Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:26:46 27 November 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Lorenzo Bandini Trophy

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This list concerns the Lorenzo Bandini Trophy, one of the most famous and prestigious awards in the world of motor racing. I have recently redone the list and I believe that it meets the necessary criteria to be a featured list. MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• That first sentence is epic in its length - any chance you could break it up?
• "12 judges, which is composed" - don't think the words "which is" are needed
• "determine the recipient of the award" - the subject of the verb is "panel", which is singular, so it should be "determines the recipient of the award"
• The second table is headed "Winners by nation represented", but my understanding (not being a fan myself) is that in F1, drivers don't "represent" a nation in the way they do in, say, international football. Maybe change to just "Winners by nationality"?
• Any reason why the country names aren't written in full?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made all the necessary changes in response to the queries raised above. MWright96 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments –

• The title List of winners could be shortened to just Winners, as the content here is obviously a list.
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ref 20 looks questionable to me in terms of reliability, as it is self-evidently a blog. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not so sure. It lists an editorial staff per [2]. Nevertheless, have replaced it to be safe. MWright96 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Giants2008: Have addressed the concerns raised. MWright96 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Everything looks good after the changes. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Teratix

• Named after the Italian driver Lorenzo Bandini, who died three days after suffering severe burns in a major accident at the 1967 Monaco Grand Prix, the accolade's trophy, a ceramic replica of Bandini's Ferrari 312/67 adorned with the number 18, is usually awarded to an individual or team for "a commendable performance in motorsport", on the basis on how the success was achieved rather than the results attained, and their character and approach to racing. Too long. Split this into one sentence focusing on Bandini and one focusing on who the trophy is awarded to.
• The 2019 winner of the Lorenzo Bandini Trophy just say "2019 winner".
• Refs -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}) (there's only one reference per row)
• Otherwise it all looks good, and it's a shame it's sat around here so long. – Teratix ₵ 05:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Teratix: Thank you for taking the time to review. Have made all of the changes requested. MWright96 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Just two things I noticed on further review:
      • usually awarded to an individual or team since you already mentioned this in the first sentence, just cut "to an individual or team".
      • on the basis on change to "based on" – Teratix ₵ 10:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @Teratix: Have addressed both points. MWright96 (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Support, after some minor additional edits. – Teratix ₵ 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed (made some formatting tweaks), promoting. --PresN 03:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:26:44 27 November 2019 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Banana Fish episodes

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I worked on this list back when the series was airing; it has been off-air for about eight months now, so the content is stable and unlikely to change in the future. The list concerns Banana Fish, an influential manga series in the 80s/90s that was adapted into a series last year. I believe the list provides a plot overview without veering into excessive detail, is throughly sourced, and has a well-written lead section. I appreciate any feedback or comments. Morgan695 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisThe Dude

• "(alternately stylized as BANANA FISH)" - is this needed? If all it means is that the title is shown in capitals, I think it is unnecessary. Coronation Street has its title shown in caps in its opening sequence, but I don't think the lead needs to say "(alternately stylized as CORONATION STREET)"
• "although detectives Jenkins and Dickenson believe he is innocent, Evanstine arrests Ash" - presumably Evanstine is a third detective? Might be worth saying "their colleague Evanstine"..........
• "used as a frontfor a" - missing space between two words
• "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, the five men visit Ash's family home" - that makes a total of nine men, which I don't think is what you mean. Best to just say "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, Ash visit s his family home"
• "Shorter later discovers that the Alexis Dawson" - don't think the word "the" is needed there
• "the then kills Abraham" - seems to be at least one word missing here
• "the National Health Institute, federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim" => "the National Health Institute, a federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim"
• Spelling of Blanca suddenly changes to Blanka (and then later back to Blanca)
• "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire Eduardo Foxx's group of mercenaries and former members of the French Foreign Legion, to capture Ash" - comma after Legion not needed
• "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so" => "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother, who has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so"
• Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• @User:ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review. I've implemented the changes you suggested, as well as some general culling of excessively detailed plot summaries.. Morgan695 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A few further comments

• The image seems to have disappeared?
• I can see both "the group prepares" and "the group use" (eps 5 and 6) - is a group a plural or singular noun in the form of English in which the article is written?
• "After visiting to Max's ex-wife" => "After visiting Max's ex-wife"
• "discovers that young man" => "discovers that the young man"
• "Golzine and Yut-Lung hires the militia of Eduardo Foxx" => "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire the militia of Eduardo Foxx"
• All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've incorporated these changes. Looks like the infobox was removed by an intervening edit, so I've re-added the image. Morgan695 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a massive pedant, which I am sure you find very irksome, but in episodes 5, 6 and 7 I can still see four uses of "the group [verb]" and in two cases the verb is singular and in the other two it's plural. I would just fix them, but I am not sure which version of English the article is written in (American?) so I am not 100% sure which usage is correct. Sorry again...... :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @User:ChrisTheDude Ah, I see what you mean. This should be resolved now. Morgan695 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
• What do you mean by a "key visual"? Is it like a poster?
• This part "adding modern references such as smartphones and substituting the Vietnam War with the Iraq War." should have a citation.
• Since almost everything is cited in the lead, then I would recommend adding citations for these sentences as well: "The series consists of two cours, totaling 24 episodes. Aniplex encapsulated the series into four volumes, in DVD and Blu-Ray formats."
• I agree with ChrisTheDude's concern about the "the group [verb]" parts not being consistent in terms of the verbs being singular or plural.
• I am uncertain if the reference/note in the episode synopsis for "The Catcher in the Rye" is entirely necessary. That information seems more relevant to the main article on the series rather than here as it is more about the writing and production while this list is more focused on plot, broadcasting, and release.

Otherwise, everything looks good to me. I believe ChrisTheDude already has covered a lot so thank you for that. I have heard of this manga/anime when I was doing research on the boy's love genre as part of my M.A. project so it is nice to learn more about it. I hope my comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @User:Aoba47 Thank you for your review, and I'm happy to hear you learned more about the series from doing it. I've incorporated the citation and copy edits you suggested; a key visual is essentially a piece of promotional art, so I've used that word as a more widely-recognized alternative. Re: the citation in "The Catcher In The Rye," I added it awhile ago because this article and Banana Fish were the subject of a quasi-trolling edit war over whether the series truly ends with the protagonist dying; the citation clarifies the plot directly from the creator of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything, and that all makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. It was a pleasure to read this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. However, I understand if you do not have the time or interest so do not feel pressured to do so. Either way, good luck with this nomination and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from lullabying with 3O response from Seraphimblade

Comments from lullabying with 3O response from Seraphimblade

I think it would be better if the article contained information about the anime production process, because so far I'm not seeing the jump from a B article to a Good article. I know Spoon 2Di released staff interviews which I think would be helpful in building the article. Also, this is the first time I'm seeing audio dramas listed in the episodes... for some reason I don't think they belong there because this article should focus on the animation itself. lullabying (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC) @Lullabying: I can do some research into fleshing out information on production. Regarding the audio dramas, I think this is a specific case where they merit inclusion because they were produced by the same studio that produced the anime, with the same voice cast, and were released exclusively with the physical media release of the series. If this were a typical anime radio drama, where the audio may have been produced by a different company with different voice actors and given its own discrete release on a CD/other physical media, I would agree that it would be strange to include it here. The Banana Fish audio dramas are essentially minisodes for the anime series, and I think it enhances the list to include them in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC) A lot of drama CDs use the same voice cast in the anime and they're released as bonuses in the manga/home release. It just doesn't fit considering that the list is supposed to focus on animated episodes IMHO. I know Ao Haru Ride had a drama CD released with one of the manga volumes to promote the anime, and had some bonus comics released with the limited editions of the home release but I wouldn't necessarily list it in the episodes section because they're not the same format. It's a similar case with the Persona 3 drama CDs. lullabying (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC) I still believe Banana Fish is a distinct case, as the audio drama episodes were included with the physical anime release (and not the manga, as in the case of Ao Haru Ride) and did not receive their own discrete media release (as in the case of Persona 3). I can continue working on your note re: production, but we can route to a second opinion as necessary if the audio drama issue is an impasse. Morgan695 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Digimon Tamers also had a new drama CD with its new Blu-ray release. Anyways, the inclusion doesn't fit the format for WP:EPISODE, since these pages are supposed to focus on television episodes or shorts. lullabying (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC) The Digimon Tamers Blu-ray example appears to be a one-off single episode release, rather than a multi-episodic release as Banana Fish was. And I'm not seeing any specific guidance at WP:EPISODE that circumscribes content for television "list of episode" articles in the way you've described, beyond the content needing to be notable and sourced (aka the standard for any Wikipedia article). Morgan695 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC) I recommend you opening a WP:3PO request because as stated, this article should ideally focus on televised episodes or animated shorts, whereas audio dramas are simply audio dramas and aren't part of the format. These are simply drama CDs that come with the limited editions of the home release and would put some WP:UNDUE. Some anime home releases come with limited edition comics, just like the CDs, and I wouldn't list them here just like the CD dramas. As it currently is, I disagree with it being on the page. lullabying (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC) @Lullabying: Third opinion request has been made. I will continue to edit the list's information on production and ping you when it is in acceptable condition to review. Morgan695 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC) @Lullabying: Lede has been revised to include more information on production. The section now contains 2563B of readable prose, making it of roughly equivalent size to the featured list List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (2366 B), listed at Wikipedia:EPISODE as a "good example of a 'list of' page" Morgan695 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Forgot to mention, the names of musicians and song titles cannot be in all capitals unless they are acronyms per MOS:JAPAN#Titles of media. lullabying (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3O Response: Given that the audio dramas were an official, canon part of the releases, were offered with the series media, and were a series unto themselves rather than a one-off or novelty, I think their inclusion is warranted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Seraphimblade. Given your comment, and that two reviewers have already elected to support the list for featured status in its current form with the audio drama episodes included, I am going to keep them in the list at this time, and would welcome input from other editors who wish to review the list for featured eligibility. Morgan695 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Nihonjoe

I only have one question:

• Are there any sources discussing the names of the episodes? They all seem to be named after famous works of some sort. If there are sources, I think this would be a good thing to include as it seems to be a deliberate choice.

All of my other potential comments/questions are covered by others, above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Nihonjoe: I've added a note to the third paragraph about the episode titles being references to literary works. Morgan695 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Morgan695: Looks good. Support. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

Some minor thoughts I had:

• Can the directors in the episodes be referenced?
• The second paragraph starts a bit confusing "A Banana Fish anime" It kinda feels like there was another anime. Maybe it could sound better as "The Banana Fish anime"

Other than that, I think other editors pointed the other stuff. Ping me and I will support if everything goes well.Tintor2 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Edits have been made. The directors are cited in the air date references, but I've repeated the reference for clarity. Morgan695 (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I was looking to nitpick more but I only found a bit of wikilinks revision but I went bold. I support. Good work with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:10:56 24 November 2019 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1970

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

With the 1980s almost completed, it's time to start on the 1970s, beginning with a year when two of country's most legendary performers took their repective signature songs to number one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are Rolling Stone etc. linked in the refs, but Billboard isn't?
  • Billboard now linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• AllMusic should use |publisher, since it's not a newspaper/book etc.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a specific reason why Haggards picture includes a reference, but Twitty's and Lynn's don't?
  • The ref is there to support the fact that "The Fightin' Side of Me" is one of his best-known songs, which isn't mentioned elsewhere. The claims in Twitty and Lynn's captions are sourced in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• According to the Hello Darlin' article, the song was the number-one country song of 1970. Is this wrong or is there a reason that this is not included?
  • That claim seems a bit vague. I can only find one reliable source ([5]) which mentions it, and it doesn't say who named it the number 1 song of the year or on what basis (it also doesn't say "number one country song", it just says "number one song"). I'd rather not include such a vague claim in the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• --Lirim | Talk 14:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• So I digged a little bit deeper and it seems like that the magazine issue for December 26, 1970 is not available online where year end charts are listed. While the main issue is available, the Talent in Action version is sadly missing and I haven't found an archived version.[6], but the issues are archived for the previous year and the following years; see for e.x.: page 36; Just a tipp for further lists; Billboard has year-end charts for Country charts since 1949 – see for e.x.: page 19
  • Thanks for that heads-up, but in the absence of a reliable source that specifically states that it was named number 1 country song of the year by Billboard, I would still prefer not to include it. The Boot says only "it was named number 1 song of the year", which in my opinion is far too vague to support the claim -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Why is Billboard's publisher not mentioned, but the Rolling Stones' is? This should be consistent.--Lirim | Talk 01:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Where is Rolling Stone's publisher listed? I am not seeing that. The only publisher I can see listed is Townsquare Media for The Boot and Taste of Country, and that's only because the publisher has a WP article but the specific websites do not. I could always pipe it to [[Townsquare Media|Taste of Country]] if you think that would be better..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support — Lirim | Talk 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Wonderful work as always on the list. Everything seems to have already been addressed in the above review. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Teratix

• 23 different singles topped the chart, then published under the title Hot Country Singles This confused me on a first reading (I read it as "the songs topped the chart, then were published under this title"). I'm not suggesting this will seriously mislead readers, but it may trip them up, and replacing "then" with "at this time" somewhere in the phrase will solve the problem with only a couple of extra words.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• playlists submitted by country music radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores. I would avoid using "submitted" twice in close succession.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• legendary country singer Hank Williams "legendary" is a bit WP:PEACOCK-y. Attribution or a milder term might be appropriate.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• The final number one of the year was "Rose Garden" by Lynn Anderson, which went to number one in the issue of Billboard dated December 26 to begin a run which would last until the issue dated January 30, 1971. Since its number-one status is already mentioned, just say "which began a run in the issue of Billboard dated December 26" etc.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Sonny James spent a total of 14 weeks at number one during the year. 1) "a total of" is unnecessary here 2) 14 is a numeral here but it's spelled out in the lead.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• The claim that "Coal Miner's Daughter" is autobiographical is not mentioned in the lead so must be sourced in the caption.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Anything wrong with c:File:Sonny James.png or c:File:Loretta Lynn 1975 on tour.jpg as side images? What about the lead images in Jerry Lee Lewis, Tammy Wynette, Charley Pride, to name a few?
  • Swapped the images of Sonny and Loretta. Not sure there's really room for any more images beside the table.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I meant the images as potential replacements, not additions. But all the images look fine now, so there's no need. – Teratix ₵ 12:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've also made a couple of trivially tiny fixes myself
• That should be all, great work. – Teratix ₵ 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix: - many thanks for your comments, all of which I have addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

• How to cite AllMusic came up here and here. FWIW, I add the publisher for books, because those published in other countries, in paperback, etc., may have different page numbers, etc. For magazines, websites, etc., it doesn't seem to make much difference (AllMusic has changed owners/publishers several times). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Apparently, this issue is a ways from being resolved. The rest looks fine, so I'll support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job as always. – zmbro _(talk) 02:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, please find my comments below: Lead "It's Just a Matter of Time", "My Love", "Don't Keep Me Hangin' On" and correct link to It's Just a Matter of Time (song) and "Endlessly" formed part of a streak correct link to Endlessly (Brook Benton song) to be regarded as their respective signature songs correct link to List of signature songs Table February 14 to 28 – correct link to It's Just a Matter of Time (song) May 2 – correct link to My Woman, My Woman, My Wife October 24 to 31 – correct link to Run, Woman, Run November 28 to December 12 – correct link to Endlessly (Brook Benton song) References Ref 6 – unlink AXS TV Refs 7, 16–67 – unlink Billboard (magazine) Ref 9 – unlink Townsquare_Media Ref 10 – unlink AllMusic Refs 11, 13, 15 – unlink Rolling Stone Refs 61 – fix link to 14 November and amend title Images 4 of the 5 images requires a ref after the caption. * @Ianblair23: Why? The captions only repeat information cited in the prose or (in the case of the Sonny James one) simply state something which can be routinely calculated from the table and therefore doesn't need a citation. Image captions don't normally require a ref unless the information in question isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC) @Ianblair23: - everything else done, but I disagree that the image captions need refs, for the reasons explained above........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Great effort ChrisTheDude. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – One small formatting issue exists: the hyphen in the title of ref 2's year range should be an en dash for style purposes. Other than that, the formatting looks good. All of the references look reliable and the link-checker shows no issues, so there's just the one problem to fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:55:38 17 November 2019 (UTC) [7].

---

Nischal Basnet filmography

Nominator(s): ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
ChrisTheDude, Aoba47, Dudley Miles
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
None

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the directors who brought change to the Nepali film industry. Besides directing he also acts and sings.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Any chance of a photo caption that says something other than just his name?
• "He made his directorial debut in 2002" - shouldn't that say 2012?
• "25.5 million Nepalese rupees" - any chance of a conversion for this, as I doubt many people outside Nepal would know what this equates to?
• "who tries abduct a gangster's daughter." => "who tries to abduct a gangster's daughter."
• No need for a hyphen in "dark comedy"
• "The film is set in Nepalese Civil War" => "The film is set during the Nepalese Civil War"
• "Loot 2 was a blockbuster at the box office, earning 10.5 million Nepalese rupees.[15] In its first week, Loot 2 grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees" - this makes no sense. How could it have earned 60.1M rupees in its first week but only 10.5M overall?
• Where multiple refs appear together, they are often not in numerical order
• Why is no role given for the films in which he made "special appearances"? Presumably he still played a character with a name.....
• In the TV table, no need for a comma after Raut
• Titles of songs should be shown in inverted commas
• In the notes column of the music video table, no need for a comma after the first name if only two names are listed
• External link section should be called "External links" (it's always shown as "links", even if there's only one
• Think that's all I have -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have fixed all of the issues. Notifying ChrisTheDude.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• You don't need to be as precise as "equivalent to US$524067.48" - saying "aproximately US$524,000" would be OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude Oh. Done and thanks for letting me know.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• No role listed for "Changa Chet"?
• No need for comma in photo caption
• You describe both Loot films as "blockbusters", but the box office takings listed are quite small, certainly when most people are familiar with the notion of US films taking over a billion dollars. I appreciate that the Nepalese film industry is obviously very very different, but is there a way to express the success of the films in a way that gives a bit more context, rather than just saying "it was a blockbuster"? Was either the most successful film of the year in Nepal, or even of all time? As it stands we have no way of knowing whether Loot's takings of US$200k actually represent a huge success in Nepal. Does that make sense?
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Loot became the highest-grossing film. ChrisTheDude ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comment from Aoba47

• Although this has been discussed above, I am uncertain about the "blockbuster" word choice. I would remove it altogether and revise the sentence to something like this: (Loot earned 25.5 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$218,000 in 2019), making it Nepal's highest-grossing film of 2012.).
• I would clarify in the lead that Basnet wrote the screenplay for Loot. That would help to explain why the lead mentions the critical response to the script, which came a little out of left field for me.
• I understand why you included a sentence that loot reportedly "changed the discourse of the Nepali film industry", but it is rather vague. Without more context, I am not exactly sure what this means. Maybe you could replace the quote with a brief part about why this film is so important to the Nepali film industry to better explain it to unfamiliar readers like myself?
• A wikilink for hunger strikes in the image caption may be helpful.
• I would add ALT text to the image.
• I am uncertain about this sentence (In 2014, Basnet was an actor and producer in Ram Babu Gurung's romantic drama Kabaddi.) as it could read that he played an actor and producer in the film. Maybe something like (In 2014, Basnet acted in and produced Ram Babu Gurung's romantic drama Kabaddi) instead would be better?
• Loot should not be wikilinked multiple times in the lead.
• I am uncertain if this sentence (The film went to win a National Film Award.) because it deals more with the movie itself than Basnet's involvement with it.
• For this sentence (Loot 2 was a blockbuster at the box office, it grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$524,000 in 2019), surpassing the lifetime box office gross of Loot.), I would remove "blockbuster" and just say (Loot 2 grossed 60.1 million Nepalese rupees (approximately US$524,000 in 2019), surpassing the lifetime box office gross of Loot.) instead.
• Any reason why Sarwanam Theater is not mentioned in the lead?
• Since there is a separate subsection and table for the music videos, should they be mentioned in the lead?
• I would remove the red link for Dinesh Raut since it was established in an AfD (here) that this individual is not notable enough for an article. Red links should only be used to encourage the creation of an article, and that should not be the case here.

I hope this helps, and good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 I have addressed all of your comments. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I have two additional comments before I can support this:

• I would remove the sentence about Loot being a cult film as I do not think it is necessary. I also do not see how "cult classic" is supported in the citation.
• I am uncertain about this revised sentence (Loot changed the status of Nepali cinema because of "the creative team that pulled out a one-of-a-kind concept".), particularly because it follows a sentence about how critics disliked the script because it was unoriginal. It might be better to just change it back to the original wording. Apologies for the back-and-forth on that part. Aoba47 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 No worries, done.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• It would be helpful to add his date of birth if known.
• "The film focuses on Hakku Kale (played by Saugat Malla) who masterminds a bank robbery." I would have a comma after "Malla)".
• "Dcine Award and Kamana Film Award should be explained in notes or stub articles.

• Your note is not what I meant. I think a sentence something like this would help the reader: "The Dcine Award is given by xxx for films by Nepali directors, shot in Nepal and in one of the languages of Nepal." (Change text as relevant) Dudley Miles (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sarwanam Theater links to a theatre group, not a competition.
• You should say what language his work is in. Is it all in Nepali? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot see where you answer this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles I have made the changes as you suggested. I have not added the date of his birth because there isn't any information about it covered by reliable sources. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles they should be complete now. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support. I would like to have seen more information on the awards but that is minor and the article is otherwise fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, with some tweaks. Promoting. --PresN 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:06:57 17 November 2019 (UTC) [8].

---

List of songs recorded by Ringo Starr

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 03:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have successfully brought Harrison, Lennon, and McCartney's song lists all up to FL so last but not least, the drummer. One to go before the Fab Four together. While Ringo may not have had the most successful solo career (especially after 1974), that doesn't change the fact that he still one of the greatest drummers of all time and the world would not be the same without him. As always, I can't wait to hear all your comments and concerns. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 03:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support — Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support — A very good list, like the other ones. I hope you are also considering doing this.--Lirim | Talk 00:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Lirim.Z Thank you! Oh 100%! That will be my next one :-) – zmbro _(talk) 02:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "both featured less celebrity contributors" => "both featured fewer celebrity contributors"
• "Starr began recording with his All-Starr Band, who" => "Starr began recording with his All-Starr Band, which"
• "whose title track featured references" => "the title track of which featured references"
• How come "Do You Like Me Just a Little Bit?" has no writers? Someone must have written it.......

• Reached out to another editor who might be able to help with that.

• You haven't marked "Money" as having been previously recorded by the Beatles
• "Spooky Weirdness" has no writers?

• Weirdly enough yeah, the liner notes don't credit anyone for that track.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• All done + comments above. Thanks very much :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Talking of "Spooky Weirdness", it seems that some of the S tracks aren't in the right order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whoops – fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I do not think the caption for the lead image should have a period because it is not a full/complete sentence.
• I would link "rock" in "and the rock album" to be consistent with how every other musical genre is linked in the lead.

Wonderful work with the list. Once my very minor and nitpicky comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Aoba47 All done. Thanks very much! – zmbro _(talk) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in my response. Awesome work with the list as always. I support it for promotion. I hope you are having an excellent start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Aoba47 Thank you so much! And you too as well! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 01:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review – There are a few formatting issues and the like that could stand to be fixed before promotion occurs:

• The Castleman/Podrazak, Clayson, and Miles/Badman books have no cites to them at the moment, so there's no reason for them to be placed in the source list.
• Ref 5 has a typo in the author name (Rodrigues instead of Rodriguez), which is causing me a nasty red error message.
• Ref 14 doesn't have the year listed, unlike the other book cites. That is causing me another nasty red error message.
• The full Badman 2001 book reference doesn't have the ref=harv parameter, which leads to more error messages in the cites using it.
• Other than those issues, the formatting is okay. The reliability of the sources looks fine, and the link-checker shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Giants2008 All fixed. Thanks very much! – zmbro _(talk) 17:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:55:40 17 November 2019 (UTC) [9].

---

List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, first it follows all the Featured List criteria:

• Written as prose with a good lead.
• The article is comprehensive with all necessary informations and sources.
• Have a organised structure with all tables, sections and heading required to display the the information.
• Complies with WP:MOS.
• The article is stable, no edit wars can be seen in recent times and also as all information are well tabled and with citations, there is very little scope of edit wars.

Secondly, the article has been constructed taking inspiration from FL articles like List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi and List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo and shows almost identical in nature and thus can be included in Featured list. Dey subrata (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Satisfies a no. of requirements.--Anbans 585 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Despite the extremely quick support above, I found a lot of issues. Most of them are minor, but nonetheless they need fixing............

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

*"As of 5 September 2019, he scored 72 goals" => "As of 5 September 2019, he has scored 72 goals" "On 9 December 2011 Chhetri scored a brace" - Wikilink or explain "brace", as I suspect a lot of people will not know what it means "win over Maldives in 2011 SAFF Cup" => "win over the Maldives in the 2011 SAFF Cup" "only behind Cristiano Ronaldo" => "behind Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal" (no "only") "highest active goals scorer from Asia" => "highest active goalscorer from Asia" "Chhetri scored the only goal for India in 1−2 defeat" => "Chhetri scored the only goal for India in a 2-1 defeat" "thus becoming fifth highest goal scorer from Asia" => "thus becoming the fifth highest international goalscorer from Asia" Is that the fifth highest of all time? Make that clear. "puts him as tenth highest goal scorer" => "puts him as the tenth highest goalscorer" "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was 2007 Nehru Cup" => "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was the 2007 Nehru Cup" "where he scored 2 goals" => "where he scored two goals" "against Cambodia in 6–0 win" => "against Cambodia in a 6–0 win" " only Indian footballer who scored 50 international goals" => " only Indian footballer to score 50 international goals" "14 in the Nehru Cups" => "14 in the Nehru Cup" "rest have come in AFC Challenge Cup & its qualifiers" => "rest have come in the AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers" "three international hat-tricks, most by any Indian" => "three international hat-tricks, the most by any Indian" "netted twice in a match (also known as a brace)" - ah, now you explain it. This would be better placed where "brace" was used before. "He has scored 11 out of his 72 goals from spot kick also known as Penalty kick." => "He has scored 11 out of his 72 goals from penalty kicks." "He also previously appeared thrice for the India U-20 side and scored 2 goals in the 2004 South Asian Games,[13][14] which are not considered as the official ones." - well don't mention it then. "Chhetri celebrating a goal with his team mate Anirudh Thapa at 2019 AFC Asian Cup group match against Thailand." => "Chhetri celebrating a goal with his team mate Anirudh Thapa in a 2019 AFC Asian Cup group match against Thailand." "score column indicates score after each Chhetri's goal" => "score column indicates score after Chhetri's goal" Why is the first number in each score column bold? You have already said that India's score is listed first, there's no need to bold it as well. As it's a sortable table, you need to link everything every time. At the moment the linking in the stadium column is particularly inconsistent - you link "Ambedkar Stadium" the first FOUR times it appears but then seem to randomly stop linking it. "FIFA allows maximum of three substitutes by each team,[57] but in the match listed below, more than three substitutes were made by each team,[27][58] thus the match is not considered as official match" => "FIFA allows a maximum of three substitutions by each team,[57] but in the match listed below, more than three substitutions were made by each team,[27][58] thus the match is not considered an official match" Goals scored for the under-20 team should not be included. No other equivalent list includes the players' goals for under-age teams. In the three tables under "statistics", goals should not have a capital G in the headers. Lots of SHOUTING in the ref titles - fix that You don't need to include both the website and the publisher in the ref if they are essentially the same (eg. www.espn.in and ESPN - in this case just have ESPN). You have both "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" and "RSSSF" as publishers in the refs - pick one and stick to it. HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for taking your time and keeping patience in reviewing the article in details, I have corrected all grammatical errors that you mentioned above. But I want to add, that unofficial match that was written, its official actually but is not a FIFA A international thus I've corrected and written accordingly. RSSSF is kept rather than whole name. SHOUTING that you have mentioned is not intentionally but because of the original title in the citation is put as it is, if you find thats ok, we can keep it or I will write all those title in small letters. So, please go through again and if you think something more need to be corrected. Please let me know. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Sorry forgotten to mention another of your concern, about linking of stadiums and consistency, You can see the Ambedkar stadium and any other stadium which is mentioned more than once, is not linked second time, because I strongly follow the MOS:OVERLINK concept, its very useless to link again and again the same thing, so I always prefer to keep link once, you can notice it in every stadium, place and players links. So I think it could not be an issue. Thank you again Dey subrata (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: I will do a full check later, but is there a particular reason why you have left in the goals for India's under-20 team? As I mentioned above, no other equivalent list includes goals for under-age teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The only reason I have kept it because, AIFF considered them as international goals against his tally, though FIFA don't recognise it in "senior" international goals (but are FIFA recognised goals though are under age group goals ofcorse) but FIFA respect the federation tally, for which you can see in news when AIFF announced Sunil Chhetri as all time highest scorer after scoring 39 goals not 31 goals because I M Vijayan also scored some U20 goals which were considered as international goals by AIFF (not FIFA), for this I often see new editors come and put these goals in the list without knowing the official data which often creates chaos (also that goal against Qatar), so better I have kept it such so that if any new editor comes, he/she may not do such mistakes. I think its better for the article to follow the last but a important criteria "to be a stable article", without this I think it will often be unstable. Dey subrata (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am not 100% sure about that but I will leave it here to see what other editors think.

@ChrisTheDude: Here check AIFF is declaring him as the second highest goalscorer with 39 goals, I M Vijayan 38 goals (including u20 goals) by AIFF where as he has 29 goals only (FIFA recognised here). Though in reality by FIFA A international match stats Chhetri become highest goalscorer when he scored his 30th goal. Thats why so that no confusion may occur among readers and editors as many such articles you can find online. Here is one such example. My intention is to keep it stable, if we remove this information from the page, some one in future must be there will get confused and will do edits. Trust me very few people here have Indian players international knowledge, and no one is permamnent here to resolve these issues, if such issue arise i am afraid it will not be resolved. One thing that can be done is that, that line from the lead can be removed and just the goals in the table later be kept as mentioned seperately after the main list or if you suggest any thing else. Dey subrata (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

;Further comments "On 9 December 2011 Chhetri had netted twice in a match" => "On 9 December 2011 Chhetri netted twice" "win over the Maldives in 2011 SAFF Cup" => "win over the Maldives in the 2011 SAFF Cup" "highest active goals scorer from Asia" => "highest active goalscorer from Asia" "tenth highest goal scorer in the history of international football" => "tenth highest goalscorer in the history of international football" "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was 2007 Nehru Cup" => "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was the 2007 Nehru Cup " "where he scored 2 goals" => "where he scored two goals" "in 6–0 win" => "in a 6–0 win" "only Indian footballer who scored 50 international goals" => "only Indian footballer to score 50 international goals" "14 in the Nehru Cups" => "14 in the Nehru Cup" "AFC Challenge Cup & its qualifiers" => "AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers" "11 out of his 72 goals from Penalty kicks." => "11 out of his 72 goals from penalty kicks."

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

*The refs also need a lot of work, but I will look at that separately..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Done, corrected the remaining missed errors. I think that Capital title bothering I think, ok I will make it in small letters. Dey subrata (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Changed the CAPITAL Titles to Small letters. Dey subrata (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Good work including sources for the goals. Important for verifiability.
• "Appearances and Goals by competition" might need some rework, it seems unnecessarily detailed, for example Nehru Cup, King's Cup are not official tournaments, it's ok to keep them in individual goals, but not for aggregates. Appearance and goals in that should be clubbed under friendlies. SAFF Championship can be retained I suppose. Coderzombie (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Thank you for reviewing the article, ofcorse credit goes to you a lot as you have added lot of the goals and statistics in the first place. Anyway coMing to your concern, Nehru Cup and Kings' Cup are mentioned as because these are actually FIFA certified tournament (though Nehru cup is dissolved now), very few tournaments are FIFA certified and AFC certified another example is Pestabola Merdeka, the points counted on importances for FIFA certified tournament are little higher than normal friendlies. So its been added. You can see that I have not included intercontinental cup or anyother cup he played. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

;Comments on refs As mentioned above, you don't need to have both the website and publisher when they are essentially the same - this applies to refs 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, every one from 35 to 45 and every one from 49 onwards Refs 9 and 11 don't have either a website or a publisher Some ref dates are like 2019-09-19, others are 19 September 2019 - pick one and stick with it For ref 22, the publisher should just be Rediff For ref 10, the publisher should just be Reuters For ref 58 the publisher is National Football Teams, but for ref 60 (same website) it is Benjamin Strack-Zimmerman For refs which are archived you don't need to have "web.archive.org" as the website HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Done, I hope its looking fine now. Dey subrata (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much for your support, Chris on taking the quality up a notch. You are The Dude. Coderzombie (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Apologies, but there's still some issues with the refs: Ref 17 still has both www.fifa.com and FIFA Ref 18 is to the same site as both 58 and 60, yet the parameters are different Rediff spelt wrong in ref 22 Ref 29 still has unnecessary archive.org Ref 57 has both resources.fifa.com and FIFA Nearly there now, though, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Ya, I don't know how I missed those, now done, check if its done or not. Dey subrata (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Want to add that archiving of the references are done. All ok I think. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• The second sentence has two linked uses of Indian national football team.
• "and country's most-capped player" > the country's...
• The second image is a fragment so doesn't require a full stop.
• "in the King's Cup. and the rest have come in the AFC Challenge Cup", full stop half way but the sentence carries on.
• Second paragraph could do with a source for the final part.
• "but are official goals", if they're not counted by FIFA then they aren't considered official. I'm assuming they're counted by the All India Football Federation? If so, I'd add that to the sentence.
• "FIFA allows a maximum of three substitutions by each team", that's only in competitive fixtures which, according to the table, this wasn't. The ref you're using is for the 2017 Confederations Cup which is a competitive tournament. It's usually seven for friendly matches which would make sense as the RSSSF ref states India made 10 substitutes.
• I'd probably agree with ChrisTheDude's comments about removing the under-20 goals. If they're not recognised by FIFA, then it's probably placing undue importance on them in comparison to senior international fixtures.
• Refs 4, 11, 12, 14, 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 48 and 52 need an author.
• Ref 13 uses a different date format than other refs, stick to one style for consistency.
• Ref 22 needs a publishing date as a parameter, rather than included in the title.
• Refs 23, 32, 52, 54, 55, 56 and 59 need a publishing date.
• Avoid shouting in ref titles, as in ref 57, per WP:ALLCAPS.
• Basically, any AIFF refs also need a publishing date which is listed at the bottom of the article.
• Ref 58 is Giovanni Savarese's profile, not a match report as stated.

I've done a run through and picked out some points above. Kosack (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for taking time to review it. All your concern are resolved. Except one thing I want to add, those u-20 goals are kept, as I have mentioned before, because 90 percent readers and editors who visit the article are Indians and because of the fact that AIFF consider those goals as official goals, there is very high chance and we have seen before too editors doing mistakes, mostly new editors, they try to change the goal list and edit to include those goals without having any knowledge that those goals are u23 or u20 goals. I just want the article to be stable, I don't want that when the article gets FA status, someone coming here adding those goals in the goal list. So, lets take a final call, you know my concerns now, my decision is "Aye", let it be here for stability of the article, now you four give your final call.. Do you want to keep it or not? @Anbans 585:, @Coderzombie: @ChrisTheDude: Dey subrata (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Under-20 goals should definitely not be included. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

U-20 goals should not be included. Coderzombie (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, one other thing I noticed - why are the unofficial games/under-20 games/hat-tricks tables centred on the screen whereas the big one is not? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Check now. Dey subrata (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say they should all be left-aligned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Dey subrata (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: and @Kosack: Ok, I removed the u-20 goals from the lead and also from the list but added a footnote instead. I think that will go good with all. Dey subrata (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just noticed one more thing (can't believe I did not spot this before): out of his 72 goals, 39 came in friendly matches, 17 in the SAFF Championships, 14 in the Nehru Cup, 13 in the World Cup qualifiers, 9 in the Asian Cup qualifiers, 5 in the AFC Asian Cup, 1 in the King's Cup and the rest have come in the AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers - 39+17+14+13+9+5+1=98 (and that's without including "the rest" which came in the AFC Challenge Cup), so at least one of those numbers must be very wrong......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: its written "in the AFC Challenge Cup and its qualifiers-"8 and 6" which is 14....so everything was correct brother. you misread the sentence. Dey subrata (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence cannot be correct, because it states that he has scored 72 goals in total, and then it lists figures for each competition and they add up to 98. The numbers cannot possibly be right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How its clearly wriiten the rest came in AFC Challenge cup and its qualifiers, 98 and the rest whatever goals...its from afc challenge n its qualifier... What's wrong in it. Dey subrata (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Forget the bit about the AFC Challenge Cup specifically. What is wrong is that you say he has scored a total of 72 goals, but the numbers for each competition add up to 98, as I have stated twice above. As an example, you say he has scored 39 goals in friendlies, but I checked the table and there are only 16 listed, a massive difference. Similarly, the lead says he has scored 14 goals in the Nehru Cup, but there are only 9 in the table. So all the numbers in that sentence are wrong. Do you understand the issue? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I was talking about appearances. My mistake. Dey subrata (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, but this isn't a list of appearances, it's a list of goals, so you need to change those numbers to the number of goals he scored in each competition -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Dey subrata (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you included his goals in the Intercontinental Cup in the total for friendlies? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. included the intercontinental in the friendlies. Dey subrata (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If they are not listed as friendlies in the table, then for consistency I would not lump them in with the friendlies in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. listed as Friendly with name of the cup in bracket. Dey subrata (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support' - thanks for bearing with me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No thanks to you, for taking your valuable time for it. And its a learning process for me. I will be nominating few other list too, hope and like to work with you in those articles too. Dey subrata (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• A further point, the table should be using scoperows, per WP:DTT. Kosack (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Dey subrata (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've taken another run through and picked out a few more:

• "The captain of the India national football team, he is the all-time top goalscorer of India and the country's most-capped player", I would suggest merging the goalscorer and capped parts together to avoid a double mention of India. Something like "The captain of the India national football team, he is the country's most-capped player and all-time top goalscorer".
• The link for I.M.Vijayan is redirecting back on itself.
• "With his 72 International goals", no need to capitalise international and I'd add a comma after goals.
• Pakistan is already linked in the first paragraph so there's no need to repeat the link in the third.
• "Chhetri's first international tournament for India was the 2007 Nehru Cup where he scored two goals against Cambodia in a 6–0 win", it seems odd to only mention one of the three fixtures he scored in during the tournament especially as he was Indian's top scorer and they won the tournament.
• "7 in the World Cup qualifiers, 4 in the Asian Cup qualifiers", I don't think we need the before these two tournaments. It sounds odd when it's referring to multiple qualifying campaigns rather than a single one.
• Use the same name for the Asian Cup rather than having "Asian Cup" followed by "AFC Asian Cup" later on.
• Probably not worth having the ref column as sortable given that it doesn't sort refs.
• The espn.in refs (46 & 47) have author and publishing dates available. Kosack (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: All the above done, but I don't understand the I M Vijayan thing, redirecting back on itself?? I don't get it. Dey subrata (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The link is piped to his full name but the actual article uses his initials. So you're forcing a redirect to the page for no reason. Kosack (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Done. Dey subrata (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The two espn.in refs (now 47 & 48) have not been amended. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: What to do in it, please let me know, wat to amend..or can you please do it. Dey subrata (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The refs just had an available author and publishing date is all, I've added them in now. Anyway, that's it from me, happy to support this nomination now. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• For the second image in the lead, I would add (left) and (right) by the people's name just to make it clear who is who in the photo.
• A majority of the dependent clauses with dates (i.e. "On 9 December 2011 Chhetri netted" and "On 5 September 2019 Chhetri") do not use commas to separate it from the rest of the sentence. The only exception that I see is this sentence "As of 5 September 2019, he has scored 72 goals in 112 official international appearances since his debut on 12 June 2005 against Pakistan." I would remove the comma for consistency with the rest of the lead.

These are the only two things that I can see. It seems that this list has already received an extensive review from other editors at this point. Once my comments are addressed and resolved, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed. In the image, its sufficienet to add only Chhetri(left) as there are two people only, its obvious the other person will be (right), so added Chhetri (left). and commas are used after both of the dates. I hope all done. Dey subrata (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - meets all relevant criteria Spiderone 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "Sunil Chhetri is an Indian professional footballer, who..." The comma is unnecessary.
• "His tally of 72 puts him as the tenth highest goalscorer..." Add a hyphen to make it "tenth-highest".
• "In his debut match on 12 June 2005 against arch-rival Pakistan Chhetri scored..." Add a comma after "Pakistan".
• "He is the only Indian footballer to score 50 international goals and..." Add a comma after "goals".
• "1 in the King's Cup [6][16]" There is a space between "Cup" and the references. Either move them to the end of the sentence, or add a comma after "Cup" and remove the space.
• The second image needs alt text.
• The first table uses "#" for goal number, but the second two use "Goal". Choose one or the other. Also...
• "#" should not be used to indicate number; use "No." instead (if you choose this style).

*My personal preference would be to apply column widths to the first three tables for a cleaner look/transition between the three. (Optional)

• Why is "FIFA allows a maximum of six substitutions..." smaller?
• The three International statistics tables need row and col scope.
• Some references are in title case (1, 2, 4) others are sentence case (3, 7, 10). Choose one style and apply to all refs.
• All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@NatureBoyMD: All fixed. That line in small is because its secondary and extra information, not a summary for the section. Thank you for the review. Dey subrata (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding applying column widths to the first three tables: What I meant was applying fixed widths to all three tables in this section so that the columns of all three would be aligned. I now realize that the first table has a "Cap" column, but the other do not. This extra column would make it impossible to align correctly. Please disregard this comment. I have removed the fixed widths you added since they force some of the dates to wrap.
• The row/col scope in "Appearances and goals by competition" and "Appearances and goals by opposition" tables needs adjusting (scope needs to come first).

NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@NatureBoyMD: Both Ronaldo and Messi articles are using later. Please let me know. Dey subrata (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Works for me. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KingSkyLord

@Dey subrata: I have a lot of issues with your list before I can reasonably say I would want to support it. I will try to do a source review very soon.

Resolved comments from KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

*The first two sentences of the lead seem really off. I would much rather prefer if they said: "Sunil Chhetri is an Indian professional footballer who represents the India national football team as a striker or winger. The captain of the India national team, he is also his country's all-time top goalscorer and most-capped player." Remove "against Pakistan" in the third sentence of the first paragraph. Doesn't add anything of significance to the prose. Referring to "scoring two goals" as a "brace" is really unnecessary and doesn't really add anything to the lead. That section in the parentheses should be removed, and Ref 9 should be moved to the first comma of the sentence. Remove the comma after "leading goalscorer" and replace it with "and". Insert comma after "72 international goals". Replace redirect in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Also, remove any other redirects in this list in general. First sentence in the third paragraph doesn't flow naturally. I would much prefer if it said: "Chhetri scored his first ever international goal during his ever international appearance on 12 June 2005 against arch-rivals Pakistan." Replace comma with colon after "four goals in total" in third paragraph. Also insert a comma against "Syria" in that sentence. In the next sentence, replace "in" with "during" in "his 88th match in a 2–1 victory". The third sentence of the last paragraph would be more easily readable if it were divided into two sentences. It would be better if it said: "He is the only Indian footballer to have scored at least 50 international goals. Between all of his 72 goals: 27 came in friendlies, 13 in SAFF Championships, 9 in Nehru Cup matches, 7 in World Cup qualifiers, 4 in Asian Cup qualifiers, 4 in Asian Cup finals, 4 in AFC Challenge Cup finals, 3 in AFC Challenge Cup qualifiers, and 1 in the King's Cup." In the last sentence of the prose, change "He has scored 11" to "He has also scored 11".

• Don't refer to the 2011 SAFF Championship as the "2011 SAFF Cup" as the former is its official name.
• Remove the list of his hat-tricks and unofficial goal. As interesting as they may be, I think that it is a little too niche to mention them in their own section. Those hat-tricks are already in List of India national football team hat-tricks and are listed inside the main list itself. I don't know why an unofficial goal is mentioned in this article but it is definitely not noteworthy considering that it was scored in a match where India made 10 substitutions, almost enough to replace an entire squad.
  • Anyways, those were my major gripes with the list. I look forward to seeing you improve this list considering how interesting Chhetri's international career is. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@KingSkyLord: Thank you for review and valuable inputs. I have mostly fixed all your concerns except four of your concerns:

• 2nd point, its a necessary info, other FL articles include such for example list of Messi you can check or Bale where you urself is the nominator i think.
• third point, also added because the same is used later in the lead which I mistakenly removed before while editing, same you can find at FL articles like list of Messi and is also discussed in the first "resolved comments by the first editor Chris the Dude", you can check above.
• Fouth point, Confusing, I don't find SAFF as SAF anywhere, please let me know what you are pointing, I will rectify if there is such.
• Last point, about unofficial match (unofficial by FIFA, for AIFF its international goal for which they celebrated Chhetri's 100 caps while it was not 100) so, for viewers and readers it necessary to provide all information, most importantly he scored a goal in that match, is a international friendly match for both the Federation. Thats why not opposed by other 5 reviewers. And the hat-trick, its a very big achievements in football, are considered as an important statistics and a measure of accomplishment as they are rare. Secondly, its a record for Chhetri as most number of hat-tricks, and a related viatl info just like the "Statistics". As in other FL list, stats of hat-tricks are linked to series articles like of Roanldo or Messi (the box thing added below), it can't be done here in Chhetri's article as such series of articles is not created for Chehtri and also not possible as his careers is not illustrated as them. Secondly hat-tricks mentioned in other articles does not mean we can't add here, when its a vital information and a smooth read. Similarly most of the informations in the article is also mentioned in Chhetri's main article, but that does not mean it must not be added here. Again, I must bring to your notice that, if you go through Messi, Ronaldo and Bale's list you will find that international statistics are differently presented, some have "appearances and goals by opposition", "goals by confedearation" and "series of article" boxes, some don't have, but it shows that, all articles need not to be similar and can be unique but are correct and have proper structure and follows all citerea. So, such a list does not make the article bad rather making more interesting for readers. All other editors agreed to keep and I would also like to keep it. But rest all your concerns are addressed and fixed accordingly as mentioned. Thank you again. Dey subrata (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Sorry for the late reply, but I do not think you fully understood what I was trying to say. I understand why your first two points and I will let them slide considering how minor they were. I still have a few problems though and those include your last two points and a few new ones.

• For your third response my criticism, I meant to say "SAFF Cup" and not "SAF Cup", I accidentally made a typo. It would be better if you referred to the competition as the "SAFF Championship" rather than the "SAFF Cup".

• The official name is SAFF Cup, it was my mistake that I did not maintain consistency the same in the table, now corrected. It was earlier known as SAFF Gold Cup, now known as SAFF Suzuki Cup. It is sometimes called as SAFF Championship, but the offcial recognised name is SAFF Cup. Here is latest cup website.

• For your last response about why you justify the info about the hat-tricks and unofficial goal, I just think that making it "a little unique" is just an excuse to add a little bit more stats about his international career. Now there is no problem with making the list accessible, but adding the list of hat-tricks and the unofficial goal seems a little too far. No other list article lists every international hat-trick the footballer has ever scored. Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 7 international hat-tricks throughout his entire career, yet none of them are listed on his international goals list. I would rather have it if you mentioned how many hat-tricks and when he scored them in the second paragraph of the prose rather than in its own separate table. The hat-tricks can be clearly seen in the easily readable list that is provided below the prose. Putting when he scored those three hat-tricks in the second paragraph (which is about his goalscoring progression) can allow the reader to be able to understand why he has scored so many international goals so far. Can you at least remove the unofficial goal? It's not counted onto his international goalscoring record and is very useless compared to the hat-trick list. Yes, the AIFF may have "celebrated" it when he played for the senior side 100 times (not 100 official caps as you say), but they aren't the only ones who make a final say of whether or not a match is considered official or not. FIFA are the ones who make a decision on whether or not an international friendly is official or not as they are the ones who help organize the fixture. Clearly, the match was intended to be a public training match and not a full international as India swapped 10 of their players at half-time.

• Ok, I removed the table for unofficial match, the fact being only one match, and as already being defined in the sentence above, and so included in the footnotes. But for hat-trick list its very ok to keep. Ronaldo's article does not include hat-trick list that does not mean we can't include here. Its problem to not display all facts but not problem in displaying all facts. Secondly, as already mentioned above that, we no need to be similar with other articles but to inspire from them, such as Messi and Bale's list have 2 table of "goals by year and goals by competiton" but where as Ronaldo's list have 4 tables "goals by year, competition & opponents and federation" Do we need to question why Ronaldo's list have these extra 2 table whether other lists don't have. Its not that Ronaldo article was promoted before Messi's, it was in June 2018 and Messi's was in Jnauary 2018. But I like the Roanldo article more as its more interesting as its presenting more information. Thirdly, though Messi and Ronaldo's list does not include hat-tricks but they have those "Series of article box" where all their hat-trick international and clubs are mentioned which is not possible for Chhetri's to make as there is none such series of article, if in future such a series of article is made, we can think on it. The thing is that, this table making the article interesting for readers and it follows all critereas. And as i moentioned all editors agree on it. Anyway, I gave a thought on the unoffcial match and find it not necessary, so removd as mentioned. I am ok with it. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• This list definitely suffers from WP:OVERCITE as references 1 and 6 are used more than four times, which is more times than they need to be used in the same article. I would highly recommend if you could at least put Ref 1 as an external link as well, seeing as how it is currently being used six times in this list. If you could at least remove the references to Source 1 from

@KingSkyLord: Fixed and added that one in the externals.

• • Those are my concerns for now. I genuinely want to see this list improved and actually become an FL for once. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• KingSkyLord, you haven't returned to this FLC in a while. Would you mind having a look at the list again and seeing whether the nominator has adequately addressed your comments? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 and @Dey subrata lol I almost forgot. I've been very busy lately. Based on what I've seen right now, it seems as if all of my points have been addressed. Now, I am finally very happy to support this list's promotion to featured status. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review – I have several concerns about the reliability of references in the article, along with a couple of other things: What makes Indianfootball.de (reference 4) a reliable source? Sportskeeda (refs 12 and 25) accepts contributions from users, according to our article on the subject, which would likely make it an unreliable source. What makes National Football Teams (refs 8, 19, and 22) reliable? What makes maldivesoccer.net (refs 23 and 24) reliable? What makes thehardtackle.com (ref 28) reliable? It looks like a blog, which as a type of website is typically unreliable. In ref 27, Times of India should be italicized since that is a print publication. On that subject, shouldn't it be The Times of India? That's always how I've seen the publication presented before. For the authors, you have a mix of formatting styles, between presented first name first and last name first. This should be made consistent throughout the article, however you prefer to have the names listed. The link-checker tool shows no dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) *@Giants2008: IndianFootball.de is one of the accurate and primary source of Indian football stats, it has been used in almost every National football related articles, also a primary source/statistician (Arunava Chaudhuri) for RSSSF articles, you can also check rsssf introduction for members who work for the foundation. These stats in this site is done with extensive research not only by him, but other journalist and former players. Here you can have a check at the Data Base where you can find that both RSSSF and Indian football.de are interlinked as the authror is the primary source provider for both. In short stats in both site are counter checked in both way, and RSSSF is most reliable data base of football. Refs 12 can be called a reliable one as first the stats in the source are supported by match videos, that is the SAFF Cup semi-final match which is the fourth video in the article . Secondly, the cotributor is not a normal football enthusiast, but a well known football journalist in India, works for Hindustan times. Similary the ref 25 too supported by video of the match, so surely a reliable source as the visiual source of goal is also avaible. Sportkeeda is also the most popular football news website in India. First of all the the site National Football Teams is a authentic site and same as RSSSF, is used all over wikipedia and in it all National teams and players data are kept in most accurate way. There are very few website where both players' data and Team data are interlinked, which means from players stats you can find match stats and from match stats you can find who played in that match, such a thing is not even there in RSSSF, which itself makes it more credible. In the site no datas are accept without any primary authentic source, anyone can provide but with authetic citation (newspaper source or Federation source) as we do in wikipedia. Now to prove that the stats are correct for ref 8, I added RSSSF article too, whcih matches the NFT's data, makes it authentic and reliable. Maldivesoccer is a football news channel/organisation of Maldives. Its the first football website of Maldives is mostly primary source for lot of Maldives football. We too in RSSSF use data from Maldivessoccer for the Maldives football league datas. So its credible and authentic news site for sure and the data used for SAFF cup that is ref 23 and 24 matches with RSSSF. All the above references are supported by additional sources, stats of both sources matches and thus are relaible and authentic sources. Yeah I agree 28 is a blog. Removed, added new authentic reliable sources. Times of India corrected. Consistency in names fixed. @Giants2008: Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Since the author of the Indianfootball.de piece also has their name on RSSSF, I suppose we can say that person is an expert on the subject of Indian soccer. Sorry, but I'm still not happy with National Football Teams. Other articles using it as a source doesn't prove reliability, and the fact that it sounds like users contribute to it doesn't make it sound reliable at all. I'd be reluctant to promote this article with those sources present. If RSSSF pages can support the content cited by National Football Teams, I'd suggest just using that site. For Sportskeeda, I'd say that since the author of both pieces is a sportswriter who has written for a major Indian newspaper, they are probably acceptable sources on that basis. I would add a note of caution, however, not to rely on popularity. If page views alone determined reliability, the Daily Mail wouldn't be deprecated as a source like it currently is. Maldivesoccer, as a news channel, is probably okay on that basis. Reference 4 still has the first name listed first, so that one still needs a formatting fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: I understand your concern, about Zimmerman's website National Football Teams(NFT). Its a reliable source, by saying last time that "anyone can provide information at NFT, I do not mean whatever is sent is straight uploaded, these are cross checked always. Zimmerman has been a football statistician for last 15 years or more, in that website many statistician and journalist are also associated, work along with many photographers too. I can assure you that the informations that are used are 100 percent correct info. Trust me, as a RSSSF memeber I assure you this site is very trsutable site. (same in RSSSF many people provide information but we accept after cross checking with available source), many websites are very connected indirectly. As I said I added RSSSF sources with that also, so that you can match. Lastly as I said, there is only one site, where you can find match played is connected with players played, which means from Players career stats you can directly find which matches he played and who were the players along with him in that match which itself gives more reliability to the data, as, if something is wrong in the data it will automatically appear in either of the two cases. Now here in the website you can find their primary sources, you will find trustbale sources like rsssf, fifa, welsfussball, fedefutbol and many more. This is a established football database website, many of our sources used for this site and many information form NFT comes to rsssf too. Many of these established sites are all interlinked in someway. Now coming to three citations of that website, I may prefer to remove ref number 23, but will like to keep the 8 and 19 as 19 is really important one, Chhetri whole career statistics is there (updated to lastest appearance, in rsssf we actually update after every season or 6-7 months) and 8 is support reference with ref. number 7 used in footnotes. Dey subrata (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Absolutely correct, what you said about popularity. And missed that one, for ref 4 names format corrected.. Dey subrata (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Removed ref 23 (previous ref. 23 now a new one replaced) and NFT ref 8 and 19 kept. Dey subrata (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC) I'm still unsure about National Football Teams. I'll leave it unstruck so that the eventual FLC closer can consider it if they want. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Ok I am removing both the reference then, becuase the later process that you are suggesting will take more time, and as you already know that there are other lists that I want to nominate, but due to this one I could not nominate more. So you can proceed, I am removing both the reference for the process to move. Dey subrata (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: I have removed both the reference, you can proceed with the process. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• With the most recent edit, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:55:41 17 November 2019 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1987

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Came back from holiday to find that the list for 1986 has been promoted, so here's the list for 1987 which (assuming it's successful) will complete a 30-year run of country number ones at FL status. As ever, all comments will be addressed promptly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• The first sentence of the lead's second paragraph is somewhat long. I would start a new sentence at this part "which had moved into the number one position in the issue of Billboard dated" with something like "It had moved...".
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• I have a question about this sentence: "Between those two chart-toppers, the only song to spend more than one week at number one was "Forever and Ever, Amen" by Randy Travis, which topped the chart for three weeks during the summer." I am wondering if there is a way to avoid repeating "top" twice in the same sentence? Maybe something like "The only other song to ..." as it would cover the "Between those two chart-toppers" part in a more concise manner.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• I have a comment about this sentence: "The song won Travis a Grammy for Best Country & Western Song and an Academy of Country Music award for Song of the Year." According to the Grammy website (here), Travis won the Grammy Award for Best Male Country Vocal Performance not the Grammy for Best Country & Western Song.
  • Actually, the song did win the C&W Song award, but it won't show on your search for all Travis's awards, because the C&W Song Grammy is awarded to the song's writers, and he did not write it himself. I have re-worded the sentence slightly to take that into account -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Just to confirm, Travis's Grammy Award for Best Male Country Vocal Performance was not for this song -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for my mistake. However, I still have a question. According to this Wikipedia page, the category was only known as "Best Country & Western Song" between 1965 to 1968? It seems like the category would be Best Country Song for this. Either way, I would include a link to the specific Grammy award. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I am very unfamiliar with this part of the Grammys so apologies for any confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As always, wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. It is about a country music album so it somewhat falls in your area of interest, although it did not appear on any music chart lol. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I will endeavour to take a look at your FAC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – looks great as always. Care to check out Ojorojo and I's new FLC? – zmbro _(talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Will do. I am working my way through the eight FLCs which were started while I was away on holiday, and will get to that one in the fullness of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Another one well done. One small thing: some publishers/works are linked in the citations and others aren't. If there isn't a reason for this, it would be better to be consistent (I did say small). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I would add that "Give Me Wings" was the Top Country Single of 1987, through the yellow background and a dagger; ref: page 97
  • Added in prose, but I'd prefer not to highlight it in the table as I haven't done that in any of the 30+ other FLs and I would prefer to keep consistent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ref 2, 5, 12, 15: Link Billboard if you link it everywhere else
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ref 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 |publisher=AllMusic
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

-- Lirim | Talk 01:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support — I do not see any other issues. —Lirim | Talk 19:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude, please find my comments below: Table March 28 – correct link to Small Town Girl (song) April 11 – correct link to "You've Got" the Touch and Alabama (band) May 30 – correct link to It Takes a Little Rain (To Make Love Grow) September 12 – pipe link to Make No Mistake, He's Mine#Ronnie Milsap and Kenny Rogers recording October 3 – correct link to You Again (song) October 17 – correct link to Nitty Gritty Dirt Band December 19 – correct link to K. T. Oslin References Refs 3–5, 10, 13, 16–66 – unlink Billboard (magazine) Ref 5 – fix link to [11] Refs 9, 11–12, 14–15 – unlink AllMusic Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Ianblair23: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Well done ChrisTheDude. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Cowlibob

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

* For "Mind your Own Business" song, I can't see the featured artists confirmed in the reference. For the sentence "At the other end of the scale, Milsap took his count of Hot Country number ones past 30, as he continued a run of eight consecutive number ones stretching back to 1985". Which part of the reference confirms that his number ones went past 30 and that it was his eighth consecutive since 1985? No deadlinks however I would recommend archiving the urls for the future Random spotchecks on ref 7, 18, 25, 35, 45, and 60 satisfactory. AGF on offline source Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Amended re: point 1, as while they were indisputably on the song, it seems Billboard did not credit them on the chart. Re: point 2, I have added an additional source which confirms that Milsap had 35 number ones, only 3 of which were after 1987, therefore a routine calculation says the ones he achieved in 1987 were his 30th, 31st and 32nd.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for making the changes. I found this reference which should suffice for the featured appearance of the artists.[[12]] despite Billboard failing to recognise it. It's probably good to add it as you've mentioned in the lead that Reba made a featured appearance on the track. Cowlibob (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Hopefully all sorted now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) BTW, if you watch this video, it actually shows a copy of the physical single of "Mind Your Own Business" and none of the featured vocalists are credited, so it wasn't just that Billboard failed to list them, but rather that they weren't credited on the single at all, which seems a bit harsh...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the music business for you! Cowlibob (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Source review passed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:55:43 17 November 2019 (UTC) [13].

---

List of chief ministers of Jharkhand

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My previous nomination is now at three supports. This list is about the chief ministers of Jharkhand, another state created in 2000. This time, the legislature website and the official CM website had no CM list, so I had to create one myself and search the Frontline archives to source it. The list is in good condition, but there may be some problems with how some things are worded, probably. TryKid (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "Three people have served as the state's chief minister". There are six, not three.
• "Half of them belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including Babulal Marandi, the inaugural officeholder." I think this sentence can be rearranged. Mention Babulal's name first and then the party.
• "come from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)". Come from? Use a better wording.
• "Koda is one of the very few independents".
• "current incumbent"? Use either of those words.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've tried to solve the issues, please take a look. Also, @Yashthepunisher:, do you like or dislike pings? I realized some time ago that not everyone likes to be pinged. TryKid (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Well, I don't like or dislike pings. They are simply a necessity. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is quite short at less than 1400 characters. I think you could beef it up by talking more about Shibu Soren. The fact that he held the post three times and was never an MLA both probably merit highlighting in the lead. Also, one of his terms only lasted nine days - how was this possible? Why did Munda leave the role for nine days and then return to it?
• "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" - I think "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" would be better (this also gets around the fact that at some point one or more won't belong (present tense) to the BJP because they will have retired/died.
• "Two chief ministers, Shibu Soren and his son Hemant Soren belong to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)" - need a comma after the second Soren's name
• "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda; Koda is one of the few independents " - could be streamlined to "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda, one of the few independents"
• "In between their reigns, the state has also been under President's rule thrice" - "thrice" is a very archaic-sounding word, I would just say "three times"
• In Soren's cells, there's no line break between his name and the brackets - be consistent with the other rows
• In note d, write "could not" in full
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, I've solved second to fifth issues. Also, after thinking about it for a day, I've made a decision to remove constituency data entirely. This means no need for note d. I made the decision because it was unverifiable, and plain wrong in one instance. It's actually possible to find the required information, but I'll need to search up the election archives for individual constituencies, as many of chief ministers were elected in bye-elections. It's sad because it was very interesting that Soren got to be chief minister three times without ever being an MLA. So, what do you think about the change? Do you recommend that I reinstate constituency information and source it some way? TryKid (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• A map showing the location of the state in India would be helpful - or in words in the lead if no map is available.
• "as he could not prove his majority in the house" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "as he could not prove that he had the support of a majority of the house"
• The lead is rather short. Some more background would be helpful - e.g. Why was the state formed so late? What is its capital city? Presumably the first and last assemblies had BJP majorities and the frequent changes and periods of president's rule in the 2nd and 3rd assemblies were because no pary had a majority, but this could be spelled out.
• There is a lot of white space on the right - maybe add some photos of the state? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think images of the state's location are necessary, the current shape is consistent with other featured lists of chief ministers of India and governors of US states.
• I've replaced it with your version.
• Information regarding the state can be accessed by a reader by clicking on the link to Jharkhand article. I'm sure someone looking for a list of chief ministers of Jharkhand would be reasonably familiar with the state. I'll try to expand the lead as per your recommendations.
• White space seems to be a device specific problem; there's no white space on my device, but adding images would certainly introduce some white space on my device. TryKid (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This article follows the EXACT SAME PATTERN as the List of chief ministers of Chhattisgarh, which is indeed a featured list, and hence it should be made featured instantly without any delay. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look good, and the link-checker shows no issues. This source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:03:02 10 November 2019 (UTC) [14].

---

Basshunter discography

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous nomination failed to reach consensus after very long time nevertheless whole list and the lead has been almost completly rebuilt since start of previous nomination. I tried to resolve every mentioned problem. This time the discography is starting from significantly better position. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "Basshunter's second single" => in the table it's his third single
  •  Done. Numeration could be removed anyway. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• "It was also certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" => "It was also certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry"
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• "was certified gold by British Phonographic Industry" => "was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry"
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• "like the single was certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" - guess ;-)
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• "The album was certified silver by British Phonographic Industry" - ;-)
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• "the tracks "Go Down Now"" =>: "and the tracks "Go Down Now""
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• That's what I have so far........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude:  Done Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues with the tables so now content to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
  • Any ideas? Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • If you look at the linked article, it tells you how to do ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Once the ALT text is added, I will support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Aoba47: Seems to be enouh detailed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (The third single release was "All I Ever Wanted",), I would say "The third single" instead of "The third single release". I do not think "release" is necessary.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (The fourth single released was "Angel in the Night",), I do not think "released" is necessary.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (which accompanied a Deluxe Edition re-release of the album), I do not think "deluxe edition" needs to be capitalized.
  • It's re-release called "Deluxe Edition". Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not really true, because according to the Apple Music source, the re-release was called Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition) not just Deluxe Edition. I will leave this up to other editors who review this though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes. Full name is "Now You're Gone (Deluxe Edition)" but I thought it's obvious. Anyway in some articles main title of film or video game were omitted. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I will not press this point further. I still disagree with it. Articles that shorten the title of a film or video game would first establish the full title. I did not find it obvious, which is why I pointed it out, but I will leave this up to other reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Isn't the title established with information about initial release? Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Not really, but again I will not press this point further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this sentence (The second single from the album was "I Promised Myself", a cover of a Nick Kamen song), I do not think "from the album" is necessary as it is understood from context.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (A Basshunter compilation album titled The Early Bedroom Sessions was released on 3 December 2012), I would remove "Basshunter".
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (and the tracks "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass", which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs), I believe there should be a comma after "singles".
  • I think no because it mean exactly these three songs from album previously appeared on singles. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the comma is necessary to break up this phrase "which had previously appeared on singles and three unreleased songs" as it can literally that "Go Down Now", "Trance Up" and "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" appeared on singles and three unreleased songs. I'll leave it up to other editors though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • You are right. I missunderstood your point.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Why is the release for "Calcutta 2008" marked as "unknown"?
  • @Aoba47: Date of release is unknown. Eurohunter (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Why is the release date unknown? Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Aoba47: Release date never been announced. Eurohunter (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • That is odd, but if the information is not available, there is nothing that can be done. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @Aoba47: Not that odd in promotional releases. Maybe in the future information will be avaiable.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Aoba47: Do you know if I schould mention that certain single stayed at number one for some consecutive weeks? Now we have only information that "where it stayed for fourteen weeks" and "and stayed there for five weeks". Eurohunter (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think it is necessary to say consecutive as I generally assume that is meant in sentences like the ones you cited above. I would think that these sentences would only need qualification if a song charted for non consecutive weeks as they seems to be more out-of-the-ordinary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

• Source review – One issue that needs addressing is the presence of Discogs links in refs 37, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 60. This is a site with user-generated content, making it unreliable in general, and certainly not reliable enough for an FL. The liner notes are okay to source by themselves, so removing the links will be enough to solve the problem. Otherwise, the reliability and formatting of the references are okay, and the link-checker tool turns up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: Release is a source but link is optional which supports it with images or additional data instead of nothing. It's probably not possible or it's very limited to find detailed release photos of CD, box or notes in "professional soures". We could expect that there is atleast one example of CD or notes photo on Discogs that may be fake/messed with unofficial release but wouldn't it be really overcomplicate the problem? I guess it's the reason why you are oppose of these links but otherwise I have no other ideas. Eurohunter (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  If the source isn't reliable, and I don't believe it is (this thread dismisses its reliability pretty strongly), then we shouldn't be linking to it at all, regardless of whether it provides additional information. As I said earlier, the liner notes themselves are perfectly fine as sources (offline references are still verifiable), so there's no need to link to an unreliable site. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: Let's focus directly on scans/images of releases alone avaiable on Discogs. Are they not reliable and should be removed above all? Eurohunter (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Since they are on an unreliable site, they are not reliable and should be taken out of the citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: I have removed all links to Discogs. Eurohunter (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  With that done, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support – definitely have waited long enough on this one. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 00:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 06:47:49 6 November 2019 (UTC) [15].

---

Michael W. Smith discography

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because my nomination for List of National Football League rushing champions has passed. My other nomination, [[16]], has unanimous support so far with all problems resolved so a second nomination should be acceptable.

This is the second in a series of discographies I have been working on for the most important contemporary Christian music artists. Michael W. Smith is one of the best-selling Christian artists of all time (the best-selling male artist, perhaps), with over four decades of fairly constant music output. He started as the keyboardist for Amy Grant, the best-selling Christian artist ever and the two are great friends to this day. Uniquely he's had RIAA certified albums in at least six different areas: Christian pop/rock, Christian worship music, mainstream pop/adult contemporary music (including "Place in This World" and "I Will Be Here For You", top 40 hits in the US and Canada), Christmas music, video albums, and an instrumental album written in the style of film scores. Making a discography for such a varied career required extensive research and tough decision making for the lede, but I think this article does a great job of balancing everything. If there's anything I'm iffy on its the exact prose in the lede, but I think a good discussion here will help hammer out any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "as well multiple holiday albums" => "as well as multiple holiday albums"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "and his 16 No. 1 albums" => "and his 16 number one albums"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I 2 (EYE) (1988) became Smith's first No. 1 album" - same again

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "peaked at nos. 6 and 60" => "peaked at numbers 6 and 60"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "charting at No. 8 in Canada and No. 27 on the Hot 100" - you can probably guess what I am going to say here ;-)

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• ...and there's two more instances towards the end of the lead ;-)

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Lots more uses of "No." in the notes

• All of them are replaced now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• It looks really weird to have a heading of "Notes", immediately followed by a sub-heading of "Notes". I would have the Notes > Notes section as a L2 heading in its own right called Notes, and then below that I would have a References L2 section, with sub-headings of General (for the two books) and Specific (for the individual footnotes). Does that make sense?

• Yeah, that makes sense. Good solution. I think I’ve fixed that now? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Walter Görlitz per his request. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: why are you advising to ignore the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO? It should be consistent in the article and it should not change over time once consistent. No. is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Probably I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO. Having "No." in the middle of a prose sentence just looked wrong to me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Having read the guideline, do you agree that it is acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems so, yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible support: I don't see any issues apart from this possible one: Is the use of "rowspan" in the tables within WP:ACCESSIBILITY? This is an issue with numerous discographies (hundreds if not thousands) that has come to my attention today. I've opened up a discussion on the WP:ACCESSIBILITY talk page regarding "rowspan" in tables.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking at this, 3family6! I’m by no means on access so I’m kind of in the dark here, but what’s the potential issue here? If it’s an issue I can definitely change it. This article and all others should comply with access, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• We've had the accessibility issue discussed in ACCESS before, and I think the decision was to avoid its use, but most modern screen readers can deal with the complexity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• This was the discussion I found, Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Rowspan Was the discussion I was thinking of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Minor point, but it would be nice to spell out and link RIAA in the second paragraph. Box sets: In the note at the bottom of this table, was "releases that did chart" meant to be "releases that did not chart"? That's the usual terminology in such lists. Compilation albums: As contraction's like "didn't" go against the MoS in regular writing, let's try to avoid using them in notes like the one here. Speaking of style matters, the two general references could stand to be alphabetized. Another minor style issue: the Brothers book could use an en dash for the year range in its title. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) All issues should be fixed now, @Giants2008:. Toa Nidhiki05 00:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. As for the accessibility issues, if the relevant MoS guidelines don't prohibit rowspans (they apparently do not), then I don't think promotion needs to be delayed over the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion at ACCESS advises against them but does not prohibit against them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look okay, except that reference 48 is missing an access date. The link-checker tool shows no issues, so there's just that one little problem to fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed the access date issue on 48. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that quickly. The source review has now been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The rowspans aren't my favorite, but apparently not an issue, so promoting. --PresN 06:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Row and columnspan formatting has become a growing concern at MOS:ACCESS. Some screen readers do not work well when they are present in tables. They have not called for an end to their use, but have suggested that they be phased out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 06:47:52 6 November 2019 (UTC) [17].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Sussex

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. I have not been able to archive the citations as the bot appears to be down. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

An impressively comprehensive list, well-structured and fully referenced. There really is very little to complain about, and I'll be pleased to support, subject to consideration of the meagre gleanings below. With apologies, my comments will be in batches.

Lead

• "Designation as an SSSI gives legal protection to the most important wildlife and geological sites" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that all SSSIs get legal protection, due to their designation, or that only the most important of the SSSIs do so?

• Changed to "The most important wildlife and geological sites are designated as SSSIs in order to give them legal protection." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• "five are Ramsar sites" - I appreciate that it's linked and explained below, but the term, unfamiliar to me and I suspect most readers, caused me to stumble. Perhaps, "five are Ramsar sites, designated as internationally important under convention,"

• Changed to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

List

• Ambersham Common - "including the nationally rare" - I'm assuming this means rare to the UK, but more common elsewhere? I wonder if "nationally rare" is actually necessary, as you go on to state that it as been found at only three British sites?

• "nationally rare" has a technical meaning and I have linked to British nature conservation statuses which explains. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Arundel Park - "This old deer park" - link?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bognor Reef - "It is one of the few areas which has the full sequence of layers in the London Clay" - two points here. "the few areas", is that one of the few SSSIs in West Sussex or one of the few areas anywhere in England? Also, I didn't know what "the London Clay" was until I hit the link. Is it possible to clarify?

• On the first point I think that "one of the few areas" implies one of the few anywhere and I do not like to say in England as London Clay is only found in parts of the southeast. On your second point, I am not sure how to give an explanation without going into excessive detail. Can you suggest a wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Chapel Common - "rare and scarce invertebrates" - is the "scarce" doing anything that the "rare" doesn't, or vice versa?

• I have again linked to the article which explains the terms. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Cissbury Ring - I appreciate that this list is focussed on the SSSIs, but is it worth mentioning in the Description that this is the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex? Perhaps, "The site, the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex, has unimproved chalk grassland..."?

• I am not sure there is a reliable source for it being the largest but I have cited Historic England for it being a Neolithic flint mine and a large hillfort dating to the Iron Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Coates Castle - "There are an estimated 200 individuals" - are the crickets individually identified, Jiminy etc.? Perhaps, "They number approximately 200"?

• Revised another way. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Coneyhurst Cutting - "fossils of large Viviparus (freshwater river snails) preserved in three dimensions" - I'm displaying my ignorance here, but aren't all fossils three-dimensional? Or are most flat and only two? Forgive me, I did Combined Science for O-level, when only the most stupid boys were entered for that subject.

• Many and maybe most fossils are two dimensional as they have been crushed flat. Three dimensional ones give far more information. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Many thanks for your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the responses. All excellent. Shall move onto Batch 2 of comments as soon as I can (day or two most). It is a long list! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fyning Moor - "Open rides have diverse flora" - what are "open rides"? Horse-riding? The source doesn't say and I don't know.

• Linked to Bridle path. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Horton Clay Pit - "a thick and stratigaphically important" - typo, "stratigraphically".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rook Clift - " this steep sided valley" - should "steep-sided" be hyphenated?

• It seems to be commonly hyphenated so I have done so. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure all mine. A superbly detailed list, which I am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• It took me till K to find anything but then I got this: "This reserve's yew woods are described by Natural England as the best in Britain as it has the most extensive stands unmixed with other species." - singular plural disagreement?

• I think this is correct. The reserve has the most extensive stands, not the yew trees. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "which are relicts" - is "relicts" a typo for "relics" or simply a word I am not familiar with?

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "There are 1 metre (3.3 feet) high fossils" - earlier you converted a measurement in metres into yards, now you are using feet - why the change? As the earlier distance was shorter it seems odd that that one was converted to yards and this one to feet.....

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "These disused railway tunnels are the fifth most important sites" - sites or site? If it's considered to be one SSSI then I would say the singular is more appropriate.

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "This former quarry exposed.....It provided excellent three dimensional sections" - why the past tenses? All other notes are written in the present tense.

• Clarified that the past tense is because the quarry has been filled in. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "These woods have steep sided valleys" - "steep-sided" should be hyphenated I think

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Last three notes need full stops

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me. Fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the review. ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• No problem. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Review from Mattximus

• I kinda like how you moved the description of the county to the lead paragraph in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent to give some context to the area before going into specifics.

• I moved it because an editor objected in a review of another FLC to starting with the description but I agree with you and have moved it back. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• "There are also intertidal mudflats which are nationally important for ringed plovers and other birds include redshanks and dunlin", Should be "including" if the redshanks and dunlin are also nationally important, and if they are not, then simply a semicolon or a second sentence "Other birds include redshanks and dunlin". Together in one sentence is a bit confusing.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Arun banks, can you link "fen"?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• 160 fish species do you mean fossilized fish species?

• Added "fossils of" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think a colon is needed: "on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive: woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shingle beach should be linked

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Homo heidelbergensis isn't considered a human remain, but Hominin remains

• Heidelbergensis were archaic humans. Hominim is a broader category which includes australopithecines. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, however Homo heidelbergensis is not human, but a different species. It is Homo heidelbergensis, a Hominin. Saying it was human remains is not correct, even if it was a distant ancestor to a human. There are defined uses for the words human, hominin and hominid. In this case the word to choose would be hominin (although hominid is also correct, it is less specific).

• The article you link to, homo sapiens, starts "Homo sapiens is the only extant human species", implying that there are also extinct human species. OED defines "Human" as "belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo". The definition of archaic humans as including Heidelbergensis also defines them as humans. I am using a definition which is generally - although not universally - accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think we found a point of disagreement, however the link you provided archaic humans does have a box that indicates a list of hominins and includes Homo heidelbergensis... but I can see using either the vaguely defined term archaic human (with a link to that page), or the precise term "hominin", but certainly not simply "human" as is indicated now. That is definitely incorrect. Mattximus (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• We may have to agree to disagree. "Human" is not definitely incorrect. As I said above, it is correct according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The genus "Homo" is Latin for man. Homo sapiens is wise man and Homo Heidelbergensis is Heidelberg man, but nowadays we prefer "human" as non-sexist. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• In all technical circles, of which I was once apart, the word Human is for Homo sapiens only. I suppose using the term "archaic human" though not a scientific term, will at least avoid the incorrect use of human and would be a compromise. If we follow your logic, would Australopithecus afarensis be a human, because it is our likely ancestor? Or just when the genus name changed? If so, you would call Homo habilis a human? What about Homo neanderthalis? Both humans? I think we can agree that at least homo habilis is not a human. But then you just picked an arbitrary species on the homo lineage to start calling human? Help me understand your logic here. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not operate on logic, but on following reliable sources, which define humans as members of the genus Homo. The Oxford English Dictionary defines human as belonging to the genus Homo. I am currently reading Early Humans by Nick Ashton (a British Museum curator), which is a history of human occupation of Britain from the arrival of (probably) Homo antecessor around 900,000 years ago to the end of the Mesolithic around 6000 years ago. The Smithsonian at [18] describes Homo erectus as "early humans". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked up your sources, and the Oxford Dictionary [19] uses the term hominids to describe extinct ancestors to humans. The Smithsonian uses "early human" which is equivalent to the other acceptable (not not scientific) term above Archaic human. I don't have access to the second book you cited. So far, all the sources I can find call it either a hominin, hominid, or early/archaic human. Not a signle source so far calls Homo heidelbergensis a "human" with a cursory search. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it an archaic human [20], science articles [21] also do not call it a human as far as I can see, and some [22] do not even call Neanderthals humans, of which like quite likely are. Do you have a source that calls that species human? Mattximus (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford Lexico dictionary at [23] gives meaning 1.3 of 'human' as "Of or belonging to the genus Homo". The paper at [24] by Laura Buck and the leading expert on human origins Chris Stringer describes Homo heidelbergensis as "a critical human species in the Middle Pleistocene". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Link Heronry

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks great so far, I've reviewed several of these and the standard is already very good. Just these few minor quibbles. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the review Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Are you good with this, or are we still stuck on the Homo/human issue? --PresN 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with the nominator on this issue, however I won't hold up the promotion due to it. Support despite one issue. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 06:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 06:47:44 6 November 2019 (UTC) [25].

---

List of accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 08:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
Aoba47, Wrath X, ChrisTheDude, You've gone incognito, zmbro, Spy-cicle
Comments/No vote yet
Oppose
None

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the many year-end accolades received by Red Dead Redemption 2 while also following accessibility guidelines. I believe that list is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 08:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDude

Comments

• Only had time to look at the lead so far, here are my comments:
  • "based on based on 98 reviews" - duplicated words there
  • "largest ever preorders" - hyphen in "pre-orders"?
  • "and named runner-up in four" => "and was named runner-up in four"
  • "won for Excellence in SFX and Technical Achievement" - need a full stop after this
• That's it for the lead, will look at the table later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

More comments

• My only comments on the table are:
  • The standard format for recent similar FLs (such as List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue) is to have the columns in the order Award,Year (not full date, although I guess there's no harm in full date being used), then the rest, as well as to rowspan the award title and year/date
  • The sorting on the "result" column seems a bit odd to me. When I sort on that column it goes Gold/Nominated/Fourth/Runner-up/Second/Third/Won. I would have thought it should be either alphabetical or else reflect "finishing order" (so "won" would appear before "second" or "third")
• That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, ChrisTheDude. I've addressed your issues with the lead. Good catch with the sorting on the "Result" column; I've reorganised it so it's now sorted by Nominated/Fourth/Third/Runner-up/Second/Gold/Won. Regarding the format: I've based this article on previous video game FLs (Grand Theft Auto V, The Last of Us) but if you feel that the list should follow the format used for artists, actors, and films, I can make the changes. – Rhain ☔ 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment - if other people are OK with the current format then that's fine. I simply did a quick look for recent awards FLs, I didn't look specifically for video game ones. I note that the two you link to above were both promoted more than four years ago, so it's possible that the consensus on format has changed since then. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Those two lists are actually the only video gaming FLs for awards, so that's as recent as the consensus gets for WP:VG, though I certainly understand your point. – Rhain ☔ 07:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess, like you say, it boils down to whether people think video game lists should follow the format of other, more recent, promotions. Like I said, it's not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd be interested to see what other people think, if that's cool........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. Looking forward to seeing what other people think. – Rhain ☔ 12:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I've thrown together an example of what the article would look like if it followed the conventions of a standard film accolades FL; feel free to check it out on my workspace. – Rhain ☔ 13:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It has to be said, I do prefer that format...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I've made the change. – Rhain ☔ 02:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• Any reason why Roger Clark is not wikilinked in the lead or in the table? The same question applies to Arthur Morgan.
• I would wikilink Grand Theft Auto V in the lead.
• I believe GameSpot, news.com.au, and USgamer should be in italics.
• I would wikilink Alex McKenna.
• For reference 24, I would avoid putting Edge in all caps.

Otherwise, everything else looks great. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba47. The articles for Roger Clark and Arthur Morgan didn't exist when I wrote the article, which explains their absences (and I have doubts that the latter article will remain for long, but that's for another discussion). I've gone through and addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 02:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your very prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FLC. Either way, have a great rest of your week, and good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Wrath X

Rhain I'm fine with either format, though I'm leaning towards the film table format since the awards look "neater" (due to them being listed only once per column) and I'm kind of biased to alphabetical order. But like I said, I'm fine with either so I have no problems with the current one. Either format, I support this for promotion -- Wrath X (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from You've gone incognito

• Review aggregator Metacritic assigned the game a normalized score of 97 out of 100, indicating "universal acclaim" Rewrite this to "On the review-aggregation website Metacritic, the game received 'universal acclaim', with an overall weighted average score of 97 out of 100." Metacritic doesn't actually calculate normalized scores but weighted average of reviews from professional critics and publications: https://www.metacritic.com/faq#item18 Please modify that footnote, too.
• The game had the largest opening weekend in the history of entertainment, making over $725 million in revenue in three days, and selling over 17 million copies in total in two weeks. Eliminate these superfluous "in revenue" and "in total"
• What's with the overlinking to the RDR 2 article in the table? Is this the standard to FL candidates? You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, You've gone incognito. I've made some changes based on your suggestions. The overlinking seems fairly common for some featured lists, both for video games and feature films, I presume due to accessibility purposes. – Rhain ☔ 05:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. Consider the above issues resolved. As it stands listicle is comprehensive, well sourced and written. I give the nomination my support. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Support – Great list for an amazing game. Great job on this! Good luck to you with the other RDR2 pages at GAN! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 23:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

• • Addition of short description
  • I would suggest having the date in the first left column in line with other FA VG Acolades tables like The Last of Us or Grand Theft Auto V.

But generally everything else looks good.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Spy-cicle. I've added a short description. The format of the list was changed to fit with some of the more recent FLs for film accolades, which are listed alphabetically instead of chronologically. – Rhain ☔ 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes; After having a further look this is well made and I would generally Support this nomination to FA.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 06:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:04:44 3 November 2019 (UTC) [26].

---

List of canids

Nominator(s): PresN 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Back in March I successfully nominated List of felids, a list of all species in the Felidae family (aka cats); I figured at the time that the natural followup would be dogs. It took much longer than I expected, but 6 months later here is List of canids, comprising all species in the Canidae family, aka dogs and foxes. The format is based on List of felids, and is generated by an offline script to maintain consistency, while the structure is based off of the tree of life projects' favorite Mammal Species of the World plus generally accepted modern research. Unlike the cat list, this list also includes prehistoric canids, as during the development of the list a rough consensus emerged that the list belonged here instead of Canidae and I plan to backfill the felids list the same way for consistency. The format changes there because the data is frankly impossible to get for ranges and ecology, etc. for the vast majority of animals from millions of years ago, but there is at least a generally accepted taxonomy for most of the extinct species. Anyways, the list as a whole is pretty exhaustively filled in and cited, so I think it's ready to go- thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "as well the extinct genera Dusicyon" - isn't Dusicyon a singular genus?

• Yes, fixed. --PresN 18:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Is it correct for Epicyon to have a capital E mid-sentence?

• Yes, genera names are always capitalized. --PresN 18:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• That's all I have on the lead - will be back to look at the tables later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

• Arctic fox has a stray comma at the end of its "hunting" description

• Fixed

• How come a handful of extinct canids have refs but most do not?

• As noted in the text above the tables, the entire section is based on work by Wang et. al. (refs 5, 72-74), except where otherwise noted- which would be for species described more recently than those overview papers/books were published, such as Vulpes qiuzhudingi, which wasn't described until 2014 (though, ironically Wang was also one of the authors of that paper). I've now made that more explicit.

• What's the source for the first three columns in the extant tables?

• Name(s)/describer/subspecies from Mammals of the World 3rd ed., as stated above the tables; the rangemaps are from the IUCN catalog, which is cited in each row but I've now made explicit in the text as well.

• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Replied inline with changes. --PresN 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I have a random question about this part: "They are found on all continents except Antarctica, having arrived independently or accompanied human beings over extended periods of time." Would it be beneficial to add a note about how dogs, specifically sled dogs, have been banned from Antarctica? I believe the ban was a result of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which said that all non-native animals, other than humans, are not allowed in Antarctica. It is probably not necessary for the list, but it was just something that I randomly thought about when reading that part about Antarctica in the lead. I will read through the rest of the list sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you to provide any further commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: The Antarctica thing is interesting, but I think outside the scope of this list to give details on why dogs aren't found in the continent since it's trying to give an overview of the entire family and that's just one (important) subspecies. --PresN 01:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my point. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Population sizes range from the extinct Falkland Islands wolf to the red fox, "the most widespread land carnivore in the world"." This confuses two different criteria. The source refers to the size of the area inhabited, not population size. (I would guess that domestic cats or dogs have the largest population size.)

• That's fair, swapped out for wolves/dogs (it's dogs, incidentally, best estimate for worldwide cat population I found was ~500 million vs. dogs' 1 billion.)

• "tribes or clades". This does not make sense. "Tribe" is a taxonomic rank, whereas "clade" links to cladistics, which is a method of classification. A genus is a clade just as a tribe is.

• Hmm, so the issue (which you reference below) is that there are 2 tribes + a genus that is not placed in a named tribe. Easy problem to solve- now changed to say exactly that.

• "Vulpini, which includes 3 genera and 14 species, comprising the fox-like canids". I think it would be clearer to say "Vulpini, the fox-like canids, comprising 3 genera and 14 species"

• Done

• "and the Urocyon genus" You say 3 tribes and then give two tribes and a genus, which is confusing. You need to give the tribe name.

• As per above, there isn't one- reworked to make it more clear.

• It would be helpful to spell out in the lead that the Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae are extinct.

• I do, right when I first mention them: "In addition to the extant Caninae, Canidae comprises two extinct subfamilies designated as Hesperocyoninae and Borophaginae."

• Coyotes " including small to large mammals" This is rather vague. Is information available on the maximum size of prey?

• It's vague because coyotes are super-omnivorous and will eat pretty much any animal that doesn't fight back successfully- they'll pounce on mice, and gang up on large cows (or other ungulates), though typically they stick to deer and smaller. "small to large mammals" does read strangely, though. Maybe "Preys on a wide variety of foods, including both small and large mammals, fruit, and insects"?

• Falkland Islands wolf. Is an estimated date for extinction available?

• 1876- added a note to that effect

• You should link less known words such as lagomorph.

• Whoops, got ungulates but missed that one. Fixed.

• Perhaps have an additional symbol for sub-species which are critically endangered, such as the Chadian wild dog?

• I'd prefer not to add more symbols/data for subspecies, due to inconsistent sourcing and varying definitions of what constitutes a "subspecies". Additionally, and possibly more importantly, for species I'm using the IUCN classifications, but they don't seem to classify subspecies in general- sometimes they'll do major population regions, and in fact for the African Wild Dog they do Global and Mediterranean, but not by subspecies and not often, so I'd have to mix data sources for different taxo levels.

• This is a first rate list but I had to read the lead several times to understand it. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: Thanks! Hopefully it's at least a bit better now. Replied inline. --PresN 19:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – The references all appear to be reliable and the link-checker tool shows no issues. There is one minor formatting problem: a mixture of DMY and YYYY-MM-DD formatting exists. These should be made consistent throughout; I'd suggest changing the YYYY-MM-DD ones since there are fewer of those. By my count, only refs 2, 9, and 81 would need fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Whoops; I've been doing MDY for these lists, but usually do Y-M-D so I didn't notice the mixup. Now fixed. Thanks for the source review! --PresN 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• The fixes look good, and the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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