it gives you the rating without the need of seeing the color. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As long as a screen reader can determine the difference, then no problem. Is that the case here? (Also, could you link me to the discussion please?) Also, I'm not sure you're getting the point, you have a yellow box with an A in it, and a key next to it with a yellow box with an unlinked "A2". So how does that help a screen reader or someone who can't determine the difference between the various shades of yellow used in the template? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
        • It shouldn't matter. The template is used primarily to differentiate the storms within the season, not their intensities. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
          • But it is also used to depict their intensity. The template is inaccessible per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't quite say it's inaccessible. It's quite accessible for anyone, clearly differentiating by letter or number for the storms. The fact it also differentiates by color is additional, but secondary. IMHO, at least. Also, given the template is used throughout the project and not just this article, and we've never had a problem in hundreds of FA's, I don't think the discussion here is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid FAC tends to ignore the slightly more esoteric sections of the MOS like ACCESS. FLCs don't, so the discussion here is entirely appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
                • Many timelines have also passed without any such discussion of a button bar. I think it's unfair to single out this nomination when this discussion affects hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Times and standards change I'm afraid. Just because it wasn't spotted last time, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point that I don't think here is the best place for this discussion, given that this could affect hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but the comment still applies to this FLC. You said your project had decided it was fine, it isn't fine for FLCs I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As Hurricanehink said, it affects the whole project, so this issue is pretty much inactionable for the time being. Were there any other comments that needed to be addressed? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it's clearly actionable at any time, should people have the effort to do so. If that's not the case, that's a different matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've capped the concerns that were addressed. I need to leave this one open because nothing seems to be being done about it. A shame because FLC prides itself on a strong compliance with ACCESS, particularly when two people support despite the clear failure to meet one of the fundamental criteria for FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You've yet to respond on the WPTC talk page about the matter, which is where the main discussion is taking place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your invitation... What is WPTC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (WPTC)...the talk page discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh that, cool. Yeah, I remember stumbling over that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here on my talk page regarding the template. Colors without matching symbols are violations of WP:ACCESS, and I don't see how the template in use here can be considered anything other than a violation. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I don't believe that the list should be promoted with a known issue such as this. To me it is perfectly actionable, and something that has been mentioned at FLC many times before. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. According to WP:ACCESS, it is a violation that if a article or list using color the same information can be made via another method. The policy only lists an accessible symbol as an example, another option for instance is footnote labels. In this case, the information can be displayed just be scrolling up. Furthermore, the policy says regarding to color that "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is: The template is there for navigation. It should not be considered as part of the informational flow of the document. If we have no colors, then sighted people don't know the intensities, and blind people don't know the intensities. Note that the intensities is simply to make navigation simpler; this is not the only, nor is it remotely the primary, place that this information is contained. If we have colors, then sighted people can see the intensities, and blind people still don't know the intensities. As far as they are concerned, nothing is being lost. No data is being obscured; they have the same ability they had before there were colors to click through to the articles in question and find out the intensities. That a navigational template helps one class of people more than another is not a sign that the other is being harmed. Now, if that information were being portrayed in the list itself, or in the article, in a fashion that blind users could not access, THAT would be a major problem. But that's not the case here. This is a navigational aid that is more helpful to some users than others. (I mean, it also technically discriminates against people who don't know what the letters mean) The only legitimate complaint I could see is if the colors made it impossible for the colorblind to differentiate and read the letters. To quote Yellow Evan's citation of policy, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." The information in a navigational template can never be considered important, as it is a drastically reduced subset if the information available in the articles they link to. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone bother to reply to this? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Would be easier to just fix it, and enjoy the benefit being rolled out across all the articles where this is used. It's not up to us to decide what's "important" or not to those readers who depend on WP:ACCESS to make the most of the website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not about what is easiest. It is about what is right. It's easy to make an article without any sources, but is it the right thing to do? No. While you disagree with me on this, I don't think there is a need for such a change. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – content is satisfactory, sources done well, solid images. I don't think the button bar can be held against this particular article, so long as the TC project continues to try and solve that problem. I've discussed a couple issues with the nominator and he's addressed them sufficiently. Juliancolton (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, I believe this does a great job conveying the season, so I'm happy to support it becoming a featured list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The accessibility concerns raised by Rambling Man and Giants2008 have yet to be addressed, and it doesn't look like they will be any time soon. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't affect this nomination, since those templates are used on hundreds of articles, not specifically this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Except the accessibility concern is bogus IMO per the above arguments. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support I honestly think the access issue is BS; I don't see any problems with this timeline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No need for terms like "BS", really. But thanks for your thorough review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Your welcome. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It's obvious this debate is going nowhere. You two (speaking to TheRamblingMan and Giants2008) believe the template fails WP:ACCESS; others believe there's nothing wrong with it. As a compromise, how about I just remove it from the timeline, and accompanying timelines, altogether? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it never occurred to me that the template should not be here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Suits me. Pity you can't just fix the template now you're aware of the issues. Hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You can't "fix" it and keep it in its current tight format; you'd have to change it to a detailed list of storms. That might be preferable, but it's not an accessibility fix, it's a rewrite of the template. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure you can "fix it". But there's been ten times as much effort about challenging the opposes rather than looking for a solution. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Unless you have a specific suggestion, then all I can come up with is a nasty little system of adding little symbols or numbers in each letter, and of course adding a detailed legend, and at that point it's ceased to be a neat little diagram and we might as well just replace it. Do you have a specific suggestion other than that? Because that cure is worse than the disease. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
            • No, I don't because I'm busy doing a lot of other things. The comment was made on 27 January so it's not like the nominator or the various associated projects haven't had time to seek out a reasonable solution. I'm not here to provide those solutions, just to highlight that there are problems versus our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Yet you're so sure a solution can be made that doesn't involve redoing the template's concept. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                • No, I didn't say that, did I? I just said there's been six weeks pass, meanwhile all the project/contributors have done is whinge about it, not look for answers. Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • No, the project has agreed that there isn't a need to change it. It's clearly accessible, since the primary use of the template is to differentiate the storms by the letter. We could just get rid of the colours if you want, it really doesn't matter. Anyone who is colourblind can tell that A is different from 2, which is different from B, and so on. I still am amazed how the template is not accessible. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • The project is wrong. If colours can't be distinguished then the template is inaccessible. The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they? Anyway, the template has been removed, this conversation is pointless in this context unless the project can see the light. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

<--There's no inherent need to link storm "B" to "TS" though. There is only one storm B, and the template links to it fine, regardless of colour. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• But this is what it looks like. We shouldn't have to rely on click-throughs. This isn't Google. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And A looks different from B, I don't get the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? You have to link B to TS to know that B is a TS. The only way you can do that is through the colour of the background. That's not commensurate with WP:ACCESS. Is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • But whether it is a TS or a C2 doesn't matter much. The storms are named alphabetically. If you're in 2005 at Hurricane Wilma, you only need the K to know how to get to Katrina. The colour is just extra. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That said, you know 2005's K was Katrina, I know 2005's K was Katrina, but if someone didn't, how would they know from the template alone without mousing over the link? --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • If they didn't know K was Katrina, then I don't think the category would help either. Sandy was well-known in 2012, but not because of its intensity. Ditto Allison in 2001. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Then perhaps the template is deficient for reasons other than accessibility. This accessibility thing has been a red herring to the real problem that the template is inside baseball. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Agreed, which is why I have long disagreed with the objections over this FLC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                • You misunderstand; the template may still be worthy of objection but not for accessibility issues. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                • No, we were talking about the use of that particular template on this particular list. My comment stands: " The only way to link storm "B" to "TS" is through the background colour and if someone can't tell the difference between light and dark blue then they can't determine that "B" is a "TS" can they?". It may be that the use of this template on other articles is covered by the article, but it wasn't here. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • But the template is to link between storms, and they can very much do that without worrying about colours. As I said, the intensity and colouring is secondary. If they're looking for Bonnie, they click on the B. People don't usually know the differences in category. Alex is the A storm, regardless the colour and intensity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • Please see above, this isn't Google, we don't do "click-throughs" and each article should standalone. If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm, it should do so in a way that a colour-blind or otherwise access-challenged editor can appreciate. Without relying on a click. Obviously. Otherwise, why not just lose the colour of the boxes? Right now it's just prejudicing against those who can't determine between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                      • • I'm sorry to keep rambling on about this, but from your quote above "If the point of the template is to convey information pertaining to both the name and the strength of the storm". that information can be displayed by scrolling up which I think is an adequate example to "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen". However, The Rambling Man, I agree that Hink's argument of clicking through would not constitute WP:ACCESS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                        • Don't be sorry, discussion is good. The point is that our users shouldn't have to scroll up to locate the information. A template like this which is widely used should be self-contained and useable to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                          • I don't see why scrolling up is an issue. In a properly done timeline, the information is already there once if not twice. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                            • As I said, the template should be self-contained and not rely on other parts of articles it may be used in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support. For what its worth, I find the WPTC's argument of "It's been done this way in hundreds of articles!" completely unconvincing. That doesn't matter. This isn't WPTC:FLC, this is WP:FLC. We have standards here. That you have your own standards doesn't mean FLC has to conform to them; it just means you won't get listed on FL if you don't follow them. So please stop giving that sob story; if the standards change (and hoo boy do they, always for the better) then you should match them, because usually the folks at FLC know what they're talking about. If one article is criticized for something in FLC that it wouldn't have been criticized for in 2008, that is a sign that it is time for YOUR standards to improve, not that FLC's standards have become too strict. It used to be that all articles had linked dates; we don't anymore. Things improve. That said, I don't find the argument that a purely navigational footer template needs to be purely accessible compelling. It is not important information. The only detriment I could think of is if it speaks poorly to screen readers, i.e. it doesn't properly communicate the links. I don't know if it does or not. If it does, then obviously it needs to be fixed, but so far as I can see no one has complained about that, they have simply complained about the use of color without a glyph key. Now, and WPTC should consider this, it might be better to replace it with a more detailed template - names, strengths, etc. - rather than the current, somewhat gimmicky color blocks. But as it currently is, I don't find it fails the accessibility guidelines, and thus cannot use it as a reason to oppose. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• So much anguish about a template. See my proposal at WT:WPTC#WP:Accessibility for an alternative template that hopefully satisfies the accessibility concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

National Hero of Indonesia

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a good look at a very important subject for the Indonesia WikiProject. Indonesia's national heroes are an interesting bunch, although for the purposes of brevity the most "hooky" aspects of their lives aren't in this article. Did you know that Indonesian heroes...

• Promoted eating cats for better night vision?
• Asked for their heads to be cut off?
• Fought a guerrilla war with one lung?
• Starred in movies before becoming smugglers?
• Went to a girls' school despite being male?

There's another 151 more, just waiting for your review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 09:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments nice to see such lists! Here are my nitpicks: ", defined as "actual deeds which can be remembered and exemplified for all time by other citizens",[a]" - I would change the commas with ndashes or mdashes, because it is in conflict with the list. That phrase may appeal to readers as if it would not address the first phrase. Agree, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC) I would place "It is the highest level of recognition in the country.[2]" to the first sentence, "National Hero of Indonesia (Indonesian: Gelar Pahlawan Nasional Indonesia) is the highest level of recognition in the country.[2]"... Tried rewording, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC) "The Ministry of Social Affairs gives seven criteria which an individual must fulfill, as follows:[1]" - I would directly address the criteria, eg "The Ministry of Social Affairs gives the following seven criteria (which) an individual must fulfill:[1]" Not keen on that, as that would make a pretty big run-on sentence. We could move the images up to avoid the white space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC) That's all I think. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support --Tomcat (7) 16:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Query We seem to have the photos of a significant number of these heroes. Why not incorporate them into the table?—indopug (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Short answer? Page load times. Assuming we have free images for half of them, 78 images is going to take a lot of bandwidth for people on slower connections (and will make the page even longer than it is now). For something like List of prime ministers of Indonesia, it's doable, but for a list like this I'd rather not impose too much bandwidth consumption.

Also, although more personal, I think having half of them blank is not visually appealing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Another answer is that some photographs and depictions are a somewhat lacking in their original source and proof of first publication, which makes it difficult to ascertain their copyright status. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I should note, however, that I'm 100% certain that the images used here are PD or under a CC license (I got most of these myself, from PD newspapers or banknotes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 09:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments I'll give this a full look when I can (my wife's particularly interested in this list as she's Indonesian and knows a few of these people through her family!), but I have three comments to make straight away: - I think it'd be good to see an image at the top of page to accompany the lead (personally I'd suggest Sukarno, as he's the most well known person on this list). I'm actually hoping to get down to the Kraton in Yogyakarta when I have some free time. Hamengkubuwono IX's citation is on display there, so "click click". Not that it really matters, but were you able to get that photo? ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Haven't gone yet. We had a day off today (nyepi), and I wanted to go to the Kraton, but the Mrs she wanted to go to an electronics convention, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) The first image (Abdul Haris Nasution) would look better if it were moved immediately after the heading, rather than before. Fair enough, done. Check the links, as some of them point to redirects - for example, Juanda Kartawijaya points to Djuanda Kartawidjaja. Deliberate, as we are using the Perfected Spelling here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC) I was going to suggest changing these to piped wikilinks, but then I remembered WP:NOTBROKEN so I guess changing these isn't necessary after all. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC) That's certainly doable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC) More to follow, hopefully. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Just three more comments:- Two columns in the table are headed "YOB" and "YOD". Although these are explained using Abbreviation tags, I feel changing these to "Born" and "Died" would make things much clearer. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Abdul Kadir and Cilik Riwut are both noted as having "promoted development," - what kind of development did they promote (social, economic, property etc)? Added based on the sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Ahmad Yani is described as "killed in the 30th September Movement". This should be changed to "killed by the 30th September Movement" to keep it consistent with other entries who suffered the same fate, such as Donald Izacus Panjaitan. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC) -- Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 11:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Em dashes (—) should be used in the middle of the 2nd sentence, since it's a break of thought in the middle of a sentence; en dashes (–) are generally utilized for values. Same dash change in "…occurred in early November – coinciding…" For both: see MOS:EMDASH. It boils down to a stylistic choice. Both Sudirman and Albertus Soegijapranata (featured articles) use a spaced ndash. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC) "while in 1988 Sukarno" – should be a comma after 1988. Rearranged. Having a comma there would read awkwardly since "in 1988" is not the entire phrase. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets all criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Hope you enjoyed the read! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all done, Indonesia Raya! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - not finding anything worth opposing over; some redirects, but they all look plausible. The references in the lead paragraph ending in Proclamation of Indonesian Independence are out of order ([4][3][6]). But all in all, looks great. --PresN 20:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I got that one issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – "National Hero of Indonesia is a the highest-level title awarded in Indonesia." Stray "a" in the first sentence. Can't believe four supporters missed this, but maybe they were looking elsewhere. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh. Four supporters and Microsoft Word's spellcheck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• The typo was not there when I reviewed it.--— Tomcat (7) 09:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Introduced here (after your review), which explains why Word missed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Renominating this list after the previous nomination stalled due to lack of feedback and support votes. All comments were resolved and no-one opposed the previous nomination. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Support I do not see any issues with this article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Only nitpick, the full year should be used in ref # 83.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

What do you mean by "The first truly British teams"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC) They're the teams set up for the British public, as opposed to the previous teams which were based in American military bases in the UK for their service personnel. Would you say this needs clarifying? ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah. I was reading that as the first teams with entirely British rosters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I see what you mean, and amended that statement. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC) How about "The first teams meant for British players..." or "The first teams open to British players...". The term "British public" makes me think of the audience, as if British audiences weren't allowed to watch until 1983. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)  Done - British players it is! ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. List seems well referenced, fairly well written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One comment just check for failures of WP:DASH, e.g. ref 137's title should have an en-dash not a hyphen in that year range. Otherwise good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for picking that up. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've worked this one up based on the FL List of Grey's Anatomy cast members article. The information in the tables themselves are based on one of the annexes in the Nemecek general reference, which included a list of all guest characters in the show. This article includes any actors who appeared in the same role more than once - I have plans on a separate article of guest stars which includes those actors who appeared only once. Miyagawa (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 "re-tread characters in the same vein as the original series" - Not quite clear on this Reworded it to make it clearer. The specific phrasing Roddenberry used was "re-tread" which I tried to work in, but isn't as helpful as it could be. To be precise, he was trying to avoid casting new parts in familar roles. For example, a different Vulcan science officer (in fact he tried to avoid the old style Trek so completly that he initially banned Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans, although they all appeared before the end of the first season). Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC) an American television science fiction - Missing a word Completed jumbled it in fact. Fixed it now to the standard wording used in some recent GAs. Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC) During casting, the role of Troi was originally assigned to Denise Crosby, with Marina Sirtis cast as Security Chief Macha Hernandez, but Roddenberry thought that Sirtis would be better in the role of Troi and switched the two actresses, changing Hernandez back into an earlier version of the security chief, called Tasha Yar. - Too many clauses Split into two sentences with a slight alteration. Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Make sure this article uses American English, as it's an American subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Always a difficult one for me as I'm a British English writer. I can spot the usual suspects like color etc, but I think my darn browser spell checks it into British English instead of American. Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I fixed one you had changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Is this correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Happy to take your word for it. I didn't even know American English only used a single "L" there! :) I must work out how to make my browser spell check in American English instead of British. Miyagawa (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC) That wasn't me, you might want to double check. (don't think I've actually seen any of the films, although to be honest I was always a Voyager fan) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Managed to post that comment under the wrong bullet point (should have been the one above - I'm on fire here!). But yes, Barclay was in First Contact, I entered the ones I knew (well, thought I knew) first when I was formatting the table initially and then double checked them against the source. Apparently I didn't double check that row hard enough. The majority of the entrants in the table were taken from the source directly as I only used about ten rows to test layouts etc. Miyagawa (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Single image, fair use, looks acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks good all around. You have a couple of redirects that don't look intentional- Georgia Brown, Jonathan del Arco, Executive Producer, Paramount Studios, but nothing major. Also, consider archiving your online references with web.archive.org or webcitation.com, so that changes in the websites don't leave your statements unsupported. --PresN 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed the redirects. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Generally looks good. A few comments on the lead... It would be interesting to discuss Patrick Stewart's casting as the captain; this received considerable discussion, as I recall. Would it be possible to discuss briefly a few more of the major recurring actors (I'm thinking mainly of Majel Barrett, John de Lancie, Colm Meaney, Whoopi Goldberg, who are probably more strongly associated with the series than Diana Muldaur)? Is it worth mentioning that some actors reprised their roles on DS9? In the lists, what is the ordering? The main cast could be credits order, though I thought McFadden went earlier, but I'm foxed on much of the recurring cast. Could the tables be made sortable, at least on the first two columns (though a case could be made for being able to sort on seasons too). Are all the red-linked actors notable? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be too hard to add more information, certainly the Stewart casting is interesting as Roddenberry wanted someone else originally but the other producers brought him around. Frakes was originally the second choice for Riker, but the first choice bombed in casting sessions, and so he got the job instead. I haven't got a great deal on Colm Meaney, and all of my John de Lancie casting information is already in the Encounter at Farpoint article. The Whoopi Goldberg one is good though because she literally asked for a part, so they wrote her one. I can certainly add a paragraph about the other major casting points. I've added sorting to the tables although I thought I'd best explain the order - basically the first appearance/majority is the initial order, so in this case, Gates McFadden fell down the list because she didn't appear in the second season. Otherwise, Denise Crosby moves much further up the list as does Wil Wheaton and the initial listing looks a bit messy. The second table's sort needs some explanation, as I've sorted some parts differently. So for instance Colm Meaney's character column sorts to "O'Brien, Miles" despite it having "Conn Ensign" listed first - as the role of O'Brien was the primary one. Also, Ro Laren is sorted to "Ro Laren" and not "Laren, Ro" as "Ro" is the family name (hence the episode title "Ensign Ro". I'll leave a note here when I've added the other casting information. Miyagawa (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know anything more about de Lancie's casting, though there might possibly be something in Roddenbury's authorised biography Star Trek Creator by David Alexander (which reportedly discusses that Q was named for a fan called Janet Quarton). Memory Alpha says he worked with Spiner on The Twilight Zone immediately before TNG, which might be worth following up.[6] Thanks for the sorting. It's probably better to custom sort to get Starring > Recurring > Guest > —. I take your point on the default position of McFadden, but then for consistency shouldn't the default order of the recurring/guest characters also be sorted on total number of appearances (eg Meaney should probably be second after Barrett)? I agree that the most logical route is to sort characters on family name of the most prominent part they played, so perhaps Suzie Plakson should sort under K'Ehleyr? (And weren't all of Meaney's appearances as O'Brien, even if the character wasn't named until later?) And on the O'Brien family, shouldn't Keiko be given her maiden name of Ishikawa too, as she appeared before her marriage? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go through and get the Starring/Recurring/Guest sorting out correctly. I was wondering about Plakson as it was two appearences versus one. I'd say to leave Keiko as O'Brien rather than her maiden name as she's better known as that (and her wiki entry is under that too). As for Miles, well it's been a point of discussion ever since they did it, but I go with the view that he probably played at least two distinct characters due to the ranks. In "Encounter at Farpoint" he was an Ensign in the command branch, and then in "Lonely Among Us" he was a security officer in the security/operations branch. Then in series 2 he started appearing as a Transporter Chief (a non officer rank). O'Brien never mentioned on screen being an officer, and I'm sure in some DS9 episodes he made a point out of not being an officer. So while the two appearences in the first season could have technically been one character, O'Brien is a different character alltogether - although he was named "Transporter Chief" for the first half dozen or so appearences in the second season, but it's now taken as that actually being the O'Brien character. The wiki articles for the two season one episodes used to have him listed as O'Brien in them, but this was an error which I've since fixed as the official sources don't list him as being O'Brien until half way into the second season but also state that it was the earlier transporter chief being named. John de Lancie must have done an interview with StarTrek.com at some point, so I'll have a look there. I'm getting quite good at using archive.org to get all the removed information out of that site (having managed to pull production reports for several Enterprise episodes out of the archives). Actually, I've got a new source since I expanded Farpoint, so it might have information on de Lancie's audition process in there. I'll have a look tonight. Miyagawa (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keiko O'Brien née Ishikawa, perhaps? I think it's slightly important as she's portrayed as from a Japanese culture and it speaks to the international look of the casting. I'd never heard the fannish handwaving over O'Brien's rank before, but you might be right; he definitely makes a point of not being an officer more than once in DS9. In any case, going by what he's credited as is probably safest. Another thing (sorry to keep coming back!), why do the main cast not get rank, while the minors do? And is it inconsistent to list Federation rank and exclude titles such as Dr/Prof (eg Keiko, Leah Brahms & probably many others)? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Added the ranks as I know of them, and modified the Keiko listing to include her maiden name. Not sure if she actually was a Doctor in her field. I know she was a botanist, but I'm not sure if she was ever referred to as Dr. Ishikawa or Dr. O'Brien. Also ran through all the names to add those that had direct links and found a bunch I'd missed, which are now added. Miyagawa (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and the starring/recurring/guest should now sort in the correct order. Thank goodness for find and replace functions! Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keiko's referred to as a professor in a DS9 episode, though I fear I can't remember which. Memory Alpha has her as a professor (under categories) but doesn't seem to cite which episode this is referenced to. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• An episode is good enough for me. Updated to Professor on the list. Miyagawa (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I've now expanded the article to include casting information for the main cast where there were some interesting points, and highlighted the major recurring cast members. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Good work, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the original Star Trek series, which was" no need for the comma. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) " an Executive producer until" no need for the capital E. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "was primarily filmed" -> " was filmed primarily". Done. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "the main cast were" I thought "cast" was singular? Changed to "was". Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "as Burton was known" -> "as he was" Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "The only other two members of the cast mentioned..." are you sure? How can you be sure that just these three members of the cast were the only to be mentioned in the entire press? Just double checked the source and realised I'd misread it - the press release didn't mention the other actors. I'll go fix that in the article now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "the show's creator, Gene Roddenberry" you've already told us he was the creator and you've already told us he's called Gene, so just Roddenberry will suffice. Same for Rick Berman, don't repeat his first name. Fixed for both Roddenberry and Berman. That's what I get for adding extra paragraphs into the middle! I forgot where I've already listed things in fully and the duplicate link checker isn't psychic unfortunately. :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "of a "street-accent"." is this a quote? If so it should be attributed. It was intended to be, I've added the direct citation now. "Roddenberry thought that" just think "believed" would be better than "thought". True, we're not psychic either! :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "but she left after only one " you've lost track of who "she" is as a result of the previous sentence structure. Modified to clarify. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Miles O'Brien appears to be a dab link. Fixed to Miles O'Brien (Star Trek). Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Were the seasons really referred to as S1, S2 etc? Or just 1, 2...? They were only referred to as 1, 2, 3 etc - I just thought that S1 etc was the correct format based on the Greys Anatomy model, then then again they didn't have the Series/Film headings in the table. I'll change to 1, 2, 3 etc. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) You have "Film" as a table heading but have consistently referred to these as "movies" above. Changed to "Movie" for consistency. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Many abbreviations like "Ens.", "(j. g.)"... which aren't linked or explained anywhere. Just extended the key to cover those. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Where is the "starring" referenced? That is a good question! While the source places those actors in each film, I didn't think it was appropriate to break them down into guest/recurring etc. I guess I could replace them with something like "Appeared" instead of starring as they weren't one of the headlining cast (although saying that, I think you could say Whoopi Goldberg was, certainly for Generations). Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Well unless they're quoted as "starring" (in the credits maybe?) then I guess "appeared" is more appropriate... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Changed it to appeared and defined it in the notes as "not in one of the recurring main cast roles throughout all four films". Miyagawa (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Sarah Connor discography

Nominator(s): Till 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel that it meets the criteria. I completely revamped the article yesterday and wrote a new lead, and fixed the tables and sourcing. Till 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Two dab pages, "Naughty but Nice" twice. Fixed. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "Sarah Connor in July 2009." -> "Connor in July 2009" (infobox caption, no need for repeating first name, no need for full stop on an incomplete sentence.....) Fixed. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Suitable link for "certified" please. Linked. To List of music recording certifications. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "Let's Get Back to Bed - Boy!" en-dash required please. What's that? Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Replace the hyphen with an en-dash, per WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed Till 02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC) You use ARIA before explaining what it means. I'm clueless as to what you mean here, sorry Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) You use the abbreviation ARIA before you actually use the expanded version, it should be the other way round. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, ARIA goes after cause that's what is referred to later in the article. Till 02:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC) " on the ARIA Singles Chart and was certified Gold by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" you use ARIA in this sentence before explaining what ARIA means. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Oh now I see the issue. I have fixed this. Till 02:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC) "[12][2]" numerical order. Swapped around. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "two German number one singles" suspect number-one should be hypenated. Done. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Which territory does each date relate to? Germany, because that's the main music market and all the sources for the RDs are from German sites. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) So say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Although I feel that this is completely useless and redundant, I have added it because you asked. Till 02:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Why? If a item charts in various countries, and you're giving just one release date, you should tell the reader which territory that particular release date is relevant to, since it can vary from territory to territory, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) "French Kissing" links to not what you want. Fixed. Till 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. High quality content and great use of citations and formatting and standardization in tabular fashion throughout. — Cirt (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) Till 01:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Naughty but Nice, Connor's fourth album, became her highest-charting to date;" – Use an "as of" or similar construct to avoid this version of the article becoming incorrect at some point in the future.
  • I have removed this in its entirety. Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The singer's fifth studio album Soulicious was released in 2007" – Missing commas.
  • Added commas Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• There's a stray hyphen in ref. 28.
  • Removed Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• "GmbH" is not usually part of a company's name. In citations, it can be omitted, just like "Inc." or "LLC."
  • Removed Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The prose is a bit dry, but I don't see much that could be done about it, and since I'm trying to be less of a nitpicker, I won't say anything more about the citations, supporting instead. Goodraise 14:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have copyedited bits of the article to avoid dryness. I hope the prose is a bit more enticing to read now Till 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Oppose on prose it peaked at number two - What chart? (this is minor, my oppose is based on the below) Very, very, very dry... part of this is because you are only explaining what is in the chart proper. Compare Chrisye discography and Rihanna discography. Both mention controversial or award-winning works and contextualise information about the works, allowing for a more engaging experience. It doesn't have to be extremely detailed, but if for example a music video was controversial for nudity (like the music for Madonna's "Erotica"), it could be mentioned here to feel more like prose instead of a prosified list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC) How about now? Till 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Looking better, although still a little stiff. Any albums/singles which were controversial? Which used a unique style (i.e. if she's a pop singer, did she do an album with dubstep influences)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Nope, but "Bounce" samples a Mary J. Blige song which I have now noted and also included the ECHO Awards nomination of another single. Till 23:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Alright, only issue now is that the ECHO award needs a ref. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Done Till 02:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) Till 06:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and nominated for 'Best National Single' at the 2002 ECHO Awards." Needs "was" before "nominated".
  • Done Till 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Lead image could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think I know what that is, Till 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Have a butchers at WP:ALT. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I have added, 'A woman in a white shirt'. Till 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

List of honors received by Maya Angelou

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it failed its first nomination due to lack of support, and I believe it's to the point that it can pass. This also happens to the last stage in the creation of a Maya Angelou FT. Her 85th birthday is April 4, so I'd like it to happen by then. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support the first nomination was archived too early. Probably worth asking people to review that page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. In the notes column, descriptions should not end in period, unless they are complete sentences. Also why National Book Award nomination is not mentioned in the table? Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed periods. I wasn't able to find a source that states the year of the nomination, so I removed it from the lead. (Lots of sources state that it happened, though, so it belongs in other articles that don't require a year.) Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Astros4477

Comments – Table currently does not meet MOS:DTT. Col and row scopes need to be added Tables are such a weakness for me. This table doesn't need row scopes, so it's not necessary to include them, right? Why wouldn't it need them?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Because if I'm correct, row scopes are used if the rows have headers, and this one does not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Images could do with alt text I was under the impression that this was no longer necessary, but okay. That may be true but in all of my FLC, they have asked for alt text.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Column heading "Reference" – replace with "Ref(s)", since some have more than one. -- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC) All done, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support An excellent piece of work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, my comments were addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Ref 17 has an excess quote mark after the publisher (New York Times) that needs removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments much improved from the initial nomination, good work. "longest-running appearance (two years)" presumably the list is updated more frequently than annually so do we know the actual number of weeks (for example)? This isn't in the list, and when I looked for the source, I saw that it's from Angelou's webpage, something I'm trying to avoid here. So I cut it from the intro. Then because I wanted to mention at least one honor in a different area, I added Angelou's appointment at Wake Forest. "Pulitzer Prize Nomination" nomination doesn't need to be capitalised. Check the others. Only two, fixed. "Horatio Alger Award" notes ends in a period but none of the others do... Wow, can you believe that I only missed one? ;) Could link Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album? Also EMMA. "[NAACP)" needs an opening parenthesis not bracket. Got next three. The last one was just stupid. Refs 16, 18, 26 "1928—" should be an en-dash, not an em-dash. Ref 33 has a spare z. Ref 35 needs a space after the title. BBC is not a work, it's a publisher. Got all of the above. PDFs in refs normally have a format=PDF parameter added or if you're not using {{Cite web}} then you should put (PDF) manually in the ref. Chrome, regardless of whether you put the PDF in manually or not, shows the PDF icon, as per refs 8, 38, 40. Is that true for the browser you're using? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the kind words, useful feedback, and catches of stupid errors. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

List of camouflage methods

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it lists a substantial number of methods of camouflage, showing how each is applied in different contexts in zoological and military usage, with images and citations for each instance. The main camouflage article describes the theory of these methods but does not have space for so many images, nor for such a long list with its detailed classification of methods and contexts. The two articles together, however, provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I didn't do a thorough review of the article yet, but the problem I had at first glance was that there are no explanations on the camouflage methods. The name and images are not always sufficient for a non-expert to understand what they are talking about. For example, I can't readily tell the difference between "aggressive mimicry" and "special aggressive resemblance". In fact, when looking at the examples for special aggressive resemblance, I get the feeling that this method is about concealing the danger you present (or trying to "look innocent") but the name suggests otherwise. If you could add another column to the table that gives a brief explanation on each method (especially since most of them don't have individual articles the reader could look at), that would be great. I'm not asking for lengthy and detailed explanations, but at least a line or two. This deals with camouflage methods after all and not only examples of camouflage, so I think as a stand-alone list it should be more self-explanatory. Chamal ^T•C 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, done. I wasn't sure that so much text was permitted in a list but have gladly supplied brief explanations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: No other issues from me. It's a bit different from most FLs, but I think it is of FL quality. Chamal ^T•C 02:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

*Comments You did not mention aerial animals in the lead. done ", over its whole body," - both commas not needed imho comma removed Better linking countershading in the first occasion done "this means that in that environment, that method is used widely" - probably "that method is used widely in that environment" good suggestion, done "possibly in a majority of cases" - prefer "in most cases" done "countershading is very common in land animals" - I am not sure if "in" should be "on" used 'among' instead ", but little used for military camouflage" - suggest "but not for military camouflage" done Probably convert metres to foot Overall looks quite interesting. High-quality pictures and sources.--Tomcat (7) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support--Tomcat (7) 19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments definitely an interesting list, something we rarely see here, so well done for that! Thank you very much. Size of the lead image and infobox combined makes the start of the article rather overwhelming... smaller lead image, moved down and left Image captions which are complete sentences should have a full stop. done (let me know if any more, or please punctuate!) "Different camouflage methods employed by terrestrial, aerial, and aquatic animals, and in military usage, are compared in the table" bad start, let's spend a few sentences describing what "camouflage" is before saying we'll compare methods in "the table". added first paragraph on camouflage itself In fact, the whole lead is pretty much a key to the table, whereas I'd like to see some introduction on what the whole thing is about! treated as part of previous item, if that's ok "Terrestrial, Aerial" - overcapitalised. done Since most of the information in the table is visual, you need to ensure you have full compliance with WP:ACCESS and in our case (FLC) that also includes alt text. done Explain what DPM is before using the abbreviation. done I don't think "Countershading" is a proper noun so it doesn't need the capital C. done "Gun camouflaged" but no image? done "(see above)" where in particular? removed Mildly confused how an air-to-air missile (specifically) displays "motion camouflage", but I'm not an expert, could you explain? Isn't your definition the case for any kind of ballistic missile? In motion camouflage, the position is chosen to lie on a line between the start and the target, whereas in classical pursuit (dog after rabbit) the pursuer turns directly towards the target at all times. Missiles can use either strategy. Ballistic missiles use neither, but fly like a thrown ball. Have added "rather than going straight for the target." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Have addressed all comments to date, hope satisfactorily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - it's a pretty cool list, and I'm almost ready to support, except... what are the last three columns sorting on? I can't tell if it's actually sorting on the image's file name or what, but it doesn't seem helpful. --PresN 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - names placed before images to permit sorting on last 3 columns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, flipped to Support. --PresN 04:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

Bernard Lee on stage and screen

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

With a career in acting that started at the age of six and ended with his death aged 73, Bernard Lee was a RADA-trained English actor who is probably best known for playing the role of M in the James Bond films. This record of his professional work has been split away from the main Lee article as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - Comprehensive, thorough, and expertly put together. I conducted a few copy edits and over linking issues in terms of linked common words such as "English" and "stage"; too small to list here so I just cracked on with it. Congratulations on yet another fine list on an overlooked and underrated actor. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments a few picky things... No real need to link "actor". True: now unlinked. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Lead paras are all very brief, could you consider merging a couple of them? No probs: which would you prefer: this one, or the current one? - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I prefer the one with three paras! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Selected stage credits" so the list is incomplete? It is as complete as we can make it. There is no single list from a single source, so we have had to put this together from news sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I just say that because we have {{incomplete list}} for lists which may not be comprehensive. It's not a barrier to FL by any means, but worth considering if you're suggesting you've just listed the "selected" credits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "in over one hundred" -> "more than 100" Done - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "as well as on stage and television dramatisations" seems like an odd run-on after the previous "over 100..." Would it help if I reversed the sentence? "Lee appeared on stage and television dramatisations, as well as in more than 100 films"? It would. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Why do stage credits have no end dates? Because we don't know them. I could change the column title to "start date" and remove the dash, if you'd prefer? I suggest you just add dates which are relevant to Lee if you know them, or add a note to say there is no evidence to help with end dates? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Night Sky is initially out of order. Schoolboy error - now in the right place. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Where are Queen's and Rusholme theatres (since they have no link)? London and Manchester now added - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Why are you saying "ITV Television"? the TV of ITV is television! No longer! - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Hallmark Hall of Fame, "Beauty and the Beast"" has no channel. It does now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Avoid shouting in the refs (e.g. ref 37). Done. I couldn't see any more, but please let me know if I've missed any others. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, as always, for your comments: much appreciated indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) As always, you're very welcome. Good to work with keen and appreciative editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks again: I think I've addressed them all correctly, but please let me know if I've introduced any additional errors! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Bernard Lee (10 January 1908 – 16 January 1981) - Dates aren't really necessary here, just the year. 16 January or just 1981, no real difference for his performances. Suffering from stomach cancer, Lee died on 16 January 1981, aged 73. - Likewise not necessary (except maybe the stomach cancer) Otherwise quite impressive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Many thanks Crisco: your comments taken on board and now the article tweaked appropriately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. On an unrelated note, I'd love to do something like this for Astaman or Rd Mochtar. Shame tracking anything that's not a film (including the character) would be next to impossible without digging into archives. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Doesn't "the" normally come before "age of six", or is this different in British English? Not different at all - just my inability to proof read properly! - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The Role columns should probably be sorting by last name, where possible (a couple of entries obviously don't have last names). I'm not sure about how to deal with those with titles: "Inspector Dodds" for example: Sortable under I or D? And really no idea where to begin with "William of Orange"! All the others should now be OK. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC) For those I'd sort them under I and W respectively. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC) I'd guessed right on the WoO one, for the inspector etc I'd plumped for the surname. I played around sorting uner the title, but it looked wrong compared with those with title and full name (Superintendent Frank Hanbury naturally sorts under H for Hanbury, but it looked wrong having Inspector Dodds under I in the same table). So I've left those all under surname, if you're OK with that? - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Television: For the blank rows in the Channel column, you could try dashes of some kind to fill them. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Dashes now added - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - Excellent and fascinating. The lack of theatrical end dates is not a problem and I prefer the article acknowledge the absence as it now does. I'm sure some end dates will find their way into the article in short order. Considering how long ago these performances were I see no reason why this or the lack of a complete list of stage credits should bar an FL status. I don't like the title "selected stage credits". Perhaps you could find some way to acknowledge that this is the most comprehensive list of stage credits known to the editors and that there may be other stage appearances, otherwise readers may be left with the impression that you intentionally left out performances for whatever reason. Does the "role" column really need to be sortable? "M" and "Superintendent Meredith" are his only recurring roles. Perhaps add a note to the effect that Lee also played this other lesser well-known role (or perhaps not, probably not). Otherwise I got nothing out of that sortable list. I sometimes think people add sortable columns because they can, not because they need to. Title and year are all that need be made sortable. I think you should add his day of birth and death back into the article. Readers shouldn't have to click onto the main article to learn either; nor should they be left with the impression that the editors don't know the dates. I can forsee future editors putting those dates back into the article. My only other suggestion - and I'm willing to bend on this - is to change "suffering from stomach cancer" to "battling stomach cancer" though I'll defer to the majority opinion about that. I'll look through the lists for disambiguation errors. I've already spotted one: Danger Point. - Fantr (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is slight value for making the roles column sortable if for example readers just want to look at his Bond entries, so I'm happy to leave that to the nominator's discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, and especially for the additional theatre references you provided, which are now all added. I've dealt with the two tags you left on the page: both points have now been corrected. I would also prefer to see full dates of birth and death as I always maintain those datres refer to the individual actor, rather than the career, which is dealt with in the rest of the lead and article. Does anyone else have a view on this (I'm sure I've seen both formats in other lists). I agree with the "Selected" aspects of the stage section, and I've reduced the title to "Stage", which is more in line with the other sections. In terms of the sort, I've previously found it useful when looking for a particular character, (normally if someone has played one of the more notable roles), so I guess the added level of functionality doesn't hurt to be in place, even if it is only going to be used by a minority of readers. Thanks again for your comments and all your additional help on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support – It's another great job and there aren't really any "improvements" I can suggest. Just one thing caught my eye, the entry for Bons Baisers de Hong Kong (1975) has been tagged; technically a Featured list shouldn't really be tagged because it indicates unaddressed problems. If there are other sources giving contradictory accounts then it would be much better to just clarify the confusion with a note. Otherwise, it's a comprehensive, well sourced and nicely structured list and I support its promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I see Fantr tagged that entry just before I read it so obviously it's not an oversight on your part. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments and support, Betty—they are much appreciated! As I mention above, the tags are now gone, with the points being dealt with. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Chaminda Vaas

Nominator(s): Chamal ^T•C 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the cricket offensive on FLC, I'd like to nominate List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Chaminda Vaas for consideration. I've been taking my time with this, but I think the article meets the standards and is ready to be reviewed. This is my first FLC in more than two years, so please feel free to give it a thorough review. Chamal ^T•C 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nothing raised my attention when I was reading the article. However I am not an expert in cricket. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments In "As a left arm fast bowler, he was accurate and particularly skilled in bowling both swing and reverse swing", no need for three refs; two of them from the same publisher. Removed third ref. Complete sentences in the key needs a period. There are no complete sentences in the key, are there? Fine. Include "Drawn" in the key, as it may not be obvious to someone who isn't familiar with cricket. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Added a link to Result (cricket) and explained Drawn in key. Chamal T•C 06:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC) "ESPN Cricinfo" -> "ESPNcricinfo". Done. at ESPN CricketArchive? Oops. Fixed. Link at least the first occurrence of publishers in references. Done. Also link The Island, BBC and The Island. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Stupid mistake. There doesn't seem to be a suitable link for The Nation though, so I've left it as it is. Chamal T•C 06:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Usually in these types of lists, we present information in the chronological order. In this case he made his ODI debut before his Test. Normally I'd agree, but in this case I think the first fifer should take precedence over debut as that is the focus of the article after all. His first fifer was in Tests, and that's why I've placed Tests above ODIs in both the tables and lead. I think it would look strange to mention an ODI fifer in 2000 and then go way back to 1995 to talk about his first Test fifer. I was talking about the lead. That's fine anyway since the pattern which is used in this list is same as other similar lists. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Hyphens in refs. should be replaced by dashes. Done. I think the rest used in compound modifiers are ok with MOS:HYPHEN. Remove the "Cricket in Sri Lanka" template as it doesn't link to the page. Done. No need to repeat his full name in the image caption. Done. I don't think the No. column needs sortability. You can sort it using the Date column. Done. While sorting the date column in the descending order, entries for the same match doesn't sort correctly. Fixed. This actually came up in a previous list I did. Should have looked out for it. Secondary sort needed for wkts column. What do you mean? It's currently sorted by number of wickets and then by runs conceded using a sort template. It doesn't sort correctly. For instance, 7/71 should sort before 7/120 in descending order since the former is better and likewise 5/99 should sort before others while sorting the column by ascending order. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Ah, you're right. I had used a wrong value in the sorting template. Should be fixed now. Chamal T•C 06:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC) By the end of his Test career, Vaas had taken five-wicket hauls on 12 occasions, repetitive. Reworded. How is it now? Fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) He bowled 32.2 overs in his sixth fifer. Indeed. Fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed the issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that I missed. Chamal T•C 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Nice work with the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Can you please change the caption since this is already covered in the prose? Hmm... I'm not sure why the fact being mentioned in the prose makes it unsuitable for a caption. In fact, I think the caption is appropriate per WP:CAPTION#Establishing relevance to the article. Could you elaborate? This fact is already mentioned in the lead, you can say that "Vaas took four of his Test five-wicket hauls against New Zealand" or "Vaas took four of his five-wicket hauls at the SSC" or something else. Zia Khan Yes, but what is the reason you want me to do that? AFAIK it doesn't say in the MOS or any other guideline that a fact already present in the article should not be used, or that an entirely new fact should be introduced in the caption. I believe the current caption satisfies the conditions in WP:CAPTION and focuses on one of the most notable points in the article. Even this FL you gave below as an example to another point uses a caption exactly like this one, as do a number of others including 1, 2 and 3. Chamal T•C 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC) He repeated the feat in New Zealand's second innings,... → He repeated the feat in the second innings of the match,...? Second innings of the match would be New Zealand's first innings and not New Zealand's second (SL batted first), so that would be incorrect. Also I think it may be confusing to a non-cricket-savvy reader if it just said fourth innings straight away, so I thought it's best to be clear and wrote it as "New Zealand's second innings". That's fine. Zia Khan 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC) It is also the second-best bowling performance.... could you mention who is at first place? Done. Vaas made his ODI debut in February 1994,... against which team? Mentioned India in the sentence. ...to get a five-wicket haul in that format. → the format? Done. Note should come after the punctuation. Fixed. I think you should use the symbols according to the key's order (†‡*). You're right. Done. In the 2nd note, it would be better if you mention the names of the 3 bowlers. Done. You may fix the dashes according to User:GregU/dashes.js. I would place the General refs before the specific, and it should be Chaminda Vaas not WPUJC Vaas. Done. Zia Khan 07:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I think I have addressed your concerns. Also, I think the dashes currently used in the article are not against MOS:DASH? Chamal T•C 08:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC) No, they're fine, but want if you could use simply (–) instead of (&ndash). Zia Khan 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC) If you could provide rowscopes like this. Zia Khan Done. Chamal T•C 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets the standards. Zia Khan 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Per MOS:NUM, when comparing two numbers they should be in the same format, so "with 12 in Tests and four in One Day Internationals" should be either 12 and 4 or twelve and four.
• Cricinfo and CricketArchive both list him as a fast-medium, and given that has a distinct meaning from fast bowler, I would change "As a left arm fast bowler, he was accurate.." to "As a left-arm fast-medium bowler, he was accurate.."
• Minor point, but I would prefer a comma the number in "..accumulated 1155 Test wickets.." (making it 1,155) but it's only a personal preference really, so I'll leave it up to you.
• "..the highest number of wickets he had taken in a single match." Should be "has" not "had".
• Support All in all, a very well written list, and my points above are so minor that I'm happy to support the article even before the requested tweaks are made. Harrias ^talk 11:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and support. I have made the changes you suggested. Chamal ^T•C 11:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Probably missed this on many (including my own), but "Less than 40 bowlers .." should be "Fewer than 40...."! "arm fast-medium bowler, he was accurate and particularly skilled in bowling " bowler... bowling.... repetitive. " a few months later " -> seven months. "and leading " -> "and led". "He had taken another" ->"He took another..." or "He went on to take another..." Actually those sentences are talking about the fifer he took in the 1st innings (which happened earlier), while his best figures (which are dicussed earlier but happened later) were in the 3rd innings. That's why I used "had taken". Chamal T•C 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "by number of Test five-wicket hauls" -> "by the number..." "but was unable to get a five-wicket haul for several years. His first was in October 2000" -> "but did take a five-wicket haul until October 2000..." Find a suitable link for "bowling figures". "after Muralitharan's 77" link "Muralitharan's 77", not just hte 77. "Result" in the key doesn't need a full stop. Not sure why you have the ground before the opposition in the tables? The ground seems less significant to me. I arranged the table like that because that's the format used in all the other lists on fifers. If I had to guess I'd say this is because some bowlers seem to have performed very successfully at one particular ground. To be honest I don't have a preference other than doing it for consistency, so I don't have a problem if you want me to change it. Shall I? Chamal T•C 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Nah, I'm okay with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC) What is The Nation and where is it published? Similarly, for common names like Daily News, worth telling the reader where it's published. Check for en-dash violation (e.g. ref 18 title should have "2000–01", not "2000-01") The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I've fixed some of the problems and responded to two more. Will fix the others soon. Chamal T•C 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I think I've done all the fixes now. Chamal T•C 08:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Note 1 has too much punctuation in the first sentence. Try removing the period after "guessing". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I tried to think of a way to reword it, but all my ideas make the note even longer. If you have a suggestion, please let me know. Chamal ^T•C 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

Oregon Symphony discography

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and follows guidelines outlined by WikiProject Discographies. Please note the COI statement on the list's talk page. I recognize that COI editing can be controversial, but I have invited many other contributors to examine this article and it has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors as well. The content of this list is pretty non-controversial and matter-of-fact (album titles, years, featured works, etc.), so I do not believe this COI should be problematic. The list has been constructed from physical liner notes as well as reliable online references whenever possible. Thank you for taking time to review this list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• It looks really good, just some minor things to take care of.
• Do you know the full release dates for all of the album? Or at least include the month and year of release.
  • I included as much date specificity as possible. If I were to come across sources with more specific dates, I'd be happy to update. The sources I used were the CD liner notes and Allmusic. In doing research about all of the albums, I was able to find some specific release dates. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Add the release formats (CD, LP, etc.)
  • Added CD as format for all recordings. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

— Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Great and thank you! Support — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, but I have a few comments:

• "DePreist was granted artistic autonomy during his final five years as music director due to a $1 million bequest that established the Gretchen Brooks Recording Fund" Is the fact that he was granted artistic autonomy really important for this list? I actually do not understand how it is related to the discography.

  Done. Now reads: "During DePreist's final five years as music director, the Symphony was able to fund two recording sessions per year due to a $1 million bequest that established the Gretchen Brooks Recording Fund." Better? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Each of these featured DePreist as conductor, despite his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003" Does this mean that the recordings were made while he still was the conductor but released after he left? Or were they under some special arrangement? The meaning of this sentence is cryptic to me.

  My understanding is that they were recorded during his tenure but released following his departure. Now reads: "Each of these featured DePreist as conductor but were released following his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003.". Better? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  This is more accurate, since I am not sure all albums mentioned in the sentence were released after his departure in April 2003: "Each of these featured DePreist as conductor, though some were released following his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003." Better? --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 18:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please let me know if there are other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Ruslik_Zero 08:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support but I am not sure about the inclusion of the box. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Template:Infobox artist discography has 3295 transclusions. Is it the inclusion itself you dislike, or something specific about this one? --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the infobox is pretty standard for discographies. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment A personal preference, but because I've never heard of this band (sorry!) I'd prefer to know who they are and what they do in a simple sentence just before your introduce the various elements of the discography. I think I'm asking you to pretty much switch the first two sentences! Since I was around, I've done that (hope that's OK, AB). --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Is the "Western United States" a recognised geographical entity? Linked "Western United States". --Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) "Joseph Schwantner"'s specific release date is referenced, but two other specific release dates of studio albums aren't. Any reason? I included specific release dates whenever possible. Most of the time I could only determine the year of release. The "Schwanter" album release date is particularly of interest because of the connection between MLK, Jr. and the holiday. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC) " 2014–2015 season" per WP:YEAR that's normally just " 2014–15 season". Done. --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) " then issued two special edition albums not available commercially" forgive my ignorance, how were they available? How were they published (i.e. they have no "label")? All of the albums have been released in CD format. The ones unavailable commercially come complete with liner notes, printed covers, etc., but were funded by private companies and do not list labels or release numbers. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Any info on the label or format of the compilation album? Added CD format to cell. See above comment re: label. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM. FYI, the article for This England is currently awaiting a Good article review, I am still working on expanding and promoting the Music for a Time of War article to Featured article status, and I am working on a draft of the Schwanter album. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely done. Meets all six FLC criteria. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I'm a member of the Oregon Project. I've made a few minor tweaks to the prose, and I added a bit of info and an updated URL to the image description page at the Commons. Otherwise, I've not worked on the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FT. I am thrilled by the number of support votes this list has received in 7 days and I hope my work on these articles help to demonstrate that quality content can be added to Wikipedia despite conflicts of interest. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is neutral and reliably sourced and advances the aims of Wikipedia. It is normal, perhaps inescapable, to have private aims as well, but these do not appear to me to have biased the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

List of songs recorded by Cheryl Cole

Nominator(s): AARON• ^TALK 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have promoted five other lists similar to this to FL for other singer's and believe that I have taken comments raised in previous nominations of mine and have applied them to this article. I think it is a nice, simple yet informative, concise list. AARON• ^TALK 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "collaborations with others." Other what? Be specific, I take it you mean recording artists?

  I've been told to remove this from my 5 previous nominations of song lists for Rihanna, Adele etc. AARON• ^TALK

  As far as I'm concerned its currently too ambiguous, it could refer to anything. High quality prose should have no ambiguities, it needs to be explicit who the others are. NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  How about "other singers", "other musicians", "other artists"...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  honestly, don't see why it can't be recording artists, that is what they are. The three options above could relate to more professions in the arts world, this way the reader is clear we are dealing people who record music. NapHit (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Cole's first solo recording outside of the girl band that she is a member of, Girls Aloud..." This is not professional prose, needs revising
• "on 16 October 2009 and was written..." Comma after 2009, replace and with which
• you start off the third para saying a year later, but this is not correct. The last date you referred was the same year as the one in this sentence. I would remove the phrase altogether
• I'm a bit concerned that the prose just reads like list of who wrote what at the moment. There is not a lot of flow between sentences. I would suggest getting an experienced editor to give it a copyedit

  I'm just following how the the 5 FLs are written which have been promoted. AARON• ^TALK

  That may be so, but its not an excuse to pass up the issue just because its modelled after other lists. You need to improve the flow between sentences, as I state above it just reads like a list of facts currently. Needs a copyedit to polish it.NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've made a change to the bit about Call My Name by mentioning the genre, is that the sort thing you would like me to apply to make it flow? AARON• ^TALK 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  By flow, I mean how one sentence runs into another. Although adding that info is helpful it doesn't address the issue. You need to ensure the sentences flow into each other and don't read like this: Person A wrote this song. Person B wrote this song, which is how it reads to me at the moment. NapHit (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  I have to echo here. I have read the lead and although it is properly sourced, I am not completely comfortable at how it is written. I understand that this does not apply only to your list, but to all lists of this type. I'd prefer a lead focused on recurrent songwriters and genres, evolution of music styles through her studio albums, meaning and performance of most successful or widely known songs, and so on, but all meshed together to have an engaging prose. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The table shouldn't change when it is initially sorted. 3 worlds needs to be moved to the top or forced to sort to to the bottom
• Contents box is missing the letter A, J and Y when there are songs that start with those letters
• hyphens in references should be en dashes

Those edits have resulted in &endash; displaying instead of the actual dash. Use the small dash above the edit summary box instead. Also I still see hyphens in refs 6 and 7. NapHit (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Addressed all. AARON• ^TALK 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In its current state I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. The prose does not meet featured standards, an example being: "Cole is also member of Girls Aloud". The flow between sentences is almost non-existent an needs working on before it meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status: I feel like it should mention her being a part of Girls Aloud before you go into when she began her solo career.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I had done, but I had to revise the sentence as above. AARON• TALK 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I asked you to revise the sentence, not remove it entirely. You need to mention she was/is a member of Girls Aloud, as that what she is primarily known for.NapHit (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) It is now.  — AARON • TALK 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The lead goes into way too much detail. For example "released on 5 May 2008", "also released on 29 October 2010", etc. That does not help provide a summary of songs she has recorded. Other nominations reviewers have asked me specifically to include release dates, which is why I have for some.  — AARON • TALK 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) They are completely wrong. xD  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC) What is wrong?  — AARON • TALK 16:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The dates in which songs were released is not relevant at all to her recording of them.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Although, I would say it is important to note the release of a few. Such as "Heartbreaker" (her first song as a solo article) and "Fight for This Love" (her first solo single).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I think, for the albums, it gives it some flow, becaus e"Cole released her second album called Messy Little Raindrops." wouldn't read right.  — AARON • TALK For the albums, I'd say it's OK (Although I'd prefer just saying the month), but I'm referring to the songs. Like, for example, when "Check It Out" was released.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Done.  — AARON • TALK 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Additionally, the EP she released only features b-sides, so songs were not recorded for it. Changed.  — AARON • TALK 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Great work!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Regarding the Contents, a bullet point is missing between B and C, the N link doesn't go anywhere, and an R link is missing. How is Jean Baptiste credited on the albums? His name is spelt with a hyphen in this list, but without one in our article on him. A Million Lights needs to sort under M. I'd swap around "Songs About Girls" and "3 Words" so that Heartbreaker sorts with the other tracks on the album. Might also be worth changing the category "Cheryl Cole" to "Cheryl Cole songs". "Call My Name -> "Call My Name" Once these issues and the above comments about the lead are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Nice work! Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Done all. Thanks. AARON• TALK 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Not exactly a featured list criterion, but are there any other images that could be included in this article? For example, photos of the songwriters that Cole has collaborated with the most, or of people mentioned in the lead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah I can add some.  — AARON • TALK 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Added some.  — AARON • TALK 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC) If I remember rightly, "Everybody Hurts" was credited to just Helping Haiti. I don't think it necessarily needs to be in italics either. Also, just for the sake of consistency, it might be worth changing "Charity record" to "Single release only". Disagree about the "Single release only" AARON• TALK The thing is that you've already used "Single release only" for "Check It Out", so I think it would be better for consistency to use the same convention for "Everybody Hurts". The fact that some of the profits from sales of "Everybody Hurts" were donated to charity isn't entirely relevant – what is relevant is that it didn't feature on an album. Yeah, but "Check it Out" is not for charity, the whole purpose of "Everybody Hurts" was to raise money for Haiti. I'll include both.  — AARON • TALK The "purpose" of the single isn't really relevant to the Album column. Using "Charity single release" for Everybody Hurts and "Single release only" for Check It Out means that they don't group together when the column is sorted. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) But there were released as different types of singles.  — AARON • TALK 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Personally I'd dispute the idea that there are different "types" of singles, but that's beside the point – the point is that whatever "type" of singles they were isn't relevant in the Album column. The cells in the column just need to highlight that these two songs didn't feature on any album. Now, whether they say "Single release only" or "Non-album single" or something else entirely is up to you, but they need to say the same thing a) for consistency, and b) so that they group together when the column is sorted. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I don't really agree, as they are different types of releases, but I've changed it anyway.  — AARON • TALK 00:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Might be worth listing in the caption when that photo of Cheryl Cole was taken, i.e. "Cheryl Cole during a live performance in 2008". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Done.  — AARON • TALK The writers for "Didn't I" and "Boys" are listed on their respective articles (i.e. here and here) – any reason they can't be included? Because those two songs aren't in the booklet, so those articles actually have original research. AARON• TALK Could the songwriters be sourced from the booklets for the singles, if they're available? No information about those B-sides are in the booklet.  — AARON • TALK 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm... What about from, say, the inserts in the CD cases for these singles. Do you happen to have them, by any chance? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) There weren't physical CD singles lol. We aren't in that age anymore. And I would definitely not have them even if they did.  — AARON • TALK 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC) There certainly were CD versions available for those singles (see here, here and here). Presumably the writers of the B-sides were listed somewhere on the inserts (e.g. have a look at the second image for 3 Words). Obviously, if you don't have them, I guess there's nothing that you can really do. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Either way, I don't have them. Lol.  — AARON • TALK Pity. Might see if I can find them myself... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Didn't I and Boys.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks.  — AARON • TALK 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:SEEALSO, links that already appear in the article or any nav boxes needn't be also included in the See Also section. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs)

  I couldn't find anything about the B-sides, then ended up reading a massive interview about her album haha. OKay.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  Nice, but Cheryl Cole discography is listed in the navbox. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  Where?  — AARON • ^TALK

  Towards the top, underneath where it says "Cheryl Cole", to the left of where it says "Songs". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Got no idea where you are talking about, as her discography is not linked anywhere. Besides, a See also section no longer exists.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  You're right that it's essentially a moot point at the moment given that the SA section has gone, but, for future reference, I was referring to the link here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

After I made some tiny fixes, I am confident to support this list of songs. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support — Very well formatted and cited. Good job. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments " lead single, and it is" -> "lead single; it is". "including the second single " it isn't "including" as you list them all. "ncluding the second single release title track, "Heaven" and "Boy Like You".[6]" confusing, as you go on to say a third single was released, I count three in this sentence already as the "title track" links to a third song. "Cole released her second album called Messy Little Raindrops in October 2010.[10] Two singles were released from the album" consider merging these short sentences. J.R. Rotem has no spaces. I know, I'm not sure what you want here?  — AARON • TALK Remove the space between the J. and the R. The Rambling Man (talk) Done.  — AARON • TALK 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC) "also released on 29 October 2010.[12]" also implies something else was released that date, but I can't see it? Worth noting the third album had her credited as Cheryl, not Cheryl Cole. In the Song col, "3 Words" sorts before the other alphabetically, in the Album col it appears to be the other way round. ? Sorting should be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC) "3 Words" sorts first in the Song column and 3 Words sorts first in the album column. Not sure what you want me to do?  — AARON • TALK 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, that appears fixed. However, the initial order of the songs isn't quite correct, I think "Boys" is out of place because the first time you sort by song, it reorders, and it shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I've got no idea.  — AARON • TALK 15:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC) No idea about what? The initial order is incorrect so it needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I have no idea why it switches those two around. But I have forced them to sort correctly now.  — AARON • TALK 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Done all apart from the two questioned.  — AARON • TALK 19:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support — The list looks good (citations, formatting). Well done! — Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Gary Kirsten

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), Vensatry (talk · contribs)

Just when you thought it was safe to return to FLC, along comes another international cricket centuries list. Vensatry (talk · contribs) created the basic article, I tidied it up a bit.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, for considering me as a co-nom. Would be glad to work with you. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

;Comments A few things worth mentioning in the article: He's tied for third place in SA ODI centuries with AB de Villiers. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC) He's second in the list of SA double-centurions, behind Graeme Smith (4). Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC) SA won all but one of the ODI matches where he scored a century. Might be worth mentioning in the lead. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Did he not manage to score any centuries as captain? No, he did not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) His 188 was the second highest ODI score at the time, behind Viv Richards by just 1 run. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Consider moving the line In Test matches, he scored centuries against all other Test cricket playing nations, and was the first player to achieve the feat somewhere to the end of the paragraph discussing Test centuries. It kind of looks out of place where it is now before his first century is even mentioned. Chamal T•C 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. BTW, I thought I had provided sources along with my comments; sorry about that. Looks like you didn't have a problem anyway. Chamal ^T•C 12:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments "... played as an opener, Kirsten played ...." repetitive. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "in Test and ODI matches on " repetitive again... Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "1996/97 series against India" is there a link for this series, even a red one? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "for almost 14 hours.[2]" for non-cricket fans I'd suggest you say over how long that 14-hour slog lasted... Done (think it makes it clear-ish.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "the second longest" shouldn't that be hyphenated? Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Do non-experts know what a "series" is when you talk about the most prolific "series"? Done - couldn't think of any coherent way to work it into the prose so added a footnote....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC) To keep it more simple I've linked it to wiktionary. Hope you won't mind. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Fine by me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC) " recorded by Graeme Smith[4][5] In" missing punc. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "all other Test cricket playing nations" worth somehow noting that at the time that was nine, now it's ten (because of Bangladesh). Done (worded as well as I could manage.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "His highest score in one-day cricket" one-day or one-day international? Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Complete sentences in the key table should use a full stop. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) "Bourda Cricket Ground, Georgetown," spare comma. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) S/R isn't in the key. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Nor is balls. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) "ESPNCricinfo" or "ESPNcricinfo"? Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I have absolutely no knowledge of cricket other than a basic overview, but seeing as ChrisTheDude is helping 2001 NFL Draft (a topic he knows nothing about) avoid demotion I feel like I should give some input here. The prose quality is excellent, and very readable. The tables are easy to read (flags are a nice touch there) and all sorting functions work, and the key is very clear. I can't really see any issues here that violate criteria. Overall, this is very good list so great work here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Link batsman and innings at first usage. ...second Test of the 1996/97 tour against India. → second Test of the 1996/97 series against India. It would be better if you mention whose innings was the longest by adding a note or something. His highest score in one-day international cricket.... → ODIs or ODI cricket... As of January 2013 this.... comma after 2013 it was the second highest → second-highest, for consistency as you have "second-longest" earlier in the text. In ODI list balls column doesn't sort correctly. Zia Khan 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments – I think the slash in "1996/97 series" is better off as an en dash for purposes of following the MoS. That's about all I saw, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting list of those players to have taken five-wickets in an innings on their debut in women's Test cricket. Test cricket is almost dead within women's cricket, having being replaced by the more marketable one-day formats of the game, so this list is unlikely to grow much over the next few years. In just over 130 Test matches, 13 players have achieved the feat. There could be an argument made that this list would be a 3b violation in favour of List of five-wicket hauls in women's Test cricket, but I'm not sure how practical such a list would be. It would have 94 entries, which is retained in this format would be somewhat unwieldy in my opinion. If it were condensed, then this list would still have value as a stand-alone list. There are a number of red links in the list at the moment, but I am working through them over the next few weeks, so I am confident that by the time this nomination closes the remaining red links should be in the minority. As always, all comments and insights would be appreciated. Harrias ^talk 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Might it be possible to create entries for redlinks Vivalyn Latty-Scott and Rebecca Steele? — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• To quote the above blurb: "There are a number of red links in the list at the moment, but I am working through them over the next few weeks, so I am confident that by the time this nomination closes the remaining red links should be in the minority." I am prioritising the players who took the five-wicket hauls. So, succinctly, yes. Harrias ^talk 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, sounds great, thank you for the satisfactory response, and keep us posted, — Cirt (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Looks like Joyce was player of the match, so indicate that in the table. However, it looks like the award wasn't given at any of the other matches. Not even the more recent ones, strangely enough. Chamal ^T•C 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I opted not to include it for that very reason: it is an award that has been infrequently presented in women's Test matches, and when it has been presented, it hasn't always been published. So it might be that others have won the award, but we don't know about it, or certainly that others would have won the award had it been presented. It seems to be unfair, in my opinion, to give undue precedence to Joyce for this reason. Harrias ^talk 16:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, fair enough. Don't see any other problems, so I'll support. Chamal ^T•C 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments Ref 2 doesn't clearly cite "over 130". No, it was difficult to find anything that did. It has "wt133", which means that match was the 133rd, but I agree it is a little "jargonny" to use as a reference. How about this page which states that it is displaying "Showing 1 - 50 of 135" in "Statistics / Statsguru / Women's Test matches / Aggregate/overall records"? Still not ideal, but acceptable? Harrias talk 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Title of list should be "five-wicket hauls" not "five wickets" because the haul includes "more than or equal to five", whereas "five" means... "five". I think you're right, although to play devil's advocate, any one who took six wickets also took five. As with anything relating to article titles, I'll leave this for a few days in case anyone else comments, because otherwise it can get messy moving the list about a few times. Harrias talk 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) "on Test debut, and is one of three occasions on which a player has claimed seven wickets on their women's Test debut" repetitive (Test debut). "on debut, is the only player to have taken ten wickets in a match on debut" ditto (on debut). Link "over". Done. Harrias talk 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) " allowing just 0.44 runs per over" -> "conceding just..." Done. Harrias talk 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) "delivering 11.1 overs for her six for 21" other way round -> "six wickets for 21 runs from 11.1 overs." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Looks a bit better upon revisiting the page. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments – Links to wickets and innings Alt text for the image Try to reduce the red links Zia Khan 00:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Done the first two, and working on the third. Harrias talk 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Maclagan's bowling figures of seven wickets for 10 is the best by any woman on Test debut". "is" → "are"?
• Minor, but the semi-colon in the photo caption should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• But I do so like semi-colons! Both issues fixed. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Link runs in the lead "Betty Wilson, who was the fourth player to take five wickets in an innings on debut, is the only player to have taken ten wickets in a match on debut" - "player" repetitive You say seven wickets for 10, and five wickets for 51 runs in the subsequent sentence. This might comfuse someone who is not a great follower of cricket Why is ESPNcricinfo not linked in the refs. For <ref name="t1"/> you could expand the ref in the first occurrence itself. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) You could also include "Drawn" in the key —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC) All done. Harrias talk 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Garfield Sobers

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this list for quite some period of time. Sobers is arguably the greatest all-rounder to have played Test cricket. The centuries list is almost nearing completion with all the red links turning out to new pages with FL stars. We should have got this long back! Comments and suggestions are welcome. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

*Comments from Albacore (talk): File:Sir Garry Sobers 2012.jpg needs alt text. Can you link "all-rounder"? In 2004, The Wisden Cricketers' Almanack elected I don't think the T in The should be capitalized, and Wisden Cricketers' Almanack needs italics The date ranges in the references, for instance in reference 18 "Feb 26-Mar 4, 1958" should be "Feb 26–Mar 4, 1958", per WP:DATESNO. Thanks for your comments. I've Fixed all of them. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Two of your three refs for "widely acknowledged" are from the same publisher (ESPN). I suggest you add some diversity to the sources. " while capturing 235 wickets" this is possibly odd to non-cricket people as you're saying it in the same breath as his batting record. Perhaps you need to clarify "as a bowler" or something similar. "for most runs and highest individual score" is that most runs in total? Perhaps also worth noting here what those records were. "36 years later" not useful to a reader, maybe just "in 2010". "elected him as a Leading Cricketer in the World for eight years" doesn't seem quite true, reads more like someone did some maths and worked out that he would have been the leading cricketer if the award had existed at the time. He wasn't "elected", he was a "notional winner". Removed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "during the period 1958–70" no need for "the period". In English I'd write "between 1958 and 1970". The ICC Hall of Fame is actually called the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame. "After having played enough Test cricket" what do you mean? He was bored of it? In the key, complete sentences need a full stop. "match was Tied" why capital T? Why is only London unlinked? When sorting by date, the 3 and 2 test numbers are in the wrong order. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC) More comments (a revisit) "five-in-one cricketer" I don't know what this means, so I'm sure other readers will have trouble getting it.... This is just a quote used to describe his ability to bat, field and bowl three different styles. If you want to remove this it's fine, as explaining this would get into too much detail. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Well if it's unclear to me (a cricket fan) then it'll be unclear to others I'm sure. Perhaps you could find a different quote about his expertise? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Can I add a FN explaining "five-in-one" in this context? —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Of course, but footnotes are normally referenced, so you'd need to ensure your interpretation of "five-in-one" is reliably sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Thankfully the same ref. explains why Bradman described Sobers as a "five-in-one cricketer". —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC) "aggregating 8,032 runs with the bat" any real need to say "with the bat"? Perhaps "as a batsman" at a push, just to not confuse readers. Boycott didn't really "went past him", he "surpassed Sobers' record", right? No need to repeat Gary in the image caption. "one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Century in 2000." maybe worth clarifying that this was one in five. "In the fourth Test of the same series he went on..." last person you mentioned was Lara, so you need to reiterate Sobers. In the spirit of wikilinks, you could include History of cricket in the West Indies from 1945–46 to 1970 somewhere. Meanings in the Key should only have a full stop if they are complete sentences. "First of the two occasions where a Test match ended in a tie.[26]" this is time-dependent so you need to pay heed to WP:ASOF. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed the rest. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Anything more? —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "He has scored" => "He scored" (as he's not likely to score any more)
• Refs after "greatest all-rounder" are not in numerical order
• "Sobers scored 8,032 runs while retiring in 1972" = > "Sobers scored 8,032 runs before retiring in 1972" - he didn't score the runs while he was in the process of retiring

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed all. Thanks for your sharp comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Photo caption: "second highest number of centuries in Test cricket a the time of his retirement." "a" → "at". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments – The 1st sentence of the 2nd para is a little confusing. You mean this was his 3rd Test since 1954, 3rd against Pakistan or 3rd Test of the 1958 series between the teams? Same for the last para. Do you think he made his ODI debut after playing 93 Tests? I think he had already made his ODI debut, before playing his last Test. (i.e he made ODI debut in Sep 1973 and played his last Test in April 1974). In the note you say he retired in 1972 where as in the lead its 1974. Date format for ref 26 is different. Chek for others, too. Zia Khan 18:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Support – Good work! Zia Khan 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Might be worth mentioning that the "Batsman of the Match" wasn't a regularly presented award (perhaps add a note to the key), unlike the "Man of the Match" they have these days; most of the matches in the list don't have any such award. I was wondering why he didn't have more until it dawned on me that those awards are a more recent addition to the game, so I reckon somebody who doesn't know that piece of history would find it confusing. Chamal ^T•C 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm removing it for the same reason which Harrias mentioned here. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: No other issues I can see. I think this is good to go. Chamal ^T•C 06:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - About the only issues I can find is that 'duck' is not defined (and that really isn't an issue at all if the reader has a knowledge of cricket) and I would put a comma after "England" in the sentence saying he had 10 centuries against them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. I've not defined Duck since that's wiki-linked. Fixed the other issue. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

The Flashman Papers

Nominator: SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Flashman Papers are a series of twelve historical fiction books, written by George MacDonald Fraser and centred on Harry Paget Flashman, a coward, rake, adulterer, drunk, liar and cheat—and that's just what he says about himself. The series is a fantastic romp through the military hotspots of the 19th century in the company of one of the most colourful characters in literature. SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few queries were dealt with there. I haven't dealt much with Featured Lists, and so I carefully checked the FL criteria before commenting. This article seems to me to meet all the criteria and I can't think what anyone who reads it might wish to find that isn't there, nor is there anything in the article that shouldn't be. It is a most entertaining read into the bargain. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim, Many thanks for your comments at PR and your support here: your suggestions have tightened this up very nicely! Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Support – I to was at the peer review and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. The article is engaging, well written and a comprehensive account of its subject. All of my comments were embraced and met with satisfactory responses. A credit to the nominator indeed! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Cass, for your support and PR input. Both are much appreciated and—as with Tim, above—your thoughts have really helped improve this article. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Support: I never normally review at FLC as lists are far beyond my technical abilities, but I commented on this one at PR and can't resist anything to do with Sir Harry. The prose is top-notch, and this article is very comprehensive. All my comments at the PR were addressed. In the interests of strict accuracy and fairness, I can only really comments on 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the FL criteria. (The other two criteria are the reasons I don't do lists! I leave them to those with more ability...) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarastro1, Many thanks for your suggestions at PR, and for your support here: both are very much appreciated. And I'm glad there is finally a Flashman article in good order: I just have to work on a couple of the others now! - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the first of which was published in 1969, which centre" repeats "which" quickly and reads a little odd to me going plural, singular, plural.... Re-worked to avoid the problems. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "in the Flashman Papers " should the the be The? Moot point that one. In the books themselves and in media references in general it's down in both forms. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "1849 and 50" I think that should be "and 1850". Done.... - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Same for the next. ...and done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe just me but a lot of the context is very similar to the lead. Is there a real need for such duplication? Would prefer the MP to link to the UK section, so Member of Parliament#United_Kingdom... Quite right: now pointing that way. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "after deflowering Elspeth Morrison" not encyclopedic, nice, but not encyclopedic. Unless it's a quote? Could put it in quotes... Tweaked slightly to put in a quotable version. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "Battle of the Little Bighorn " has a "the" in it. So it does: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Don't forget, sortable tables should have all linked items linked every time as there's no guarantee which one comes first (e.g. Rugby School). Yeah—forgot to do that after changing the format. I've gone over and added wherte appropriate, but please let me know if there are any I've missed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "Freedom!." no need for that full stop. Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) "1890 & 1891" why not a range like all the other year ranges? It's how the book presents it, as it is a the story falls into two parts (although written as one): the events of the scandal in 1890 and the subsequent court case in 1891. I can follow the same format as the others, if you'd prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Not to worry, stick with the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC) "Tom Molineaux—Black Ajax—was financially backed by Flashman's father" needs a full stop. Added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Not convinced Category:1969 novels is really correct for a list of novels which have different publication dates.... Me neither, now you've pointed it out! Consider it removed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Many thanks as always RM. I'll look over the context and lead and see what I can do there too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support I had my say at the peer review. Limited to prose and comprehensiveness, if you correct the problem with "often taking actions that cause or affect subsequently infamous actions," too much action!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt for your oversight at PR and here. I've tweaked the above to reduce the action a little: one is now an event. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very nice, but there is quite a lot of prose in this "list", and the table format of the publication sequence does not seem to add very much: indeed, the length of the (very good) notes means that there is quite a lot of space in the first four columns. The table could be easily turned into continuous prose, with one paragraph per book. Would WP:FAC be more appropriate? The nearest comparable featured lists - List of James Bond novels and short stories and List of Maya Angelou works are both a lot more "listy". I am struggling to find a comparable featured article - perhaps The Lucy poems. Or has this been discussed elsewhere already? -- Ferma (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ferma, It's not been discussed anywhere else really (although possibly very obliquely). I was the one who first put together the push to update what was an article called "James Bond novels", to get it to GA status. It's now changed to the list article (and an FL one) List of James Bond novels and short stories. It was done because it was more a list - a breakdown of books and summaries, together with a brief background summary. It's pretty close to what we have here in many respects (deliberately so, as I copied the layout and format when I wrote this one). I went through the list/article debate in my mind a couple of times, but this still felt more like a list than an article, with no requirement at FL, or anywhere else I could find, that meant it should be categorised as an article. I'd be happier with it staying as a list, as that's what I feel it is closer to, but I am very open to hearing what others would have to say on this point... - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point that Ferma makes, but it is also worth noting that featured lists have moved on significantly since the days of "intro + table" which used to define what a list article was. Ordinarily, if you slapped an article which was even 50% prose and 50% list at FAC, it'd be "send it down" or optimistically "send it to FLC". When we collate a bunch of related articles together in a big list/table and summarise them, and provide a lovely, articulate lead, this is a featured list candidate. There has been debate over what a list is versus an article, but we tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Right now, this list is being assessed against WP:WIAFL, if it evolved into something else in the future, well that's a future discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I am asking whether the article covers a topic that lends itself to list format. Anyway, I have made some tweaks. -- Ferma (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Enjoyable read. Looks very good in all, I just have some comments: The word "Cad" isn't used at all in Rake (character) article – might be worth linking to the associated Wiktionary page instead, i.e. [[wiktionary:cad|cad]]. I'd not appreciated the slight difference between the two terms, so I've added the term, rather than replacing. Flashman is now a "cowardly British soldier, rake and cad". - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) There are a couple of instances where the text jumps between two different tenses in the same sentence; they seem a little jarring to me. Here's what I mean: "he estimated that he has slept" – "he estimates that he has slept", perhaps? "Flashman is a compulsive womaniser who had bedded 480 women" "Flashman also appears in another book ... when he was 88" All now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "Flashman and the Tiger", "The Road to Charing Cross" and "The Subtleties of Baccarat" need to sort under F, R and S respectively. Yep - I always for get about punctuation messing up the sort - now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Might be worth indicating in the image caption which character is Tom Molineaux – fourth from the left, presumably? Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I don't think the categories about the character are entirely relevant here (i.e. Characters in British novels, Fictional characters introduced in 1969 and Literary characters), since this article is obviously more about the literary series than Flashman himself. Good point: now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) May be just a personal preference, but I think it might be worth centring the Ref. columns in the two tables – I just think it looks a little neater. Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Once these issues are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, as always, for your thoughts. I've I've missed anything, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Should "The Flashman Papers" be italicised or not? It is at one point, but not at another. The Flashman article also italicises it in some places but not others. Tricky one, but as the primary source doesn't, I'll follow that. At least it is consistent the way it is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) In that case the link in the navbox needs changing too. Good spot! Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Comprehensiveness seems good; the only question I found myself wondering as I read was whether there was any response from, say, the estate of Tom Hughes over the use of some of his characters in this way. Was there? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I thought that too and ran searches to check, but nothing came up in the media that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Just given this page another quick once-over and, if we're all satisfied that it's a list rather than an article, then I feel that it meets the FL criteria. One more minor note I would make is that, since Category:Flashman novels is a subcategory of Category:British novels, then there's no need to include the latter on this page. All in all, good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks ATD: I've removed the British novels category, as suggested. I can see the arguments for this as an article, but I still feel that this does fit within the FL arena, rather than going down the FA route: the main meat of the page is a list, after all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [18].

---

John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel

Nominator(s): PresN 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Right on the heels of the Theodore Sturgeon Award's FLC comes its older brother- the Campbell novel award, for English-language scifi novels rather than short stories. It serves as the second "Campbell" award, thus the long article title, after the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. This list is based on the Sturgeon list, and I just went through and added in the fixes requested by the reviewers there. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, high quality, well-cited page, though it'd be really nice if someone could create articles for the redlinks, at the very least make them some helpful stubs with descriptive text and just a few references. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• The notes section is empty
• You should follow direct quotations with citations (namely "..."small enough to discuss among its members all of the nominated novels" but look for others).
• " Since 2004 winners have received a personalized trophy, while since the inception of the award a permanent trophy has recorded all of the winners." -- this could use a little more clarification and a bit of a copy edit. Where is this permanent trophy kept? The second part of the sentence seems unnecessarily difficult to convey the information to readers (not a fan of the wording).
• Thoughts on adding a note about tied winners to the lead? I find it quite interesting the current holders share the award. Ruby 2010/2013 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the above done. There were ties as well in 1974, 2002, and 2009; there's nothing in the official records as to why, especially seeing as there's 9 voters on the panel right now. --PresN 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get back here soon. I have given the article another thorough read and don't see any issues that would bar promotion. I support this nomination. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments Just need to be aware of the comments made at the interminable Russian Booker Prize nomination in which opposition was given to both the concept of the list and the use of primary sources. It may be that the editor in question doesn't contribute here, but it's worth being aware of the concerns etc raised there. "in the prior calendar year" prior -> previous? "138 authors have had works nominated, 40 of whom have won" 40 authors or 40 works? Starfish just redirects to the author... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC) All done. Hopefully I'm fine on the Booker thing, at least the Primary sources complaint; My cites are all to Locus magazine's site rather than to the Campbell site specifically to avoid things like that. His other concerns are unanswerable, as far as I can see- it's a fundamental disagreement on what an FL is. --PresN 18:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your quick response. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am thrilled to be back at FLC! I have decided to nominate this awards list, which was formerly promoted to FL status only to be downgraded a few months later. Since then, Scissor Sisters has received additional awards and nominations and I do not believe the same arguments for demotion apply. Happy to address concerns as they arise. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Question: There are currently two dead links. Unfortunately, I am unable to find working links to verify these claims, which is unfortunate since I believe the claims are true and were verified during the previous FLC process. Should this information be removed until a working link can be found? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried retrieving the links through the Internet archive? NapHit (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, and I am not familiar with the archive. Perhaps if I do some investigating it will be self-explanatory. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about the second link. Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The archive will not work for the Blender link and I am unable to find the "500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born" list elsewhere. Should I remove this recognition from the article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Unless we can verify it another way, it's not really suitable for inclusion.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Removed claim and added a note on the article talk page explaining reason for content removal. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Dead links, just try "archive.org" and enter the URL of the dead link. It's not bad at all for most mainstream pages. E.g. ref 5 had a few archives, this worked fine, all you need to do is include the archiveurl and archivedate to the {{cite web}} template. Thanks for the explanation. I included the archiveurl parameter, but I am not sure I understand the archivedate parameter. Any assistance with this concern, please? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) If you have a look at the top of the archive page, it says Jan 14 2010, that's the archive date. The other bar graph peaks indicate other archives by the way.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Can I remove the dead link template then? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, well hopefully if you've updated the template correctly, you can just click on the link and it'll take you to the archived page. If it works, it ain't dead! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Done. It's alive! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) " (Pink Floyd cover) " perhaps "(a Pink Floyd cover)". Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) What's an "electroclub"? Done. Who knows. Changes to "nightclubs". --Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) If you like, while editing, check the redirects. We don't need to fix them on their own, but if you can do it while making more substantial edits, so much the better... e.g. We Are Scissor Sisters... And So Are You. Corrected "We Are Scissor Sisters... And So Are You". --Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "in the UK and through Universal Records in July 2004 in the United States" any reason why you abbreviate UK and not US? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Would it be impertinent of me to suggest that if an award/nomination is notable enough to be included in this list, it should be notable enough to have its own article? (e.g. O Music Award, UK VMAs?) Sure, but I am interested in creating and expanding articles for these two award ceremonies at this time. I could create stubs or red links, if preferable? If articles are necessary, I will add them to do immediate "to do" list. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I guess my point is that if they're notable enough for you to include them, they should have an article here. That means either redlink, or stub! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Turns out there are articles for both ceremonies already! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Awesome news! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "Out magazine ranked Scissor Sisters #26" see WP:HASH to avoid using # as a substitute for "number" or similar. Done. Changed # signs to "number". --Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I believe your initial concerns have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing the list. Please let me know if any other concerns need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, clear and simple formatting, duly cited throughout with appropriate notation and citations. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, well cited and organized. Great work with the list! — Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - After checking over everything, I can't really see any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 08:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – 2nd and 3rd paras need inline citations. I added citations for singles in the second paragraph (Allmusic). The third paragraph does not need citations because no claims are made that are not referenced in the body of the list itself. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) ....Scissor Sisters and Ta-Dah on Out's "100 Greatest, Gayest Albums" list. → At least, this should be referenced. Zia Khan 06:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC) could you enlarge the image. Done. Now 300px wide. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) The image needs alt text. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Otherwise looks fine to me! Zia Khan 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 08:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The group gained prominence after signing with the independent record label A Touch of Class, during which...". There's no time period here that "during which" would be related to. This part needs a rewrite.

Better? Now reads: "The group gained prominence after signing with the independent record label A Touch of Class and their songs..." --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are page numbers possible for refs 15 and 33? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not own either book. I cannot find the Grammy book at my library, so I have replaced the reference with an online source verifying the same information. I have added the "1001 Albums" book to my library hold list and will update the page number ASAP. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Well, it turns out I cannot find the album listed in the book I picked up from the library. However, the library only has the "revised and updated" version. Accordingly, I have removed the book as a reference and included the Los Angeles Times link instead. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sufur222

• Ref 33 is dead, and thus needs replacing. Also, in the same reference, Billboard should probably be linked, and it is currently published by Prometheus Global Media (which should also be linked), taking over from Nielsen Business Media in 2009.

Apart from that, the list looks fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced dead link. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Tropical Album

Nominator(s):  — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Tropical Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental contemporary tropical albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. It is awarded to solo artists, duos or groups; if the work is a tribute or collection of live performances, the award is presented only to the directors or producers.  — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

*Three dab links, Déjame Entrar , Fonseca, Coronel... In future, please try to find these issues before nominating. Fixed (totally forgot to check; I usually do).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) "Carlos Vives with two wins is the most awarded performer in this category." commas after Vives and wins. Fixed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) "receive the award in the televised edition." ah, you haven't mentioned anything in the lead about a non-televisied edition........ Fixed (don't know why it was worded so oddly).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• You don't actually talke much in the lead about the winners, there's a couple of sentences, but you could do more.
• Check all links. You seem to take a random approach as to whether to honour people's diacritics or not, sometimes even using a pipelink to _not_ honour them...
  • I think I have dealed with this one. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Dejame Entrar links to the song, not the album. Link K.O.B. Live. Per Allmusic, Billboard, and Amazon, the artists Monchy y Alexandra should be written as Monchy & Alexandra. Juan Formell & Los Van Van or Juan Formell y Los Van Van? Be consistent. Erick (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC) No. The link to Dejame Entrar now leads to a disambiguation page. Déjame Entrar (album) is where it should link. Erick (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Done :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Erick (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 "if the work is a tribute " - Perhaps link tribute album? Done. duos or groups - Wouldn't duos technically be included under "groups"? If not, why stop at duos? There's also trios and quartets. Left only groups. cumbia and vallenato - Since these are genres, I doubt they are capitalised. You don't capitalise "tropical" earlier Fixed. benet - What's this? Where is that? Alt text. I see turbant, which Firefox is telling me is wrong, as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Oh. I have removed the images, so this must be solved. — ΛΧΣ21 13:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Not quite happy with the images. Two are at web resolution and the uploader seems to have had issue with copyright. The other, although it says it was reviewed, is currently licensed non-commercial — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay! Thanks — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk)

Comments by DivaKnockouts The category included cumbia and vallenato recordings until the introduction of Best Cumbia/Vallenato Album at the 7th Annual Latin Grammy Awards in 2006. --> Citation? Ref 3 covers that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC) What other types of genres does this category "Contemporary Tropical" cover? I see some bachata albums and even a reggaeton album! No idea :( The description the Academy gives is not much detailed. I'm sure there are some images that could be used in this article. I removed the images becuause they were of not good quality. — ΛΧΣ21 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Overall, great article. — DivaKnockouts 19:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Support — DivaKnockouts 06:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the citations look good! Well done with the list. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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