Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2015

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 SchroCattalk 20:53, 29 October 2015 [1].

---

List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC), Calvin999, GagaNutella, IndianBio, SNUGGUMS

We've been working on the list for a while. However, we never came up with the conclusion as to who should be the one to nominate it. Anyway, the list is pretty comprehensive, listing down all of her notable songs. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie _talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments by Birdienest81 Since the column is labeled albums, link Gnomeo and Juliet to its actual soundtrack album article page. Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I'm a little unsure Life and Style being a reliable source given its reputation as a celebrity gossip magazine (for the record, I would be okay if it was People). Her are several articles that should be enough to replace the article (one from Los Angeles Times about Bangladesh which credits him as one of the writers, one from Entertainment Weekly that mentions Beyoncé and Sean Garrett as co-writers, and another one from Entertainment Weekly that mentions the song as a Beyonce-Lady Gaga duet. Use ALL three to ensure all four writers get credit. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Replaced, and I agree that "Life and Style" is dubious Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much Birdienest81 for your comments. All done now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I have no more reservations preventing me from supporting this list. Well done.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: thank you so much for your support! GagaNutella^talk 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think the list looks great and the prose is very well-written. The only issue that I have is one dead url. Erick (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Magiciandude. Turns out it is a working link and that there was a typo at the end of the URL. Fixed now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Great job guys! Erick (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WikiRedactor

My editing has been very limited this year, please forgive my critique for being sub-par! Is there anything we can do about the one green weblink? Replaced Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Maybe you could mention a song a bit more famous than "Speechless" to represent The Fame Monster in the introduction, either replacing it altogether or adding a second song to that sentence. Added "Alejandro" and "Bad Romance" Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Same thing with Born This Way; I like the mention of the Spanish and German lyrics so I would leave that bit as-is, but maybe mention the title track or "Judas" so the unfamiliar have a better frame of reference. Added title track Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I would personally find it interesting if you mentioned the couple soundtracks that Gaga appears in in a paragraph in the introduction, just to break it up a little bit from talking mostly about her actual albums. Who knows, it might be a fun fact worth mentioning that Heidi Montag recorded a version of "Fashion" before/after Gaga (not sure which came first!) and that she and Tony Bennett collaborated way before Cheek to Cheek became a thing. Added "Til It Happens to You" and "Fashion" Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Maybe it's just me being picky, but could we maybe change the color keys in the tables? I'm a fan of "#BFFFC0" for the singles, maybe a more pastel yellow for the promotional singles, and maybe use the purple for songs that are written by Gaga alone? I'm just not a huge fan of the current color choices, but that could just be being nitpick. Not sure what to use for "a more pastel yellow", but changed the other colors Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Albums titles should only be linked once in the tables, keep the first mention of each release wikilinked and remove the rest. WikiRedactor (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Unlinked lots Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I linked again per WP:OLINK, since this is a sortable table. GagaNutellatalk 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your review was most definitely not sub-par, WikiRedactor! All addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delayed response! I am happy with the changes, and am confident in giving my support for the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. Thank you, WikiRedactor!

• Thank you for supporting :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: Quite high quality, very well done, thank you very much to all who worked on this quality improvement project. One recommendation: please add in-line citations to back up the unsourced factual assertions in the Notes sect. After that, should be all set. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) If you are referring to the picture captions talking about the work other artists have done with her, Cirt, those are based on songwriting credits referenced in the section for credited writers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry for the confusion, I meant the factual assertions in this sect List_of_songs_recorded_by_Lady_Gaga#Notes - would strengthen the page's quality to have in-line citations after each note. — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: Hi, I'm sorry but I still didn't undertand what you mean lol can you explain again? GagaNutellatalk 02:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC) The footnotes themselves could have in-line citations after each footnote to back up the factual claims made in each one. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella:I've added cite needed tags, you can see them shown in this version of the list page here -- now yes, you could say that info is implicitly sourced to album notes, etc, but it would be better if it were explicitly cited with WP CIT templates with an in-line citation at the end of each note. Using WP:CIT templates to cite those notes, would make it much easier for future editors and readers to check where that information came from -- and will make the page much more durable over the long-run, and less likely to ever be de-listed. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: I'm editing right now. Hold on. GagaNutellatalk 03:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: Done. Is that what you meant? GagaNutellatalk 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, looks much better. I see you have in-line citation to back up captions in some images, but not others, if you added cites to those, too, even if it's cited to the album notes thingy, that would make it much much better. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: Not sure if adding references in the images is necessary. What about if I delete Diane's ref and just leave RedOne's because in this case is necessary to support the statement about the number one. Sounds good? GagaNutellatalk 03:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I guess like the lede intro sect, if literally all the info in the captions is already sourced and cited in the body text of the list, then that would be okay. But yeah, adding cites can only help more. — Cirt (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: I just said that because for example: RedOne and DJWS. I would need to add many sources, at least 3, to support they are the producers of many of Gaga's songs. I think it's "over citing" lol but the note thing I totally agree with you and it looks much better now. Thank you for your especific review. GagaNutellatalk 04:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks very much for GagaNutella for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank YOU Cirt for your support. It means a lot to all of us. I'm very grateful. Bye. GagaNutella^talk 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• You're most welcome, GagaNutella, thank you for your Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, and doing so while comporting yourself so politely. You're a rare find. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• We learn from our own mistakes, Cirt. Again, thank you. GagaNutella^talk 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• You're definitely correct. — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Cirt. Thank you for supporting! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with WikiRedactor, per WP:OLINK, tables are an exception when it comes to things being linked more than once. Depending on how you organize the table, you get a different occurrence of an album name first, EG: Sorting the tables by song means the first occurrence of Artpop is "Applause", however if we sort the table by other performer(s), "Do What U Want" occurs first, and is unlinked. Done. I agree with you, and we've already talked about it in this FLC. GagaNutellatalk 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I'm really confused as to why there are notes that describe what language Gaga recorded parts of songs in, what is the significance? It's not as if the article is titled "List of songs recorded in English by Lady Gaga" I really have nothing against it. Actually, I think it gives the reader a full perspective of the song. So for now, I'm gonna pass and see what the other contributors have to say. In my opinion we should keep it. GagaNutellatalk 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Gaga sings most in fact all of her songs in English. However, a handful of them have included some lyrics of foreign languages so I think it's important to know. -- Frankie talk 07:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}} → {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} Done GagaNutellatalk 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) What is the album for "World Family Tree" meant to mean? It currently is presented as "' (bonus CD audio book)" Done GagaNutellatalk 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) The reference for "Chillin'" states it was published in 2013, yet the song and the album it originates from both dropped in 2009. Done GagaNutellatalk 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC) All iTunes links are unreliable for "List of songs" articles, they don't tell us who wrote the songs, so that means references for "Big Girl Now", "Fashion", "Winter Wonderland" need changing. Done. All sources replaced. GagaNutellatalk 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Video Phone" rolls three references into one, whereas "Hello, Hello" marks out three single references, present both the same. Done GagaNutellatalk 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Add a <br> in between the two refs for "3-Way (The Golden Rule)". Done GagaNutellatalk 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) All I spotted so far. Azealia911 talk 09:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) @Azealia911: Thank you for your review. I think it's all done now. GagaNutellatalk 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: any comments over at my FLC would also be greatly appreciated. Azealia911 _talk 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Azealia911: Thanks for supporting. I confess I'm not very good with discographies, but I might give a look. By the way, I love her, this month I attended to Perry's concert and she was the opening act, she is really great!!! GagaNutella^talk 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks indeed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:00, 26 October 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2015 (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 PresN 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [2].

---

List of local nature reserves in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I already have one FLC nomination of the national nature reserves in Somerset, which has three supports and I believe "reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". This is a companion list covering all of the local nature reserves in the county.— Rod ^talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments per your request on my talkpage, apologies for not getting back to you sooner... Not sure you need to repeat the name of the reserve in the Description. Removed/reworded.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "A 200 hectare (494 acre) area" this should be hyphenated, shouldn't it, i.e. A 200-hectare ....? I've now used the convert template which should handle this.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Could abbreviate SSSI in the lead and then use the abbreviation in the table. Done.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Can we put en-dashes in the empty picture cells.. Done (but I always get em-dash and en-dash confused so could you check).— Rod talk 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "notable bath asparagus." any need for "notable", or perhaps explain what makes it so notable... Its an unusual plant but I've removed "notable" as being subjective.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "the Wain's Hill Iron Age hill fort " there is, somewhere, a MOS guideline that suggests that we avoid placing blue links adjacent to one another (I can never find it, although I may have a quick look after this), we have three in a row here. I've reworded this to avoid them being adjacent.— Rod talk 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) " includes the Folly Oak which" you only link Oak here, if the Folly Oak is so significant, I would link it entirely, or just not link Oak, particularly since it's part of a proper title. I've removed the link. I doubt if there are enough sources for a separate article - its significance is the age of the tree. Deatil typo (South Taunton Streams (Mill, Galmington, Blackbrook 1&2)). Done.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Then it's "Details" in Twerton Roundhill. Done. No map, area or co-ords for Uphill Hill and Walborough Common. I understand they're combined, in which case I would put the same stats in and add a note to say as such. As a minimum the co-ordinates for Uphill need to be repeated and those empty cells need explanation. I'm not sure how to handle this. I have emailed Natural England + local wildlife trusts, council etc - and not had a response. Natural England still lists them as separate sites (see detail links with non-interactive maps) which would therefore have different coordinates, but the MAGIC government mapping system from which I get the areas etc shows them as one site. If I duplicate the area this will give a false impression that they cover twice as much as they do. Advice appreciated.— Rod talk 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Check refs for publisher info missing, e.g. ref 7, ref 27... Done those two - can't see any others.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Consistency needed in retrieval/publication dates. Done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Check for accessdates, e.g. ref 21 is missing one. Done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 18 "south Somerset" I imagine should be South Somerset. You are right - done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 19: Kepp Britain Tidy, obvious typo. You are right - done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) What makes the Pen Selwood reference a WP:RS? The about page says who produced it. I have added a Natural England ref (but this doesn't mention northern crested newt, so I'm not sure if I should remove that?)— Rod talk 09:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Is it "Taunton Deane Council" or "Taunton Deane Bourough Council"? And the latter has a typo. Done.— Rod talk 09:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Work for ref 30 should be Bristol Post. Done.— Rod talk 09:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) That's it for a quick onceover. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The smallest at just 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) is Wellington Basins where a series of small ponds and surrounding grassland and woodland which provide a habitat for grey wagtail, dipper and reed bunting." This sentence does not seem grammatical.
  • Reworded.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are adjacent to each other in Uphill and are sometimes treated as a single site covering 38.14 hectares (94.2 acres)." Uphill Hill and Walborough Common should be linked. Also the sentence is not referenced (here and in the descriptions of the sites). Who treats it as a single site?
  • As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod ^talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod ^talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
            • Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• "This reserve covers unimproved neutral grassland" No change needed but I wish someone competent would create an article on neutral grassland. There is even a category for neutral grassland SSSIs!
• "The dunes, west of the village of Berrow, has a golf course, and is a noted site". "has" and "is" do not agree in number with "dunes"
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk
• " A 200 hectares (490 acres) area was designated in 1952 as a SSSI." Presumably the 16.7 hectare LNR is part of the SSSI, but this should be spelled out.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• "The site includes beech trees up to 200 years old. There are also oak and hazel. It provides a habitat for birds including blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws and small mammals." This reads a bit awkwardly. How about "The site has beech trees up to 200 years old, oaks and hazels. Birds include blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws, and there are small mammals such as badgers and foxes."
  • Thanks - I have used your suggested wording.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• "It includes the bath asparagus". This does not sound right to me. Maybe "Plants include bath asparagus."
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Chard Reservoir. Ref 19 appears to be a dead link as it goes to the Keep Britain Tidy home page. I would add that Chard Canal closed in 1868 to make clear that the reservoir has not been active for 150 years.
  • Archiveurl used. Closure of canal added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• "This reserve includes a hill fort dating from the Iron Age on Wain's Hill and Church Hill. It includes calcareous grassland, coastal scrub and woodland" Repetition of "includes". The second one could be changed to "has".
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• "The lakes are the centrepiece of the one mile long[44] nature reserve which includes dry woodland which has a ground flora including common bluebell, dogs mercury and twayblade." This is awkward with the repetition of "which". I would split the sentence into two.
  • Split.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think "rhyne" should be linked.
  • Wikilinked.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• I would add the list of Somerset SSSIs to 'See also'.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. I think they are dealt with apart from the issue with Uphill Hill and Walborough Common on which I would welcome your thoughts.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jakec

• "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir"...should be "36.97-hectare (91.4-acre) reservoir". Use the adj=on parameter in the convert template.
  • Done.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I had missed a "|" within the convert template.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Also in the Chard Reservoir section, three consecutive sentences begin with "it". Perhaps rephrase and/or merge a couple of the shorter sentences?
  • Reworded.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• There should be a comma after "Following the route of the Cheddar Valley Line" and also "Alongside the River Tone"
  • Commas added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Woodland and grassland support a range of bird species" isn't grammatically correct; should be "supporting" or "that supports".
  • Changed to "that supports".— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• "The grassy plateau of the hill fort is owned and managed by Yatton and Congresbury Parish Councils." should be referenced.
  • Ref added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• About half of the Berrow Dunes section is unreferenced.
  • Refs added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Last sentence of the Street Heath section needs a period.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• "There are a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." - try maybe adding an "also".
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification - got it now.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• I notice that four entries don't have articles of their own. Can this be rectified?
  • Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay. As long as there aren't that many, and they do link somewhere, it's not a 5a violation. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 6 is dead
  • Linkrot fixed.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Archiveurl & archivedate added.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 14 appears to come from Geocities. Is it an RS?
  • I can't find another source for this so removed - not vital to the nature reserve.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 20 looks like a personal site. Is it an RS?
  • I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Replaced with a site from the local council.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting list, and I look forward to supporting once these are addressed. Would you by any chance have time to review Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I will try to take a look at Shamokin Creek.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support by the looks of it, the previous reviewers have covered everything; I can't find anything to fault. This has also reminded me that I still owe you a photo for Silk Mills, I'll jot that down! Harrias ^talk 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:27, 26 October 2015 (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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [3].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Ian Bell

Nominator(s): Ytfc23 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket-related list, Ian Bell is one of only two English cricketers since the Second World War to have won five Ashes series and this list details his 26 international centuries. The list resembles a similar style to numerous other list of centuries by international cricketers, I would like to thank The Rambling Man for the help in tidying up the list and its a pleasure to co-nominate this list, and look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve the list. Ytfc23 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments' "making four each..." -> with four each changed to "with four against each" Ytfc23 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "England have never lost a test match in which Bell has scored a century." could probably do with a citation Done Ytfc23 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 10:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments "scoring 7,546 and 5,416 runs respectively" He has 7,569 runs in Tests now. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) You need not mention the venues all the time while explaining his innings in the lead. For eg., "His highest Test score is 235 against India at The Oval" - The venue is really not needed unless it holds some significance. I don't think it does any harm It's not at all harmful, but sometimes it reads odd. No issues. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) "He has scored his twenty-two Test centuries against eight different opponents; he is most successful against Australia and Pakistan, with four against each." - You could simply say he has scored centuries against all Test-playing nations except Zimbabwe. Further, he has also scored four centuries against India. Well, it's saying the same thing, and should additional Test-playing nations be added, it'll still be correct. Fixed issue with India. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Yes, the meaning doesn't change. But for a non-follower of cricket it definitely adds value. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) A non-follower wouldn't understand the delineation between full and non-full membership. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) There is no question of delineation when a wikilink is provided. —Vensatry (ping) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I don't see a problem with the way it is currently written I'm afraid. It's factually accurate and will remain so, even if the number of full members of the ICC changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) It's worth mentioning that he made 70 runs on Test debut. Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Both images need WP:ALT Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Guess the first one should mention Haddin's name too. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) It could do, it's not pertinent to this list at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Generally speaking, we mention the names of people in alt text, regardless of the image's relevance to the article. —Vensatry (ping) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Ok, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) This one is a personal preference. You could swap both the images as the second one seems more suitable for the lead. I disagree, an image of him playing a scoring shot is much more suitable for the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) I said it's a personal pref, so you may agree to disagree. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Again, a mention of his 199 could be made on the lead as he is one of the eight players to be dismissed while on that score. Also, scoring five Test centuries in a calendar year is considered a "feat". Added mention of 199. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Do you have a couple of sources that reference this is as a "feat"? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) [4], [5] —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Forgive me, but most of Fox Sports is a waste of time, I think that trying to push a factoid here is not worthy. Perhaps there's a list out there for "cricketers scoring five or more centuries in a calendar year"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Again, this one is a personal choice. I had to list down the sources since you asked me. —Vensatry (ping) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) India and Australia are linked twice in the lead. Removed overlink. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) His first century was an unbeaten one. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) In ODIs table, 141 (124) - 141 (125) Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Matches whose results were determined by Duckworth–Lewis method should be noted in the table. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 07:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Responded or addressed all your comment Vensatry, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias Given none of his centuries were scored at neutral locations, it would be as well to remove references to neutral venues. Ok, was keeping the format similar to others just in case he does get a netural ton, but removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Could entry #17, or the column widths, be tweaked for it all to fit on one line? It fits onto one line in my browser.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Either add the "Ref" to the key, or use {{abbr|Ref|Reference}} to display Ref in the tables. Tool tip added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) It seems superfluous to me to include "Balls" as well as "S/R" in the ODI table, but smeh. More is less? It seems a shame to delete the material since it's inoffensive and is often quoted (i.e. scored his 100 in X balls).... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) It would probably be worth mentioning his international one-day retirement in the lead. Harrias talk 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Done so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Harrias apologies for not getting back to you sooner, this has clearly dropped off my radar. I have addressed all of your comments, hopefully to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support entry #17 is still irritatingly on two lines on my screen, even though I have quite a large screen, but I don't have any significant objections, nice work, both. Harrias ^talk 10:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: you closed your comments here a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [6].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another cricket list. This is my first attempt at a cricket-related article. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Quick comment – I don't think that users are allowed to add a third nomination simultaneously as FLC clearly states "users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". -- Frankie talk 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Aadukalam's award list has no outstanding issues for now as Vensatry struck off his oppose. The award list for Enthiran has only Azealia's oppose, which is quite improbable considering the support it has gained since then. I even messaged him requesting him to re-review the article but he simply removed it as per this edit. I asked Vensatry about it and he assured me it was alright as per this edit. Azealia has struck off his oppose now as per this edit. Both the lists are now FLs though. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Comments "a sports ground in Chennai (formerly Madras), India that has hosted international" – "formerly Madras" is not needed here. In the same sentence, de-link India as MoS suggests "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]". The image needs WP:ALT text. "Australia's Ashley Mallett became the first cricketer to take two five-wicket hauls" → "Australian cricketer Ashley Mallett became the first to take two five-wicket hauls". Anil Kumble's image need an alternative text. This one is based on personal preference, I think you should write numbers in figure (1, 2, 3) than words (one, two, three), which are above nine. -- Frankie talk 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Resolved your comments. Thanks, Frankie. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support – good work. -- Frankie _talk 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks again, Frankie. As always, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments "It has hosted international cricket matches since the first Test at this venue took place in 1934, between India and England." would simply say The first match was in 1934, between India and England "and has been home to 31 Test matches in total." -> it has hosted a further 31 Test matches "It has a capacity..." -> The ground has a capacity Make sure en dashes are used instead of hyphens 1969–70 tour is an example "Ravichandran Ashwin has taken the most..." -> Ravichandran Ashwin took the most "Overall, as of August 2015, "As of August 2015, only one Twenty20 International (T20I) match was played between India and New Zealand on 11 September 2012." This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Change to As of August 2015, a match between India and New Zealand is the only Twenty20 International (T20I) to be held at the ground. There's not really any point in having the rowspans in the table as it resorts to normal cells when sorted. You need to use a symbol along with the colour for colour blind readers NapHit (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC) @NapHit: Your comments have resolved, NapHit. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@NapHit: Thanks, NapHit. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments "Kings.[1][3]The" space before The. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Link Test. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Including the first match" would be neater to say "In total" Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "The ground has a capacity of 38,000 spectators for international matches.[1] " seems odd to put this between the number of Tests and number of ODIs hosted. Done. Moved the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Instead of "Australian cricketer" perhaps "Australia's ..." and link Australia to the national team. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Hirwani's debut stuff is fine, but you should reiterate that he took them at this stadium. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "47 five-wicket hauls in Tests and two five-wicket hauls" per MOSNUM, 47 and 2 or "forty-seven" and "two". Not a mixture. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "five of Anil Kumble's 35 " same again, but avoid starting sentences with a numeral, so perhaps you need to re-jig this caption altogether. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Is ♣ accessible? Done. Changed the symbol. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Morkel's missing an accent on his first name. Done. Added. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Bishen Singh Bedi" our article has him as Bishan. Done. Changed to "Bishan". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Worth noting that four of these fifers came in the same match? Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Check date of 19 and 20. @The Rambling Man: Can you specify clearly on this one. I don't quite understand what you mean here. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Check the date of hauls 19 and 20, it doesn't seem to match the citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Is it ok now? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) No, hauls 19 and 20 date doesn't match the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Spotted. Done. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Check ref titles for WP:DASH, e.g. ref 14, 17 to 38.... Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 07:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments In these lists, alt text should simply name the subject. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) If the ground is commonly known as Chepauk, why do we have the title as M. A. Chidambaram Stadium? Done. Used "the Chidambaram Stadium" instead. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I never asked you to remove it. Actually, Chepauk is another name, so it should be noted in the opening sentence. —Vensatry (ping) 07:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Done. Re-added the link. 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. Re-added it with a couple of footnotes. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "Commonly known as the Chepauk Stadium or simply Chepauk due its location in the city's locality of Chepauk,[3] it is named after M. A. Chidambaram, former President of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI),[4] the stadium was formerly known as the Madras Cricket Club ground" Again, if the venue is commonly called as Chepauk, why the title sits at MAC? Consider splitting the sentence as it looks extremely long. —Vensatry (ping) 17:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Done. Splitted the sentence. Isn't MAC the official name while Chepauk is the colloquial name? :-) — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC) To clarify, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. When you use say commonly it implies that we should go by that name. —Vensatry (ping) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Are you suggesting that the article's title should be changed to "List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Chepauk" instead? If that's the case, then Done. :-) — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) It strikes me that this list title should only have been changed if the parent article is also retitled, and that a RM would be the best way of approaching it. Harrias talk 06:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) In any case, you shouldn't have moved the page. As Harrias says, the parent article should be renamed first. But before that, are we sure that Chepauk is the common name? I was suggesting you only to rephrase/remove "commonly" from the sentence. —Vensatry (ping) 07:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: I have moved the page back to M. A. Chidambaram Stadium now and replaced "commonly" with "also". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC) The acronym "MAC" should be noted as well. —Vensatry (ping) 11:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Given the ground hosted many matches when Chennai was Madras, I think you should add a note stating that Madras was renamed as Chennai in 1996. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "the stadium was formerly known as the Madras Cricket Club Ground" When it came to be known as MAC? Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC) It shouldn't be removed since that's another name. —Vensatry (ping) 07:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. Re-added it with a couple of footnotes. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "In total, it has hosted a further 30 Test matches" I'd suggest you to use "As of ..." Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) during the 1987 Cricket World Cup -> during the 1987 World Cup Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "The first bowler to take a five-wicket haul in a Test match at Chepauk was Amar Singh for India against England in 1934; he finished with bowling figures of 7 wickets for 86 runs" Indication about the first ever Test match was already explained in the opening para. Secondly, did he finish the innings/match with those figures? Done. He finished the innings with the mentioned bowling figures. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Australia is linked twice in the lead. Done. Removed extra link. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) fifth and final Test -> fifth Test Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Narendra Hirwani became the most recent cricketer" - Narendra Hirwani is the most recent cricketer Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "two five-wicket hauls on debut" can be pipe-linked to List of cricketers who have taken two five-wicket hauls on Test debut. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) You seem to use both "Year" and "Month Year". For eg., 1934, February 1952 – Be consistent. Done. Used "Year". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) As of 2015 -> As of August 2015 Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Pipe-linking Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13 to February 2013 looks like WP:EASTEREGG Done. Removed link. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I never asked you to remove the link. —Vensatry (ping) 17:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. Re added the link. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "30 bowlers have taken forty-seven Test match five-wicket" - Be consistent per WP:NUMNOTES Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I'd prefer '30 bowlers and 47 fifers' to 'thirty bowlers and forty-seven fifers'. —Vensatry (ping) 17:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "The other five-wicket haul was made by West Indies' Ravi Rampaul, which was also the most recent five-wicket haul and the best figures in ODI cricket at this ground." - The "also the most recent five-wicket haul" bit is redundant. Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Rampaul took -> He took Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 2011 Cricket World Cup - 2011 Cricket World Cup Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 1 run -> one run Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I'd like to have a description of "drawn" and "tied" (wl) in the key. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "The match has ended with a team having two or more batsmen left at the scheduled end of play who are 'not out'" – Where on the earth did you find this definition from? —Vensatry (ping) 17:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. Changed it to "The inconclusive result that occurs when the allotted playing time for the game expires without the teams having completed their innings." — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 23:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC) I suggest you to provide a wl. The definition seems to have close-paraphrasing issues. —Vensatry (ping) 06:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Not done —Vensatry (ping) 06:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Is it the wrong wl? (wl means "wikilink" right?) — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC) 'The allotted playing time for the match expires without the batting team having completed their innings.' – There is a close paraphrasing issue with this phrase. —Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Does a bowler taking a fifer during tournament matches hold any significance, why should we note it? Done. Removed the symbol from the list and Key sections. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC) This one is a personal preference - In the key you could simply name the team (for eg., India) instead of "India won". Likewise for drawn and tied matches. There is an obvious problem with sorting. @Vensatry: How do I write for Drawn and Tied? I also remember asking you to help me with the sorting. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Simply put "Drawn" and "Tied" to maintain consistency. —Vensatry (ping) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC) This one is done. What exactly are you looking for? —Vensatry (ping) 17:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: You mentioned "There is an obvious problem with sorting". What do you mean by that actually? Need a clarification there. :-) — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC) I see that it has been addressed. —Vensatry (ping) 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: If that's the case, then Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC) The "runs" entry for Aaqib Javed should be corrected. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 09:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias "Drawn" and "Tied" need to be formatted as the rest in the Key. Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) The Key also needs to make it clear what the result column signifies. It isn't clear that "India" being the "Result of the match" means that India won. @Harrias: Vensatry asked me to change it to just the team's name. It was "India Won", "West Indies Won" etc. before. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Which is fine, but the Key needs to make it clear what it means. Harrias talk 06:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) @Harrias: Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "86 runs.[13]Australia's" is missing a space. Done. Added space. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "of the fifth and Test" I assume it's meant to be "fifth and final Test"? Done. Written it as simply "fifth test". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "This is also the best match-figures" Given that "match-figures" is plural, should it be "These are.."? Harrias talk 13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – nice work. Fancy taking a look at one for me? (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1) Harrias ^talk 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for the support and for the offer, Harrias. I'm currently abstaining from reviewing anything (GAN, PR, FAC and FLC) at the moment (studies being a factor). Best of luck with your FLC though!  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry and The Rambling Man: You two closed your comments a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's mandatory to offer "supports" as a part of the review, isn't it? —Vensatry _(ping) 08:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club grounds

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments "It has since played first-class" maybe "played host to..." What's an "out ground'? Could link First-class cricket. You don't actually link the Clifton ground in the lead, just the college. You use both Bristol County Ground and County Ground, Bristol as links, I'd be consistent. I'm not sure even the Gloucestershire Country Cricket Club article links to this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) All fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for takiung the time to comment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments – looks good

• Lead image needs alt text. In other images, alt text should simply name the ground.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• In the table, you could add the actual dates instead of "no other matches to date".
  • The previous three such articles I've got to FL status all used this format, I'd rather stay consistent.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• The footnotes are unsourced.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    

—Vensatry _(ping) 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly

• "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship, representing the historic county of Gloucestershire." Two separate things there. How about "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship. It represents the historic county of Gloucestershire."
  • Altered, although in a different way to how you suggested to avoid too many short sentences. What do you think.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• "It has since played host to first-class cricket from 1870, List A cricket from 1963 and Twenty20 cricket from 2003." Clubs don't "play host". They "play".
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• "The club's debut home match" Journalese. "The club's first home match" is better.
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Bristol has been considered an independent county since 1373, though it was officially part of the county of Avon from 1974 until 1996.[9] Somerset have played first-class matches at other venues in the city." These are odd sentences, coming right at the end of a totally unrelated paragraph. They need to stand alone or move somewhere else.
  • Not really unrelated, as it comes right after extensive stuff about the club playing at Bristol and clarifies that Bristol isn't technically in Gloucestershire. I think it is relevant at that point.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• "before its use was discontinued in 1992." You mean "until".
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I find it odd that our article is at Trowbridge Cricket Club Ground but you call the ground "County Ground".
  • Cricket Archive calls it the County Ground, as does The Cricketer magazine and, most tellingly, Trowbridge Cricket Club themselves. I think this article is right and the article on the ground is titled wrongly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally this looks good, though. Relentlessly (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Images review

Durdham Down (750px).jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Clifton College - geograph.org.uk - 147399.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Gymnasium and cricket field, Cheltenham College - geograph.org.uk - 194667.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Bristol County Ground.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Swindon Cricket Club.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Trowbridge Cricket Club - geograph.org.uk - 556029.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Buildings in the images are covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama United Kingdom

• Support - If this review was helpful, please consider optionally reviewing my List of Alamo defenders — Maile (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – nothing to fault in this, meets all the criteria, nice work. Harrias ^talk 10:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [8].

---

List of international goals scored by Thierry Henry

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney and Bobby Charlton are getting their highlights highlighted here, so why not good old Terry Henry? An absolute legend of French football, top scorer and second-highest appearances, this geezer needs to be recognised for his international goal-scoring prowess. Hence the list. Thanks, as ever, to those who contribute to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• • The caption doesn't need the word "has", given that he's never going to score any more
  • "He surpassed the previous record, held by Michel Platini" - I would make 100% clear that this is the goalscoring record, as the most recent stat mentioned was his number of caps
  • "He has scored more times against Malta" => "He scored more times against Malta"
  • "More than half of Henry's goals have come" => "More than half of Henry's goals came"
  • "More than half of Henry's goals have come in home matches, having scored 31 of his 51 goals in France" - the grammar is a bit mangled here, the subject of the sentence is his goals, so "having scored" isn't correct. I would suggest (also taking into account my last point ;-)) "More than half of Henry's goals came in home matches, 31 of his 51 goals being scored in France"
  • "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, have come" => "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, came
  • "Four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup saw Henry" - goals can't see. I would suggest "A tally of four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup made Henry the tournament's top scorer and led to his being voted the "tournament's most outstanding player".
  • Nowhere do you explain what the score column means, or the significance of the bolding therein. I understand it, but others might not......

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for those comments, each of which I have hopefully addressed to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Consider having a stats table with "by competition" as at List_of_international_goals_scored_by_Wayne_Rooney. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The intro seems fine, but it feels like it is missing mentioning his last international goal in 2009. Also, this might be trivia-ish, but he seems to have scored only once when France lost. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Addressed the first of your comments, the second I don't find particularly helpful since France were at their best during the time he played for them, so it would be seen as to attribute too much of that success to Henry himself to frame it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That could be the case. Just noticed that 123 and 51 do not have actual references. I am sure there is some FIFA website referencing the totals. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Added it to the sentence "During his international career he played 123 games for France in which he scored 51 goals. " Nergaal (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• ref 9 and 38 are missing dates and 42 seems to need "work=AFP". Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  ref 9 has no explicit publication date that I can see, other two addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The link has "Last updated: 27/06/2012 11:57 CET" which seemed to me to be the date, but I might be wrong. Spot-checking other refs seemed to be fine to me so support for FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please do me a favor and merge (use row-width=) the rows with multiple goals per game as was done in List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there's little point as the row merges disappear once the table is sorted in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it looks much better/cleaner. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you think to be the point. I disagree. This isn't a process where I have to follow every single one of your aesthetic suggestions, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that me choosing to be pleasant and constructive to you would generate the same type of attitude from you. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done nothing other than to say thank you but I disagree and that I won't be taking up every single personal aesthetic preference of your's. I think our positions are clear, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite Should be consistent with FIFA/UEFA in the lead; they're sometimes included, sometimes not. Think I've fixed this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Can't help but feel the lead needs beefing up a bit. Feel free to do so, or explain what needs expansion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I feel "No." and "Ref." would benefit from tooltips to explain what they stand for. Have done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Per H:TABLE, "The first cell of a row is identified as a row header by starting the line with "<code>! scope="row" |</code>" instead of "<code>|</code>". This applies to the entries in the "No." column. Yes, of course. Working. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I think the text in the table would look better left-aligned, and would be consistent with the Rooney list. Left aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Could a "Cap" column be included, like at Rooney? It could, working. 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Finished. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Happy to support this now. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) Images need alt text Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC) The last sentence of the opening para looks extremely lengthy, consider splitting it. split. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Check for dashes Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Any specific reason for not linking the publishers in refs? No, feel free to link them yourself if you feel the need. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) See User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2015/Nov#Duncan Renaldo filmography for some debate over whether or not publishers should be linked, apparently some think not, some think yes, some think in between. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) You might want to see this one as well. I personally don't think it does any harm; in most cases it'll definitely serve as clue to establish the reliability of the publisher. —Vensatry (ping) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 05:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Certainly not my area of expertise but looks good. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk The "Apps" in the Goals by year table sorts wrong for me, it might be because of the note. Adding a number data sort type ought to fix it. Otherwise, everything looks good. Fancy taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1 if you get a chance? Harrias talk 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Fixed that. Will look at the criclist in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – nice work. Harrias ^talk 10:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 18 October 2015 [9].

---

List of Square Enix video game franchises

Nominator(s): PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, video game list time rather than another sci-fi/fantasy awards list. This one's a bit unique- most game companies out there can't support a list composed of just the franchises they develop/publish, rather than the games, but Square Enix is a unique beast. And that's reflected in this list: the franchises are divided up between franchises developed by Square Enix (or formerly Square/Enix), those developed by companies that they've bought (like Eidos Interactive and Taito), and those that any of those parts published but didn't develop. Except that's a simplification- what do you call a franchise that was published by Eidos, who then bought the developer, and then more games were developed after Square Enix then bought Eidos? (Deus Ex) Or a franchise developed by an external company but published by Eidos, where Eidos owned the franchise rights, only to sell them off to the original developer? (Carmaggedon) And that's ignoring franchises where Taito publishes a manga, which then has an anime, and then has spinoff games- I've elided those, for all our sanities. Those will be in another list when I feel like shooting myself via google searches again. The point is that this list is an approximation of something we can't know for sure- what franchises does Square Enix actually own the rights to, as oppose to exclusive publishing rights to, as opposed to just having happened to have published every game in the series. Since we can't know, this list doesn't answer that question, but instead covers all franchises that Square Enix develops or publishes, past or present.

Those of you who don't spend time in video game articles won't realize how much of a surprise the "sales" column is: getting sales numbers in video game land, unlike movies and music, is like pulling teeth from a rhinoceros who only speaks Japanese- it's all scattered non-English sources that you have to dig for and pull together to get a number that even remotely approximates reality. If a franchise here is missing sales data, no sources exist anywhere that I could find for that data. Before ending this nomination, I'd like to thank Misconceptions2, who created the initial list and the first (slightly premature) nomination a month ago- I would never have willingly subjected myself to making this list, but they made it happen. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I'll be back later. But please look at reference 87 that has an error message (at least what I see) "External link in |title= (help)". — Maile (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm back. Gaming is not my area of knowledge, so I'll say this looks good as far as what I can see. Except for WP:DTT - I don't see scope="col" and scope="row", and that seems to be stressed on FLC reviews. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66:: Fixed the reference error, seemed to confuse the wikilink with an external link. Also put in row/col scopes- knew I was forgetting something. --PresN 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Happy to give you my support. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support First of all I would like to express my admiration for your efforts in sourcing the list. I have only a couple of suggestions:

• You should format reference 87.
• In note 1 I would suggest to specify as of when are the most recent numbers: "Sales numbers are based on the most recent available sourced numbers as of .......; actual total sales numbers...". --Gligan (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did both, though I'm on the fence about the "as of" bit. --PresN 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, vast improvement on the previous. All of my concerns from that one have been met. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 18 October 2015 [10].

---

Agatha Christie bibliography

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agatha Christie was a truly prodigious writer who turned out 73 novels and 28 short story collections, alongside plays, poems and autobiographical works. Best known for her crime stories, she invented a string of colourful and eccentric characters, including Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Parker Pyne, Harley Quin and Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. This list has been extensively re-worked to make it MoS compliant, fully sourced throughout and ready for FLC. Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – A model of its kind. I have tried to find something to quibble at, but can't. Meets the FL criteria, in my view. (I bet I'm the only reviewer you get here who has been running longer than The Mousetrap.) Tim riley talk 19:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim for your time and efforts in going through this - all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, quite well done and well cited. Just too bad we couldn't get an interview with the Tenth Doctor about his impression of her works. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Cirt! Your thoughts and comment are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Looks very well researched and compiled. One could say though that the infobox bibliography consists of a "string of colourful and eccentric colours" too though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Doc, for your time and comments - much appreciated! – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Great effort here on one of my favourite authors. I seem to remember that her work is noted as only being outsold by the Bible and Shakespeare, reaching over a billion copies. If there is a reputable source for that, would really highlight how much of titan she was of literature. Yep, good point, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Could we reduce the The Floating Admiral note to a footnote or something as it looks very stretched out? In fact since there are very few entries in the notes column, a footnote format may work instead of having a notes column for some of the tables. I've moved the Admiral info into a footnote, and I'll spin through the rest of the notes to see which works best, but I think you're right that more could be moved down to get rid of at least one of the columns. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Lost one of the columns. I think the others have enough in them to be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC) A mention of her second husband Max Mallowan in the lead perhaps as travels with him did have an influence in at least the location of many of her works. Definately - now added. – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Perhaps some more discussion on the plays in the lead as The Mousetrap surely deserves a mention as the longest running play. Now added - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC) And Then There Were None should also probably be mentioned as it's by far the most popular of her books in terms of sales and critical acclaim. Now covered - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Some discussion of the themes, plot devices that are common in her books and form part of her legacy. The only mention of this currently is "unfailingly clever plots". I'm mulling this one over. At the moment I'm not sure that's the right step for a bibliography like this, as it should go in with the main article (one I want to have a re-write of soon), but let me have a bit more of a think about it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I know you've mentioned a few characters that became popular from her novels. I was wondering if a special mention could be made of Hercule Poirot as she wrote more novels about him than any other and he's certainly the most popular with many adaptations, including an NYT obituary. Obviously with sources supporting this. Cowlibob (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Many thanks Cowlibob. All excellent comments; I've actioned some easy ish ones, and will work on the others over the next day or so. The only one I am less sure of is the one about the plots – I'm still thinking it thorough, but this may be best in the main article, rather than here. Cheers, and I hope to have the rest of your points covered soon. – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) All now covered on all but one - the question of the plots. I think that the examination of her technique and the devices is probably best suited to the main Christie article, rather than here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Good job, you certainly used your "little grey cells" on this one. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Cowlibob: good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Overall, an excellent job, but I have a few nits to pick:

• I think the garish infobox should be removed (leaving the picture). It has multiple problems (see my comments here), one of which is that the numbers are often wrong; and indeed, the number for broadcast works is wrong unless the two works with coauthors are discounted for some reason.

• The IB is fine being there: it is used in several other FLs and many users have previusly commented that they find it an advantage. I've tweaked the number of broadcast works, which negates the problem of the number. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Of the three sources cited at the top of most of the tables, two (Dalby and Morgan) are very obscure. The Dalby reference is a bit confusing; it's an article in a sort of journal, but no page numbers are provided in the entry under Sources. No version can be accessed online, so I guessed that the entire article spans pages 32-38. Also, I was a bit mystified by the gray number 243 that seemed to float at the end of the citation, so I tried changing the field to volume. It was hard to find the Morgan reference until I discovered that it was volume 77, so I added that information. There are 69 novels in Contemporary authors online, but 73 in the table, so the sourcing implies that the other four are listed in the two sources I can't read. Aren't there more authoritative and accessible overall sources for the list?

• The two sources are not too obscure (certainly not obscure enough to warrant exclusion and they have been used in several other FLs). I've reverted your alteration to their description as they are issues, not volumes. The sources contan a biography, publication history and then a bibliography of first editions, and the page numbers are for the bibliography only, not the full article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I can't find The Book and Magazine Collector in OCLC WorldCat, and all I can find on the web is a picture of the cover for this issue. That's pretty obscure. It means that, for most people, it will be next to impossible to verify any statement using that source. I'm not saying that you need to exclude them - but are there any more accessible sources? As for the issue/volume question, that is just how they are identified in the template. What matters is whether the entry makes sense to readers. Compare these two versions:

• Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector (243). Diamond Publishing Group. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector. 243. Diamond Publishing Group: 32–38. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In the first one, the reader will probably wonder what that number in parentheses means, but they will have no trouble interpreting the second. Also, the first one leaves the reader with the impression that Richard Dalby wrote the whole issue, not just one article in it. The entries in Agatha Christie bibliography#Sources should make sense by themselves, since they are not the actual citations. You could put the page numbers for the entire article there and leave the more specific page numbers in the inline citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered this above. Just because you are unable to obtain the publication does not make this an invalid source. As to the formatting, this has been done correctly, but if you don't like it, I suggest you start a discussion at MoS level to determine how we do this on a project-wide basis. – SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Hall source needs page numbers.

• The page numbers are inthe individual references and are not needed in the source list. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Because of the table format, for some window sizes the pictures won't fit beside the tables so there is a large white gap. I don't know if there is any solution for this.

• Not as far as I am aware. The images have been shrunk as they are, so unless they are reduced to a ridiculously small size then there is a problem for very small screens. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

RockMagnetist(talk) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but there are a number of statements that are either unsourced or don't agree with the sources:

1. the number of detective novels is given as 66 in the lead but ref #1 in Contemporary Authors has 69 (which I had to determine by counting the entries).
2. The infobox says there are 73 novels total, which agrees with the first section, but if you include the 6 novels published under other names in ref #1, there are 75.
3. The infobox says that there are 28 collections, but there are 34 short story collections in Ref #1.
4. The infobox says there are 3 collections of poems, ref #1 only identifies two.
5. The infobox says there are 7 broadcast works, but only two are identified in ref #1.

It is o.k. to provide individual sources for entries in the list, but if you want to provide totals, you need a source that proves the list is complete. And even if you can find sources for the infobox, it does not offer any way to include them. If you get rid of it, all but one of the source problems goes away (but leave the picture!). RockMagnetist(talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Contemporary Authors is an American publication that doesn't take into account publications outside the US. Take the poems, for example: they say there are 2 collections of poems, but THREE were published. They got the figure wrong, that is all, which is why there are also other sources used alongside it. The same problem comes up with broadcast works: shall we repeat the source that says 2 works, and have a table with seven sourced entries? As with all thing on Wiki, the indobox summarises the article, which is the case here. I'm not impressed that you are opposing based on your opinion of this IB format. You seem to be trying to force removal of this perfectly acceptable IB, which is a questionable approach. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• If the other sources have the correct numbers, then why don't you state them in the body of the list and cite the sources? The actual purpose of the infobox is to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (see Purpose of an infobox). Also note INFOBOXREF: "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." As your discussion of Contemporary Authors demonstrates, the information is not obvious. Asking the reader to count the entries in the article does not constitute a citation. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The other sources don't show any figures at all: they list books. No-one is asking the readers to count anything, so that's a straw man. – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I am opposing this article based on your inclusion of this infobox, and I don't care if you're impressed or not. One of the Featured list criteria is that the list must comply "with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." This infobox violates multiple guidelines, including the above citation issue and the following:

1. "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." (Purpose of an infobox)
2. "... infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative." (Style, color and formatting).

RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The IB is used in several lists, including FLs. As above, go to the MoS and complain there about the IB, not on an individual FLC based on your personal opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So now if an infobox violates the MOS, we should "go to the MoS and complain"? I'm done here - I'll let the director/delegates decide this one. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This box, and several of a similar format, are used across various pages of the project. Some of them have previously reached the level of FL, where they have been promoted with these boxes in place. Targeting a single nomination based on your personal dislike of the box is not the best approach. – SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:13, 13 October 2015 [11].

---

List of Millennium characters

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). A previous FLC had a few minor comments which have been addressed, so there should be nothing outstanding from that. Thanks in advance to anyone looking over this. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support despite it claiming a third season exists, which is a vicious lie. --Golbez (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support continuing from the previous nom, based on style, structure and referencing. Couldn't find any major problems with prose that would make me alter my decision. Be sure to correct spelling of criticised → criticized as this is an American show. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  Amended, thanks. GRAPPLE ^X 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support well sourced and nicely put together. I would however, suggest reducing the size of Pounder's photo to match the size of Henrickson's, and perhaps adding one of Klea Scott. I also noticed a citation error on the page that needs attention. Best Regards. Drdpw (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  Unfortunately we have no free files of Scott or she'd have been a natural inclusion. I've changed the Pounder image to specify the same width as Henriksen's (170px). I hadn't noticed the cite error, but it was the result of two citations using the same name; I've fixed that now. GRAPPLE ^X 23:47, 8 October 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:24, 13 October 2015 [12].

---

List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story

Nominator(s): GagaNutella^talk 15:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on it for certain period of time, and after many edits and full revamping, I believe this list meets the criteria for featured list status.

Resolved comments from Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from Johanna Just "horror television series" would be better than "horror genre" Done Could you expand the lead a bit? Maybe stuff about the show's awards performance in various seasons? Also, the only specific stuff you have in the lead are the actors and episode with the most awards, and you could definitely be more specific than that. And I'm sure there's more info that's notable enough for the lead. Done I know that some FLs have this, but I think it's a bit clunky if you explain what every awards ceremony does in a lot of detail. If you feel as though you should do it sometimes, that's okay, but I would mirror it after List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons--I like that one's style. @Johanna: I think it's important to say briefly what each award is, by the way, the Simpsons's article has a different structure. GagaNutellatalk 02:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Okay, I can accept that. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I don't think titles such as ASC or CAS are necessary. Done That's about it, honestly. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Hi Johanna, sorry for the delay, but I was very busy. I think I've done everything you mentioned above. If you have anything else, please tell me that I will try to fix. Thank you! GagaNutellatalk 02:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful work. Support. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Johanna. Your support, again, was very important! GagaNutella^talk 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

I have to agree with Johanna. You'll have to add more in the lead. You can add some of its notable actors, how many seasons they have released (or will release) so far and what are their names. Done "American Horror Story is a horror television franchise" → television series. Done "Since its debut, the series has earned widespread critical acclaim" – reads like puffery. Also, it needs a source. Done Could you, while starting a paragraph, write the series' names instead of "the series"? Done "To date, American Horror Story has been nominated for a total of 171 awards, winning 40." – see WP:AS OF. Done I think in the infobox image, you can have an image of the actor who has received many awards and nominations for the series instead of its logo. This article is about its accolades not the series itself. Done When I count the total number of nominations, it is 139 and adding it with 40, it will be 179, not 171. Done Be consistent with the lines after introducing the awards below the lead, such American Horror Story has received x awards from x nominations. An example: the Artios Awards section; add it has received three nominations. Done The way you have added the Emmy Awards as parent awards to awards like Primetime Emmy Awards is not acceptable per WP:MoS. Add a subsection for each award. Done "such as art directors, costume designers, cinematographers, casting directors, and sound editors." – WP:OVERLINKING. Done De-link the publisher of ref 7. Done Ref 11 and 102 – ditto. Done Wiki-link the publishers for ref 14 and 35 Done Where are the publishers for ref 32 and 33. Done A MOS:DASH violation in the title of ref 94. Done -- Frankie talk 14:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Hi FrB.TG, thank you for your detailed review. I think it's everything ok now. GagaNutellatalk 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Good work. -- Frankie _talk 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

All I have to say is thank you FrB.TG. GagaNutella^talk 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from Birdienest81 I'm a little iffy about Vulture being a reliable source. How about this reference from Entertainment Weekly and this one from Deadline.com. Done Anything that is not a periodical or book (i.e. Costume Designers Guild, Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror, HitFix, and Hollywood Foreign Press) should be moved from the "work" field to "publisher." Done Some of the organizations, periodicals, or website are linked twice while most are not. Be consistent and chose whether you want to multiple link them or not. Done --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: All fixed. Thank you so much for your review. About the references, good catch! GagaNutellatalk 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: The only thing left I can find is to move TheWrap into the publisher field since it is not a periodical or book. Otherwise great job.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: I've just done. Again, thank you! GagaNutella^talk 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Just a few quibbles: "Jessica Lange has received several awards and nominations for her performance in the series"..... something about the use of "several" doesn't seem right given the twenty-something nominations listed, maybe focus on what she won Done "Actress Jessica Lange, who featured" → "Jessica Lange, who was featured" Done Add a comma after "subtitled Coven" Done Is "Hollywood Post Alliance" a good reference? I'm not very familiar with it and don't know what to say about its inclusion. Done You've overall done really well with this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: I'm very glad for your review. Is it ok now?

• Support everything looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you!!! GagaNutella^talk 03:06, 12 October 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:24, 13 October 2015 [13].

---

List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because after heavy cleanup, I believe that it meets the criteria. For those of you who don't know, Brokeback Mountain is a 2005 epic romantic drama film about the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two men, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. It won the Academy Award for Best Director and controversially lost Best Picture to Crash. It received 77 wins and 143 nominations. I look forward to reading and responding to any comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutellatalk 03:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from GagaNutella .The wide release -> ,which. Done The Los Angeles Times -> the Los Angeles Times. done Delete the "vertical bar" of Venice International Film Festival. Done See also: unnecessary descriptions. Done External links: prefer to use accolades instead of awards. Done You need to fix the sources and know when to use work or publisher, for example BBC News you use publisher because it doesn't need to be in italic. I think everything is in cite news that needs to be. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Oh no, I'm not talking about "cite news" or "cite web", I meant if it is publisher or work. I'm going to list here the "work" ones, the rest you can use publisher. - Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Herald Sun, The Boston Globe, Variety, Movie City News, TV Guide, People, Filmmaker, and Time Out. And one final thing, on the fourth paragraph, change the [6] source place right before LA Weekly. GagaNutellatalk 19:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella: Everything you indicated should not be in italics is now not in italics. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry for being so boring, but we're talking about a FL. Please, all sources containing these names I have listed above must be in italic (work). The rest you need to change for publisher. I saw you just changed some. Make it and we're finished. GagaNutellatalk 01:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella: Oh! I thought you meant the other way around, which seemed kind of strange to me. Anyways, it should be better now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC) GagaNutellatalk 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella: I believe that everything is fixed. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. I saw your American Horror Story awards list--I'm a fan of the show and will review that soon. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, just fix the sources and it will be fine. By the way, I would love to see you reviewing my FLC. Thank you! GagaNutellatalk 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support It looks great now. Great job! GagaNutella^talk 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

*87th Academy Awards should by changed to 78th Academy Awards since the film was nominated for those awards during that particular ceremony. Done. I seem to do that a lot for whatever reason... Comments by Birdienest81 I would count the ties and runners up as wins since some critics groups award ties and runners up. Therefore they would not be considered a "lost" since runners up and ties are considered a form of recognition. See List of accolades received by Gravity (film) for an example which includes a footnote which I strongly recommend placing next to the Total Awards and Nominations in the infobox. --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: Done. Let me know if you have any other comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Johanna: I would also change the color of the 2nd place, 3rd place, etc. to green and include them as part of the wins in the infobox. List overall looks very promising. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

*No need for in addition. Just say Michelle Williams..... featured in supporting roles. This needs a ref too. Done "The film received its world premiere" -->The film premiered at the Venice… Done Too much detail about the box office. Just say how much it grossed at the end of its run on what budget. Done For the SAG Awards, just say "more than any other film" Done The last paragraph on the snub at the Oscars could be cut down a lot. Also it needs ref for "several critics". Can't use just two critics. The author of the work is of course going to be annoyed that it didn't win, no need to mention it. Overall it goes into too much detail better suited for the main article. Take a look now. I could cut it down more, but that would be bordering on only showing one side… Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) It's not enough to just keep adding critics, it's POV. Someone could add referenced people who thought Crash should have won and claim the opposite. You need to provide a reference where it's a summary of a lot of different critics opinions. It shouldn't be hard to find as it got a lot coverage back in the day for the "homophobia" claim. Done. Added 2 refs and shortened the paragraph as a whole. The views of one blogger, one "cinema fan", someone from a Community Center opinions are not needed. The other is a list of what critic's opinions of the "biggest Oscar shocks". Neither of the sources talk about it not being a ground breaking choice. Perhaps these sources for the homophobia aspect [[14]],[[15]].Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Done. Jarhead film should be wikilinked as Jarhead. Done Hollywood Film Awards is missing closing of brackets. I'm sorry, but I don't see where you mean. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "(also for Jarhead and Proof", Also in the Golden Globe Awards row ""A Love That Will Never Grow Old"(Gustavo Santaolalla, Bernie Taupin, and Emmylou Harris" Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Replace Cinema Blend, Movie City News, Rockonthenet and Alt Film Guide references. I tried really hard to find better sources than these, but I couldn't. Unless you can find some alternatives, should I remove them? I'll have a look around. @Johanna: I found an article from the Reading Eagle about Brokeback Mountain being named in the top ten for the African-American film critics society. Click here. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Here is one from the Chicago Tribune that could replace the Movie City News one. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Here is one from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the Grammy nominations. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: Thank you so much! I incorporated these into the article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Variety should be italicized. Done Alt text for image needs changing "Hilary Swank in 2010"!? Done Bad copy-paste mistake… :) Ref 9, 26,34, 39, 43, 52, 54 are deadlinks. They're not, actually. They're just originals of links that were already archive Fixed these for you. For future reference it's archivedate=, archiveurl= not archive-date=, archive-url= Ref 6, 32 are redirects. These links were already archived as well. These websites just redirected them to a generic page instead of a 404. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Fixed these also. The USC ref redirected to the main page so there was no evidence of the nomination. I've archived the link for you. Cowlibob (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Take a look now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Nikki Finke's article seems to be on Deadline.com not LA Weekly. Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Done with that as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC) You should change the reference as well as the publisher still is LA Weekly.Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) These are outstanding awards/nominations not cited to reliable sources. Amanda Award nom, American Cinema Editors nom, Austin film critics noms, Vancouver film critics noms, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics awards and noms. After some digging I found one for the American Cinema Editors and Dallas–Fort Worth Critics (both awards and noms). Removed the rest. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Also many of the entries in the award are redirects to the organisation organising the awards so they should be changed to the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association Awards, Chicago Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: I don't know what you mean here. Could you specify what you would like it to read or link to? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Currently those above and some others just redirect to the article on the organisation who organised the awards because there is no dedicated article to just the awards. So just cut the Awards bit and just have it as the name of the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association instead of Austin Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Okay, I see. Done. Do you have any other comments? Thanks for the thorough review. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 1 needs page numbers where the cited info can be found within the book. Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Cowlibob: Page 129. Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Quite well sourced and well formatted. Nice background info in the lede intro sect, which helps provide some context and ground the reader in the subject matter. Good job and good luck, — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

"The film premiered at the" – I think you should a start the para with the film's name. Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "In total, the film grossed $178 million worldwide on a $14 million" – in total is simply redundant. Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories" – same as the first concern. Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories, including for its directing" Done nice catch. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "more than any other film; however, it did not win any of these awards." – this one needs a source. @FrB.TG: Which part? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) No part, sorry! -- Frankie talk 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Ref 7 – I think the title should be The Daily Telegraph. This ref has been removed and replaced, so it doesn't apply. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Is CinemaBlend a good source to use? -- Frankie talk 21:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: We're working on that. Cowlibob pointed it out and Birdie found several sources for me. There are still a few left to go, but it should be resolved soon. Update--everything should be sourced reliably now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – all of my craps have been dealt with. -- Frankie _talk 15:19, 6 October 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2015 (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 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [16].

---

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at the Featured List process. It details all twelve named tributaries of Shamokin Creek, a 32.4-mile-long creek that is badly affected by acid mine drainage. This list of tributaries of Shamokin Creek draws heavily on List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek in terms of style and content; I believe that this list meets the FLC criteria for the same reasons that my last FLC does. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Very nice article, I think the lead needs a bit of cleaning though. Here is my first pass review:

• The river length, and number of tributaries should be sourced (sentence one and three)

• Technically, it's just data derived from the tables below, but okay.

• The smallest and largest tributary should be mentioned by name as well as number in sentence two.

• Done.

• Perhaps a short phrase should be included telling the reader the difference between a run and a creek? Are they just names?

• A run generally smaller than a creek, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule (for instance, Carbon Run is larger than Lick Creek). They're linked to relevant sections of the stream article, though (this was suggested back during the Catawissa Creek tributaries FLC).

• The last sentence of the lead is a little redundant, since you already talk about the longest tributary, perhaps you can have a largest/smallest watershed focus here? (with names and numbers?)

• It's not entirely redundant since that sentence lists the five largest watersheds instead of just the largest. I wouldn't be averse to doing this, except that Little Shamokin Creek and Furnace Run are also the largest and smallest tributaries by watershed area, which would make it sound a bit odd. I instead just removed the sentence listing the shortest and longest tributary.

• "by mining, the only exception being Furnace Run" -> "by mining with the expection of Furance Run"

• Fixed.

• "Various mine drainage sites occur in the watersheds of all other streams in this part of the watershed." What part of the watershed? The one of Furnace Run? Needs to be made clear.

• Fixed.

• Remove "however", not really needed here.

• Fixed.

• "are not designated as impaired waterbodies" needs a source. As does the next sentence.

• I thought that even featured content did not need a citation after every sentence. There is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.

• Remove second "however", also not really needed.

• Done.

• "Warmwater Fishery"... source doesn't contain this word

• Dozens of sources make this connection. I personally don't think it's necessary since "WWF" clearly means "Warmwater Fishery", but if you want, I can find one of the many random sources that say so and stick it in.

• This is fine, I didn't know wwf meant warmwater fishery.

• "North Branch Shamokin Creek and Quaker Run, lack fish life."... needs source

• As above, there is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.

• Third "However" also needs to be removed.

• I think I'd rather keep this one for aesthetic reasons.

These are all suggestions and open to debate. Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I was going to ask you, but now I don't have to --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No prob, I'll likely support soon but I'll review it once more tomorrow just to make sure the prose is ok and finish checking your changes. Mattximus (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking better, here is my second pass:

• Should "abandoned mine drainage" be linked to Acid mine drainage instead? Also "organic enrichment" should be linked to Eutrophication. I believe these are the correct terms, but please let me know if I am wrong.

• I've linked organic enrichment to eutrophication. Acid mine drainage is a subset of abandoned mine drainage. Acid mine drainage is what most or all of the AMD-impaired tributaries of Shamokin Creek are affected by, but the source only specifies abandoned mine drainage, I think.

• "have supported healthy communities of aquatic life" or do you mean "support healthy communities of aquatic life"?

• The source says that they historically supported aquatic life, but that makes it sound like they don't anymore (which may or may not be true). "have supported" seemed like a reasonable middle ground.

Other than that it looks good! I will Support pending those changes/clarifications. Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Responded. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a BLATANT example of 3.b violation. Only 12 tributaries for a 50km long creek can be EASILY included in the parent article. Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• An identical argument was rejected by the FLC delegates on an extremely similar FLC several months ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nergaal put your money where your mouth is, either nominate this, and the other list you disliked, at AFD, or stop complaining. Otherwise your edits are currently coming across as extremely disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

EXCEPT that that list had 26 entries, so technically it was more difficult to include that into the parent article. This list is less than half that length and barely above the informal ~10 entries threshold that we generally agree/allow lists to go as FL. Even if the list itself is decided by some incredibly shallow reason to be notable enough, it still CAN EASILY be included in the parent article, without major revamping of that one. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And TRM, I am pretty sure that on average your comments are more "extremely disruptive" and drive people away from this volunteer-based project than mine are. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled as to why you're so vehemently opposing this when even you admit it's above the threshold for FL. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal made the exact same argument, citing the same criteria during one of my featured list noms and made me almost want to quit editing all together. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, keep up your good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to list your rational arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: Would you be able to proceed with the review now that this has been (speedily) kept? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I don't find that the photos of the tributaries really add anything to an understanding of them. A lot of brown clear water surrounded by trees; a dime a dozen. Useful on their own pages, but here they unnecessarily lengthen the table, and it's filled with 90% whitespace as a result. What WOULD enhance understanding would be if they were instead maps of each tributary.
    • Personally, I think the images add more than maps. They help one get a sense for the general environment each stream is in, whether it's affected by acid mine drainage, and roughly how large each one is. None of which could be done with a simple map. Finally, and this is just my opinion, they're more visually interesting than a map. I can't argue with all the whitespace, but it wasn't an issue in my other FLC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Hm, well, considering the pollution issue, I guess I can be fine with images. I still think maps would be useful as well though. :) --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @Golbez: Anything else that must be addressed before you support? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
          • With the statement that I would prefer maps be added, I can't hold it up based on my desire for lots more labor to be put into an already quality list, so Support. :) --Golbez (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Are the coordinates those of where the tributary meets the creek? If so, the column header should have a note specifying that. --Golbez (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done.

Comments

• Because I have no idea where " Susquehanna River " is, I suggest you put that into context before telling me how many named tributaries it has.

• I think you're saying that there's a misplaced modifier, which has been fixed.

• No, what I'm saying is tell me where Susequehanna River is in the context of the globe before telling me how many named tribs it has. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ohhh. I get what you're driving at. See this edit. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The longest are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and North Branch Shamokin Creek, while the tributaries with the largest watersheds are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and Coal Run." feels a little "meh", two of the three tribs are repeated.

• Okay, I changed it to just list the five longest tributaries.

• Don't like the structure of the tables, I would merge them and add a note saying that the Plum Creek is a sub-trib.

• Done.

• I did do this, but I am having second thoughts about it. If a reader doesn't pay close attention, they might get the impression that Plum Creek is a direct tributary of Shamokin Creek. I'd rather have it as it was (that's also how it was done in List_of_tributaries_of_Catawissa_Creek#Tributaries_of_Messers_Run). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• " in the tributary Carbon Run" no need for tributary here.

• Done.

• " the tributary Trout Run" similar.

• Done.

• "by local sportsmen" how are you classifying those responsible for the maintenance of a hatchery as "sportsmen"?

• Hmm? The way I understood it, the fact that they maintain a hatchery doesn't make them sportsmen; they are just sportsmen who happen to maintain a hatchery. The actual wording in the source is "A local sportsman club maintains a small hatchery on Trout Run near its confluence with Shamokin Creek".

• Just currently reads odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm open to other suggestions for the wording. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would remove the reference to the sportsmen, it's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think we'll have to disagree on this one, as I don't think it's doing much harm and don't really see how it's a problem. The fact that it's a group of sportsmen doesn't mean that they don't do anything but sports. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• No need for image column to be sortable.

• Done.

• Where no image exists, add a centrally aligned en-dash.

• Done.

• "p. 34,45,48,66,85,90-91,100,106,116,143," spaces, and should be pp.

• Done.

• Not done, spaces between page numbers please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, hadn't noticed that part. Now done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Responded, thanks for getting back to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, what makes you think Abandoned mine drainage will ever be an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a broad term for any polluted water that comes out of a mine [17]. I wasn't planning on writing an article on it myself, but I could make a quick stub perhaps. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How many pages link to that red link? Is it a realistic target? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nineteen. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing, but are they all articles written by you? If you seriously believe this topic isn't covered elsewhere, you should write a stub, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It seems that I did write 17 of them myself and expanded the other 2 by a lot. Anyway, Abandoned mine drainage‎ is blue now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw An interesting list, however so far outside my knowledge base I'd appreciate a little clarification:

• Could/should the names of the tributaries which are wikilinked in the table by wikilinked in the lead on 1st usage?

• Done.

• Who designates rivers as "impaired waterbodies", is there a quality control agency & how is that defined?

• Clarified.

• Should "channelization" ( a term I've never come across before) be wikilinked to River engineering#Channelization?

• Done.

• In the table is "Distance from Mouth" (which is wikilinked to River mile) the distance to the mouth of the tributary and how is this different to length? I've read "The river mile is not the same as the length of the river, rather it is a means of locating any feature along the river relative to its distance from the mouth, when measured along the course (or navigable channel) of the river" but I still don't understand the difference.

• The river mile simply indicates how far upstream of the mouth of Shamokin Creek is the confluence of a given tributary. For instance, it's 2.58 miles from the mouth of Little Shamokin Creek to the mouth of Shamokin Creek, and this has nothing to do with the length of Little Shamokin Creek.

• Perhaps this should say "Distance from mouth of Shamokin Creek" or similar?— Rod ^talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if making the "Mouth Coordinates" sortable is going to be any use to anyone reading it.

• Okay. Done.

• Note 1 includes an external link (to Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania code) could this be turned into a reference?

• I don't think it's possible to next ref tags in that manner, at least using conventional reference methods. I've seen it done in a few places, but I've got no idea how it works.

• If you look at List of local nature reserves in Somerset which you've just kindly reviewed & look at notes d & e you will see how this can be done.— Rod ^talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 1 to the National Map Viewer takes me to various map sources of the USA, but being from the other side of the Atlantic I wouldn't even know how to find Pennsylvania. Would it be possible to link to a specific map or area?

• Better?

• Ref 3 (Watershed restoration...) doesn't have a publisher - looking at the document it appears to be "DEP Bureau of Watershed Management" but what is DEP?

• Added publisher.

Some of these may be because of my lack of understanding of US terminology and regulatory systems, but there could be other readers worldwide who might need a little more explanation as well.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Thank you very much for the review. I believe I have addressed your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the changes.— Rod ^talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: I made the changes, but somehow forgot to hit 'save page'. Try now, I've also fixed the notes section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I see the changes now. I've struck most of them except the column header "Distance...". I've also just noticed Ref 6 (Gazetteer of streams) doesn't have a publisher.— Rod ^talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Personally, I think that your suggestion would be a bit too unwieldy for a column header. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I din't understand what it meant and therefore others may not. If it is too many words for a column header a note could be used to explain that it is distance from the mouth of Shamokin Creek.— Rod ^talk

@Rodw: Done. (though I don't think it really helps anything). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the link to Main stem is that useful - certainly not a phrase I'm familiar with - but after looking at the article on it wouldn't Susquehanna River be the man stem in this case?— Rod ^talk

@Rodw: Fine. Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the column header. I still see Ref 6 - Gazetteer of Streams without a publisher.— Rod ^talk 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments – "Shamokin Creek, a 32.4-mile long creek flowing through Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, in the United States, into the Susquehanna River." Shouldn't the start be "Shamokin Creek is a 32.4- mile long creek..."? In the Watershed area column, Little Shamokin Creek has one digit after the period when all of the other creeks have two. I understand that the first number is a zero, but I think it would be better to have two digits throughout, for consistency. Actually, the second table's lone entry has a similar issue, so I was partly mistaken above. I still think that, if the column next to this one can provide two digits throughout, this one can as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @Giants2008: Thanks for your feedback. I have modified the wording of the first sentence. However, in response to your second and third comments, the source only gives the areas of basins over 10 square miles to the nearest tenth of a mile, not the nearest hundredth, as it does for basins of less than 10 square miles. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Because the sources don't give the hundredths I asked for, I can't blame the list for not including them. My comments have all been responded to, and I'm comfortable that the list meets FL criteria, and that it merits its own article since the AfD closed as a keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 16:53, 9 October 2015 (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 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [18].

---

List of accolades received by The Artist (film)

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC) & Frankie _talk

The Artist is a 2011 French romantic comedy drama film directed Michel Hazanavicius. Jean Dujardin stars in the film as George Valentin, a silent film star who falls in love with an young ingenue named Peppy Miller (portrayed by Bérénice Bejo) and suffers a career downturn during the advent of "talkies." Directed in the style of black and white silent films, the film won five Oscars at the 84th Academy Awards in 2012 including Best Picture. This is my first film accolades list I am attempting to promote, and Frankie has assisted me in organizing and fixing the list to meet FL standards. We will gladly accept your comments to improve this list.

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

*Ref needed for plot Done: Added refs from CBS News and The New York Times. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC) We can probably assume that the film is not going to make any more money at the box office. Done: Removed "as of June 2012" and "has" from sentence. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "the most honored" That's US English and it needs a reference. Done: Changed "honored" to "honoured" and added reference from The Philippine Star, a daily Filipino newespaper. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) I get a 503 error when accessing that site. Is it possible to archive it? Done: Replaced with ref from Smithsonian. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "The Artist garnered three accolades" shouldn't use accolade as that's the reason the list is called accolades as accolades =awards or nominations. Done: Changed to denote both nominations and wins. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC) POV issue if only one film critics top ten is used. Done: Added Peter Bradshaw and national Board of Review. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Golden Trailer Award is missing recipient or nominee Done: Credited The Artist as the recipient and added extra reference noting that it won the award. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Art Directors Guild mistakenly says Bejo was the production designer Done: Changed to recipients listed on the website. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) mixture of Mr X, Mr Y with Mr X and Mr Y. Use one format for recipient/nominees Done: Chose to place "and" where necessary. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Etoiles d'Or Awards, are the awards notable enough for redlink? If so they should be. Done: Added red link. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Academy Award links to the ceremony rather than the general article on them. Dates should link to the ceremony article. Done: Changed link of Academy Award to article about general article. Date links to 2012 ceremony. --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Denver Film tie is in the table when it could be added as a footnote. Done: Added footnote for Mallick. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Check the sort. Laurence Bennett is sorting by first name. His name is also spelt differently in different awards. Done: Fixed the sorting problem with Laurence Bennett. His correct spulling is "Laurence" based on his official website and other reliable websites. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 1 could easily be replaced with a reliable third party ref. Done: Changed to one from The New York Times. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC) PMC = Penske Media Corporation Done: Changed PMC to above name. --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Leeds Festival, Goya Awards shouldn't be italicised Done: Removed items from work field and placed Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias Cinematográficas de España (AACCE) in publishers field since that is the organization behind the Goya Awards. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Infobox should be awards and nominations not wins and nominations. Done: Changed "wins" to "awards" in infobox. --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Cowlibob (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob:: Addressed all your comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC) There are a few dash violations where hyphens are used. Golden Globe Awards rows,Ref 1. Done: Fixed dash problems. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 11 has a mistake in the authors name. Done: Removed misplaced brackets in author's first name. --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 15 has a typo "reviewe" Done: Spellchecked review. --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 62 should be "Producers Guild of America" not .org Done: Replaced producersguild with actual guild's name. --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 59 should be USA Today Done: Changed to USA Today, wikilinked, and added parent company Gannett as publisher. --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 42 should be "http://detroitfilmcritics.com/awards/the-2011-detroit-film-critics-society-awards/" Done: Changed URL to one above. --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 39 publisher is not wikilinked Done: Changed and linked to Broadcast Film Critics Association since that is the organization behind said award. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Cowlibob (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Addressed the remainder of the comments and have made more corrections not related to your comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: Check that the awards and nominations match up in the infobox. Alliance of Women Awards says 3 wins and 6 nominations when it received 9 nominations of which the film won 3. Cowlibob (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Done: Fixed awards count to say 9 nominations (according to website). --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Good work on this list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of making the whole infobox a table, it would be best to make the table starting with Award Won Nominated and ending with the total row a table within that infobox. Also, the total row columns must correspond to the detail columns.

• It was established long time ago that nominations would mean ones that resulted in both wins and losses. See List of accolades received by Gone Girl (film) or List of accolades received by Gravity (film) of similar lists already promoted to FL status. Otherwise this would confuse readers.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: Have these comments been resolved or not?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's consensus within the Wikipedia accessibility on complex tables like the main table, but I believe the merged cells in the first columns would present a problem for screen readers. It might be good for Graham87 (talk · contribs) or RexxS (talk · contribs) to weigh in on this.Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC) The merged cells in the first column won't cause a problem, but navigating the table on a screen reader as it stands won't make it easy to pick up the associated dates and refs (the non-header columns that are merged). The table actually isn't that complex and has a redeeming feature, thanks to the folks who have developed the sorting script. If you sort the table by 'Award' by clicking on the header of the first cell, the JavaScript is able to "un-merge" the cells and fill in the repeated data. Try it and check that it is now a simple table. Because the table is simple enough for this sort of change to be done by script, it allows anyone using a screen reader to do that first, and then navigate the table easily. I'll ping @Graham87: to confirm he's able to do this, but I think that the Accolades table presents no accessibility difficulties as long as JavaScript is enabled. The one in the infobox/table is more of a problem because the 'show'/'hide' links can be difficult to hit for folks with motor problems (like MS, for example) and also require JavaScript, but that's not such a big problem that it would stop this candidate from being promoted. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) @Thisisnotatest and RexxS: Thank you for your observations on this list regarding accessibility. I suggest that if there are problems that arise, I suggest you and the other accessibility experts formulate a solution and fix the tables yourselves. I'm not very good with reformatting complicated tables and am afraid I'll just mess it up even more. I agree with making the list accessibility, but I don't think we need to totally sabotage the FLC to attain FL status (not that I accuse you Thisisnotatest or anyone). In addition, if there is a problem with the accolades, could you formulate a template that does not require the award column to repeat each award for each category (i.e. having to repeat Academy Award for every category since that would make the table redundant). --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC) @Thisisnotatest, RexxS, and Birdienest81: I don't mind table spans, so the accolades table works fine for me. I didn't know about the sorting/unsorting trick though; that's nifty. Graham87 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC) The one remaining thing was the infobox. I finally figured out the totals row was part of a different table from the hidden portion (which displays for me because I have JavaScript off). It seemed weird for the totals numbers to be floating out there, not lining up with the other columns. Now it makes sense to me. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC) For clarification, I consider this issue resolved.Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck out my comments in this section as resolved. Thisisnotatest (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from Johanna The inclusion of the film critics' lists are odd on several levels. First, it's placement after all the major awards shows is strange and not intuitive. Also, I think that they're not notable enough to warrant inclusion in a lead of an accolades article. Done:Removed critics awards. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I also don't think the National Board of Review thing should be in the lead either. Done: Removed National Board of Review from the lead. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Remove the Étoiles d'Or awards--this appears to be a non-notable organization (it's redlinked and was also never created in the first place). Done: Removed the awards and fixed award count. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Put a bullet point before 2011 in film in the See also. Done: Added bullet point. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC) For the publisher of Deadline, you say Penske Media Corporation three times and Penske Media Group once. Done: Changed to Penske Media Corporation, which is the correct name. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC) The article doesn't accent it either, so it's up to you, but as a francophone myself, I can't help but wonder if you should make it "lumière" in the ref. @Birdienest81: @FrB.TG: This is a very nice list! My personal feelings about the movie aside, you've both done a wonderful job compiling and writing it. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @Johanna:: I read your suggestions and have responded to them swiftly. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support A very well done list, all issues have been addressed. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 16:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt (addressed). — Cirt (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from Cirt NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! "Jean Dujardin received several awards and nominations for starring in the film." = suggest caption change to, "Jean Dujardin, star of the film, pictured in YEAR". Footnotes - "Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients and have runner-ups. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally." -- Suggest just calling runner-ups "Runner-up" or "Finalist". Perhaps a few more links for the See also sect? Where possible, strongly suggest adding parameters archivedate= and archiveurl= to cites, using Internet Archive, to increase posterity over long period of time for article. Suggest splitting apart first sentence of 2nd paragraph into 2 sentences. Otherwise, writing quality in lede intro sect is quite good. Great job on meticulous referencing, throughout. One image used, confirmed as free-use with OTRS on Commons, great use of perfect image page from Commons, best licensing practice possible here. High quality overall, good layout and structural format for list. NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @Cirt: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed them except for the caption one, as I think it will add emphasis. As for archiving, I might do that sometime later. -- Frankie talk 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:17, 4 October 2015 [19].

---

Nicole Kidman filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian actress Nicole Kidman is known for films such as Dead Calm (1989) Days of Thunder (1990), Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Moulin Rouge! (2001), and her Oscar-winning turn as Virginia Woolf in The Hours (2002). This list is a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her film and television career thus far. As usual I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from jonkerz

Very nice article; here are my initial comments after a first read-through and cross-referencing with IMDb:
Film section

• Wills and Burke – The Untold Story is not wikilinked (Wills & Burke on WP)
• Watch the Shadows Dance is not wikilinked, neither is the director Mark Joffe
• The Bit Part is not wikilinked
• Emerald City: role listed as 'Helen Davey' in the article, but 'Helen McCord' on IMDb
• Bewitched: role listed as 'Isabel Bigelow' in the article, but 'Isabel Bigelow / Samantha' on IMDb
• Happy Feet: voice only, this could be included in the notes

TV section

• Five Mile Creek: this is the only television series that does not list the number of episodes. Listing it first in the section gives the impression that this was Kidman's first television appearance, but she only starred in season 3 which aired in 1985 (IMDb).
• Chase Through the Night: released 1983 according to the list and the main article, but 1984 according to IMDb
• Archer's Adventure is not wikilinked (Archer (film) on WP), and does not list the channel
• Winners: it could be noted that the episode Kidman starred in was spun off into the 1987 movie adaptation Room to Move

Misc comments

• No. 5 the Film is listed on IMDb (as Chanel N°5: The Film (Short)) but is not included in the list
• I've always considered television film to be more "films" than "television", but seeing that other featured filmographies place TV films in the television section, that's not really relevant to this nomination. jonkerz ♠talk 19:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz:Thanks for the review. Am in the process of sorting all these. Got most done. Some clarifications. Helen Davey is the character she played in Emerald City an adaptation of the play, she was the girlfriend of Mike McCord. Winners was an anthology series of eight feature length television episodes with one of them being Room to Move. Television films I've also considered as feature length television productions so should be in the television section. Thanks for the wikilinks, I had searched for them before but seem to have missed these ones. Cowlibob (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Image review: both photos are freely licensed and their captions match Google Image search results for "Kidman Cannes Film Festival 2001/2013". Neither File:Nicole_kidman3cropped.jpg nor the non-cropped image mention anything about "Kidman promoting Moulin Rouge! ..." (from the caption), but this album confirms that this was the reason she was in Cannes, so that's not really an issue.
• Sorting, including "Last, First", works for all relevant columns.

@Jonkerz: Thanks for the image review. I think I've sorted all of the above comments. Cowlibob (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

It's mostly good but I've got nitpicks

• "increasing her profile internationally"..... reads awkwardly
• Remove the comma after "actress" in "she played actress, and princess Grace Kelly"
• "Voice only" → "Voice role"
• No need to include Nicole Kidman discography in "See also"

Shouldn't take long to sort out Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review I think I've dealt with your points.Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

"Her performance as a married woman trapped on a yacht with a psychopathic murderer earned critical acclaim as well as increasing her profile internationally" – in which film? The WP:ALT texts of the two images are a bit similar. Tweak a bit. "In 2001, she starred as a courtesan" – don't start a para with a pronoun. "she appeared in the science fiction remake The Stepford Wives (2004)" – either elaborate or remove "remake". xxx years later found four times in the prose. Tweak a bit. Nadia / Sophia – see MOS:SLASH. Isabel Bigelow / Samantha – ditto. Expand the name of the publisher in ref 3. Maintain consistency with BBC and BBC News in references. A few MOS:DASH violations in references' titles. -- Frankie talk 19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've dealt with the points. Please point out the dash violations as I thought I had got all of them. Cowlibob (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Ref 15, 45, and 69. One more point: "was in the 1989 thriller Dead Calm, her performance" – I think a semicolon instead of the comma would do better. Also,, I think you should add a footnote, where she has played dual roles or the same role with two names, just like some Indian filmographies. -- Frankie talk 19:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Have fixed errors. Added footnotes to explain the two names.Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – All of my queries have been answered. -- Frankie _talk 22:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

• Support. Incredibly well referenced list page. — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2015 (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) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:17, 4 October 2015 [20].

---

List of accolades received by Dookudu

Nominator(s): — Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2011 Indian Telugu action comedy film Dookudu, starring Mahesh Babu. This is my first film awards list at the FLC, and I hope to receive constructive comments to improve it. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash I made a few tweaking edits, so this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because you made a few "tweaks", you support this? —Vensatry _(ping) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the article is still up to my expectations, save for a few prose issues (which I fixed), so I support it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Instead of piping Telugu to Telugu language (in the very beginning), I would suggest it to link Telugu cinema and it should read as is. Done Image's alt says that the subject is in a "pressmeet" – isn't it press meet (with a space)? Done "Partially inspired from" → inspired by Done "his father who recovers from a coma" – why is it "a" coma? Done "The" is not the part of Los Angeles Times' title. Done "At the 2012 Nandi Awards ceremony ... those for Best Popular Feature Film and Best Actor" – wiki-link the awards and the categories Done Wiki-link all of the categories in the lead, which have blue links. Done Except for CineMAA awards, i have linked all of those categories which have blue links. Add a summary infobox like the ones found in every FL accolades so far. Not Done I don't find the necessity of using an infobox in this list as far as the lead summarises the content. Few awards do not have multiple nominations and the infobox shows a comparision between wins and total nominations which is irrelevant from the word go. Well, you do not need the {{Sort}} template for Mahesh Babu as you have sorted it by his first name. It will make no difference if you remove that, as it will already be sorted by "M". Done Did the same for Brahmanandam and Samantha Ruth Prabhu as well (the latter is mostly referred to as Samantha only) I don't see any source for the nominations of the Filmfare Awards. There are only two awards, both of which cite the winners. No reliable source is available that covers all the nominations of that year's Filmfare Awards South. The last option available from Filmfare is here which is not showing the nominees list. And, what are those two awards you are referring to? While Indian media is pathetic at covering/preserving every single detail about award functions, I'm sure the Filmfare event was recorded on video and available online. Maybe that can be used as a source, as the nominees would have been announced at the event. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC) That too turned futile. Complete videos of 58th and 60th Filmfare South are available in YouTube, not 59th. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) See what you can find here. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks Kailash. I've checked them patiently but could not find any, due to both lack of verified publishers and most of them being from STAR Vijay, i could not find anything related to Telugu nominations there. Thus, i request the reviewer to suggest a solution for this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Pavanjandhyala, this happened to me too in my very first FL. In case where there is no link available, add a ref without link. Use ref 21 as an example from List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan. -- Frankie talk 14:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Done Why is it Hyderabad Times Film Awards 2011? Is 2011 the part of award's title? Done Removed The There is no ref for the nominations of Hyderabad Times Film Awards. Done Cited an archived version of the link provided in the winners list. In the table, the last column should read as Ref(s). Done Ref 10 – the same; "The" is not the part of Los Angeles Times' title. Done Remove IANS from ref 27 as it is not an "author". -- Frankie talk 09:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "As of April 2013, the film has won forty-three awards" – add the total nominations, too. Done "Audi — Ritz Icon Awards 2011" – does 2011 imply the awards' iteration or is the part of the title? Done Removed '2011'. I see quite a few MOS:DASH violations in references, including the last two and ref 7. Done something, not sure it complies MOS:DASH exactly. Instead of using hyphen/minus (-), use either endash (–) or emdash (—). -- Frankie talk 09:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Done Used emdash Is iTimes Poll a good source to use? -- Frankie talk 16:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, this iTimes Poll is the source which the TOI sources provides as the place where nominations were listed. You can find the link (now dead) in ref. no 19. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – sorry for taking so much time. -- Frankie _talk 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support – First Class! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support – I can't really find any flaws in this list. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian Support Pavanjandhyala, per Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I assess that this list features professional standards of writing in the lede, the lede is engaging, the lede and list are indeed comprehensive, and the structure and style are both adequate. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the list. The lede defines the movie and its accolades, establishes context for the accolades, explains why the movie and its accolades are notable, and summarizes the most important points of the list.
• The image of Mahesh Babu has been released into the public domain and it is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
• The lede is well-written, its contents contains inline citations to verifiable references, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

List

• The list is beautifully formatted and each accolade is supported with an inline citation to a verifiable reference and I have no comments or suggestions for this list.

Comments from Onel5969 Support - nicely done article which meets all the criteria on Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. West Virginian's comment are spot on. In addition, it's comprehensive, and meets the reqs for a stand alone list, it's style and navigability are fine. There are no edit wars in its history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. What makes Audi — Ritz Icon Awards, Hyderabad Times Film Awards, TSR - TV9 National Film Awards 2011 notable award ceremonies as they do not currently have articles or are redlinked. If they are redlinked, per Wikipedia:Red link , they should be notable and verifiable e.g. significant independent coverage of them, more than just a list of winners. The Hyderabad Times Poll seems to be an internet poll as well. As per your specifications i found this for Audi - Ritz and this for TSR - TV9 awards. And when it comes to The Hyderabad Times Poll, it is as similar as Mirchi Music Awards and SIIMA Awards (both being existing articles here and also deciding winners based on internet polls) The Audi Ritz award seems to be awarded to Ram Achanta and Srinu Vaitla. Done Added for both. Thanks for notifying this. What is the naming convention for Telugu names, do they have surnames? If so then after the first mention of a cast and crew member they should be referred by their surname e.g. Mahesh Babu ==>Babu... Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC) There are, but this case has a few contradictions. For example, in Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Prabhu is a patronym and not a surname. For the same reason, i sorted her using the word "Samantha". And in the case of Mahesh Babu, his surname is Ghattamaneni and Babu is a commonly used suffix for many. So i sorted him using "Mahesh" only. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) It's good that you've expanded the plot but the sentences needed to be rephrased as it doesn't sound right. I can give it a go but haven't watched the film so let me check I have the plot correct. Prakash Raj's character goes into a coma. In order to help his recovery, Mahesh Babu's character pretends he's a politician fulfilling his father's hopes rather than a cop? Does he know that his son is a cop before the accident? Has Prakash Raj's character lost his memory because of the accident? Cowlibob (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Prakash Raj's character doesn't know that Mahesh Babu's character is a police officer (until the very end). He hasn't lost his memory. His mental and physical health conditions are such that he would die if he happens to hear or overhear anything depressing or shocking. He has no memory loss but he has no knowledge of what has happened over the past 15-20 years or so due to his comatose status. In order to keep him happy and oblivious to the things that are really happening, Mahesh Babu's character fakes himself as a politician. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments - to the above reviewers: no sections please, per "Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)."

• This may be personal preference but I'd like to know more about the film than who provided the editing and cinematography, so after introducing the main actors, I would actually describe the film.

Done

• " creates a fake political setup for his father who recovers from a coma" this is a very succinct plot synopsis, I don't really get it at all.

I've elaborated the plot as per your advice. Further details about the film's production, if included, may increase the lead's size i opine.

• You repeat his full name every time, his own article reverts to Mahesh after the intro.

Removed full name and delinked it in the lead except for the first mention.

• " ₹" is overlinked.

Then, kindly suggest me how to denote that the budget and gross are Indian rupees in an apt way.

I just said it was overlinked, not that you shouldn't use the symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, kindly let me know what to do?

Unlink the symbol the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, how can we mention that the budget is in Indian currency?

Leave the first symbol linked and unlink the second. You link the symbol twice in the same sentence. It's called overlinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Delinked INR and also, removed the conversion rate i.e. replaced {{INRConvert}} template with {{INR}}. I hope that it does solve the issue.

• "forty-four awards from fifty-six" MOSNUM would prescribe 44 from 56.

Cowlibob fixed it.

• If awards aren't even notable enough for a red link, why are they included?

I've explained the same to Cowlibob during resolving his comments.

I don't think that's a reasonable explanation. If the award is notable within Wikipedia guidelines it should be redlinked, if it is not, it should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Redlinked them. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• How does Category sort? I get Best Actor, then "Best Actor (Jury)" then "Best Actor - Telugu" (WP:DASH fail there, by the way), then "Best Actor in a Supporting Role" then .... then "Best Actor – Male"... it's not clear how this sorts at all. I would suggest you force a reasonable sort using the {{sort}} template.

This doesn't appear to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not see an Indian FL where Category is sorted. Since the recipients and nominated are sorted, i see no particular reason to sort a category. If they are indeed sorted, please provide an example for the same.

Then the column should not be sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to add class="unsortable" to all the coloumns except Recipients and Nominees?

Well that's your decision, all I'm saying is that right now, the Category column sorts unintuitively. Either fix it, or make the column unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Okay. I'm unsorting all coloumns except "Recipients and Nominees". Once i find a featured list that sorts categories, even though that happens after this list passes or fails, i will gladly and surely apply the same here.

• Why "FEFSI Vijayan" and not just "Vijayan"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Fixed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support But urge you to stub the red linked awards. Otherwise their notability looks questionable for inclusion!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments Los Angeles Times called it "the biggest hit you've never heard of" It's better if we name the author here. The author is anonymous. Similarly, the lead of Shah Rukh Khan includes a comment about him by the same newspaper, but with no author. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Here is the author. It's safe to cite the author as it merely represents his point of view. —Vensatry (ping) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) What makes "Audi — Ritz Icon Awards" a notable one? The fact that it has received notable media coverage? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Why is the Recipient(s) and Nominee(s) column alone sortable? Done: Made it unsortable. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "The Hyderabad Times Film Awards" isn't a poll? Aren't Filmfare and SIIMA polls? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Filmfare and SIIMA use polls only to shortlist (nominations) the winners. The final winners are, however, decided by the jury. Not sure if that's the case with 'Times Film' poll. —Vensatry (ping) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC) I too amen't convinced with your answer. If that is the case, why a separate "Best Actor (Jury)"? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Which award are you talking about? —Vensatry (ping) 18:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Obviously the Filmfare and SIIMA, Vensatry. Also there are notable awards like Mirchi Music Awards which too are polls only. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC) They are 'Critics Awards'. Even NFA have something called 'Special Jury' award. —Vensatry (ping) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) I am convinced now. Thanks for the detailed explanation. But i am not understanding why the inclusion of these awards is challenged. Aren't they the same as The Chennai Times Film Awards here. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) The Chennai Times Film Awards is based on online polls and is conducted by TOI. That's why they are included in List of accolades received by Aadukalam. The Hyderabad Times Film Awards is similar to it too.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I personally wouldn't support the inclusion of Chennai Times, Bangalore Times, and Kochi Times too. —Vensatry (ping) 09:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I too don't think so that the winners are declared as it is. There too could've been a jury like the other award committees do have. But, i require the reason what holds you against those. Just a personal oppose isn't proper enough to omit those. Please do let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC) You cannot presume that there could be a jury, so, yes it's as notable as the NFA or FF. Currently the link redirects to The Times of India. Also, in FLCs we shouldn't base arguments based on WP:OSE. —Vensatry (ping) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Accepted Vensatry. Thanks for the info. Now, you are calling these awards as notable as the NFA or FF. But the remaining part says something else. So what you want me to do? Please make it clear. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not meaning that way. Please read the response clearly. —Vensatry (ping) 04:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC) That's what the problem is. I'm really failing to understand. Please make it straight, short and simple. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC) "There too could've been a jury like the other award committees do have." We cannot go by assumptions like this. We need reliable sources. I don't think the poll meets WP:GNG. —Vensatry (ping) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Okay commander. I am not in a position to argue further and my personal life is adding much trouble. Hence, i removed The Hyderabad Times Awards just now. I've also changed the awards' count. Anything else left? Let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) The lead says "the film has won 44 awards from 56 nominations." where as the table indicates the film received 15 nominations (excluding wins). —Vensatry (ping) 05:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Changed it to 59 nominations. Added the note {{efn|Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.}} there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: This list is Well-written, and from my POV meets the FL criteria. Good job Pavan.Krish | Talk 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Well written, comprehensive and the references all check out fine. This definitely meets the FL criteria. Good job on the work so far! JAGUAR  17:49, 29 September 2015 (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) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:17, 4 October 2015 [21].

---

Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The post of Poet laureate has officially been in existence since 1668 and the appointment of John Dryden, although it had its origin in 1616 when the writer Ben Jonson was granted a royal pension. The last couple of appointees have been on fixed ten-year terms, but prior to that it was a lifetime appointment, with the exception of Dryden, who was sacked on religious grounds. This has had a recent re-write to bring it into line of MoS requirements. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I am strongly against including birth/death ranges in lists like this, as it adds nothing to the list itself.
    • I think it does add something, but I take your point. I'll leave it in there for the moment, but should others agree that the information is pointless, I'll remove it. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to get specific dates of laureateship? At least for the modern ones, with better recordkeeping?
    • Yes, I don't see why not - let me see what can be added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it simply be "Victoria" rather than "Queen Victoria"?
    • Yep - Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• The list seems generally sound, though perhaps a bit sparse... But I struggle to think of additional data to add to it. --Golbez (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean on the sparseness! I mulled over a few extra bits, but they really were pointless and would only have been included to pad out the table. Thanks for your thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

In the "background section:

• Will all readers understand "purview" - it would consider the award of the post to be Royal Patronage.
• I had to read the sentence "Since 1790, and the appointment of Henry James Pye, the Prime Minister has recommended the candidate to appoint" three times to make sense of it.
• In one paragraph we have "Department for Culture, Media and Sport" and in the next "Department of Culture" I get that they are referring to the same department but non UK readers may not.

In the list:

• If you sort by Birth and death date column, Thomas Shadwell comes out of sequence I think because of the "c." in the birth date.
• Would it be possible to include a photo of Cecil Day-Lewis rather than the blue plaque or is this a "fair use" issue?

• Sadly (and annoyingly) it's a fair use thing, so the plaque is the best we can do, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• The only data I can think of to add is a sortable list of their length of tenure in the post.

• Good idea: I'll add that in the morning. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 19:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Rod! All much appreciated; I've tweaked it all per your recommendations, bar the last two - one of which I'll do shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• All now done. Cheers Rod. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the amendments. I can now support this as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Rod, for your time and thoughts here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Excellent list. Just one thing:

"Dryden's successor, Thomas Shadwell, was appointed for life. He introduced the custom of producing poems for the new year and the monarch's birthday, which became one of the key duties of the position." -is it worth mentioning a date of when appointed or introduced?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Doc - your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. I've added the date of Shadwell's appointment in the text as suggested. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – This is what we used to call in Latin lessons, fifty years ago, a "question expecting the answer no", but are there any poems by any of the Laureates written in their official capacity that are good enough, or well enough known, to be mentioned in the lead? That would be the only thing I could think to add to this comprehensive and classily presented page. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought (sorry) – perhaps swapping the last two sentences of the first para would remove any momentary thought that Ms Duffy only got the post because Messrs Gray, Rogers and Scott turned it down. Tim riley talk 14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done the second point; I think there may well be something I could add on this point.

Many thanks for your thoughts on this, and I'll address your first point once I get back to the sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2015 (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) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:17, 4 October 2015 [22].

---

List of cities and towns in Alabama

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have completely reworked this list to now include more statistical data than anyone really needs. I've also tried to standardize formatting to be consistent with other local administrative lists (modelled after List of cities and towns in California). Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jakec

Very nice list, here are a few comments.

• "These 460 incorporated cities and towns" is a bit repetitive since the previous sentence also uses very similar wording. Suggest shortening to "The cities and towns".  Done
• "Thirty-four cities are Class 6" "Forty cities are Class 7": I think numbers above 10 are supposed to be written in numerical form and either way, sentences shouldn't begin with a number. Done
• For reference 2, is there a link that shows the actual query results?

• The link actually pipes to the Alabama list, but then redirects back to the main page. I suspect this particular reference does not allow direct linking unfortunately.

• Okay.

• A few towns appear to be missing 2000 census data; some have an explanation and some don't.

• I agree that this is a problem. I have tried to add all notes that I could, but some I just could not find. I asked the wikiproject for Alabama and the USA, but none could help me on this. Here I am stuck. I suspect they were simply incorporated after the 2000 census, but can't find a source to confirm this. Any advice?

• I'd say if you can't find any sources to confirm that they weren't incorporated, then just leave it as it is now. I checked the first one I saw (Kellyton) and was unable to find anything.

• For Anderson, the change in population reads "−20.3}}" and is at the top of the list when sorted by population change in descending order.  Done

• I think it was supposed to be {{nts|-20.3}}, not {{-20.3}}, so I've fixed that.

• Millbrook doesn't have population density.  Done
• Notes d and e have some stray formatting.  Done
• I realize this is a lot of work, so I won't insist on it, but a column for elevation would be nice. I think you can use the GNIS for that.

• I considered this, but left it out for a few reasons. The first, is that it would hamper the formatting by making the table too wide, and second that I'm trying to standardize all such lists, and the altitude is not generally included. The most important reason is that I think the list should remain focused on the human aspect (population, density, arbitrary areas...) and not the geological aspects, which would do well with it's own list. Generally, the best lists have a narrow focus and try not to include everything.

• Fair enough.

--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they are greatly appreciated and I have tried to address them all above. Please let me know if there is any more changes you would suggest. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a good list, and my concerns have been addressed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• CommentThis seems to be a problem, but I'm not very sure. When I click "Density" in the list, looks like something not right. But I click land area, population, change, they all seems fine.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right! That's odd... I do not know how to fix that... Mattximus (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This could be a browser issue. Density works for me as it should in both Firefox 40.0.3 and IE 11.— Maile (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought I commented, but apparently not. I know what the problem is: the data isn't raw numbers, so it's being sorted as strings and thus 1000 comes "before" 200. You should be able to fix this by using the {{sort}} template, so that {{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|0173.0|{{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}} and {{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|1005.8|{{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}}. I'm not sure if there's a more elegant way to do this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked at the template help page, which is usually very fast to respond, to see if there is a more elegant solution. Thanks for pointing out the error! Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added data-sort-type="number" to the Density column header per Help:Sorting#Numerical sorting problems.[23] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. --Golbez (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• The intro needs some TLC.
  • Can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

An example "237) [5]"

• • Added that period. Also rewrote that section to hopefully make it more clear.
• So is there a Class 1 city or no (Birmingham)?
  • An IP user recently added this section to the lead, I cleaned up the citation but will have to do further research to confirm this is true. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Make sure the table is consistent
      • Done
• Move the pics out of the way so the table shows without a ton of whitespace.
  • I believe this is an issue with your screen resolution and not with the formatting, as this is the accepted format of all featured list of local governments. For example, try these and see if you have the same formatting issue:List of cities and towns in California, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Manitoba, List of cities and towns in Arizona... Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Have a statistics section (i.e. summary of no of entries by class?).
  • This is summarized in the lead. I'm not sure how you would like it displayed differently. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I generally like some form of stats after loooong tables. Maybe say how many of the 460 are towns and how many cities.
      • I added the total list to the lead, including number of towns and cities and totals. Town, city, and grand total stats for each column are found at the end of the table.

• The 2000 pop is not referenced.
  • Done. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Maile (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Comments from Maile Per MOS:DTT. I see you have scope="col", but you don't have scope="row" for each row. It needs to have both. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I tried this, and it screws up the formatting. You can see my attempt here : User:Mattximus/sandbox4. Any thoughts? The original looks much better. Mattximus (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Well the first one, you duplicated the entry on the first row. But I know what messed up the format. Please look at the one I changed. Instead of putting the exclamation point to the left of it, use the vertical bar. That should do it. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks, I think it's fixed now. I updated the main page. Mattximus (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - Everything else looks fine to me. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (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) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:17, 4 October 2015 [24].

---

List of players who have scored 10,000 or more runs in One Day International cricket

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another cricket list. This is probably the first-of-its-kind for a batsmen list. Comments and suggestions are welcome —Vensatry _(ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, given a recent discussion, I'm concerned that this might be a 3(b) violation as a content fork of List of One Day International cricket records#Most career runs. Harrias ^talk 09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, given that we have 11 entries I feel this could well be forked out. With Gayle, Dhoni, ABD, and Kohli in the lineup, this is expected to grow in the near future. I'm not supporting WP:OSE, but we have an existing FL—List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket. Plus, you seemed to have supported the creation of these lists. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So I did. I'm not personally opposing the list on this basis, but I just mentioned it as it was fresh in my mind. Harrias ^talk 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Are you willing to proceed further, if you're convinced it's not a 3(b) issue? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add a columns listing the number of matches taken to reach 10,000 runs. The "span" for time is good, but having the same for matches would be useful. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good one, but innings? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, innings would make more sense than matches. Harrias ^talk 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Harrias: That's a vital statistic. Added —Vensatry _(ping) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Does it need mentioning in the "team" column, or elsewhere, that some of these players have appeared for other teams in ODIs, such as the ICC World XI, Asia XI, etc? Harrias ^talk 09:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good one. FNs added —Vensatry _(ping) 11:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The note might be better placed in the team column I think? Harrias ^talk 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I may have to cite the notes in the 'Team' column again by replicating the same refs. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments quick first run-through... I think I'd look for some more sources which acknowledge 10,000 runs to be a significant milestone. I'm sure Wisden will offer something. Added —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I would discuss the individuals before the teams they represent. It's somewhat trivial for whom they play, worth including, but probably at the end of the lead, rather than straight at the front. I guess we follow the same pattern for most of the lists. —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I don't understand, the players and their descriptions should come before the grouping of them into their teams. The list is about the players, not the teams they play for. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Done I think —Vensatry (ping) 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) You don't make it clear that you have listed those teams represent only those full members of the ICC. Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "while playing a match against Australia" could link the tour article for this occurrence. Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "the least number of innings" -> "the fewest innings" Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "took the maximum number of innings" not maximum, most perhaps. Good catch! Fixed —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) " Brian Lara's (West Indies) time" reads odd with the "'s" followed by (West Indies). Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) You mention age and time span to achieve the record in the lead but this information isn't in the table, so either add it or remove it from the lead. Both age and time span seem to have received adequate coverage: [25]. Adding two more columns would clutter the table. I think a footnote would do, what say? —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I don't think it would clutter the table, it's very narrow, especially on my moderately high-res laptop screen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Moved Dilshan's "oldest" claim to footnotes. As for time span, we already have two columns – "First" and "Date". Having an extra col. for time span along with these two would be redundant. —Vensatry (ping) 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) But that span isn't the time it took them to get to 10,000 runs, it's their career in ODI. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Date column is the one I'm talking about. We might include the actual date instead of year in the "First" column, so that readers would be able to find out the order of time span, which can be availed using the built-in secondary sort feature. —Vensatry (ping) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Added —Vensatry (ping) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Template title is currently linked to "List of batsmen who have scored more than 10,000 runs in One Day International cricket" so that needs to be changed to "List of players who have scored 10,000 or more runs in One Day International cricket". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: All done, hopefully. —Vensatry (ping) 11:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns addressed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• The table looks fine, but I am concerned about the lead. I don't think it reads very well: some sentences have clumsy phrasing while the whole thing would work better in a different order. I've redrafted it here. You can see a comparison of the two versions here. I'd be reluctant to support the list as it currently stands. Relentlessly (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Relentlessly: Thanks for all the work that you've put in to improve the prose. I've made some changes to the prose though not exactly the way you suggested. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, Vensatry, I've made a couple of small changes that were necessary. But this looks much better now. Support. Relentlessly (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2015 (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) 18:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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