This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Nominations

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:
I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?
Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.
I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meet the criteria and Peter Dinklage is awesome... AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Baahubali: The Beginning

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Baahubali: The Beginning is a very important film for Indian cinema and the articles related to the film deserves to be in great form. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 08:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • "epic fantasy film" - says who? Fantasy, according to me, is a genre that deals with the supernatural and magical, none of which is seen here. Perhaps you could mention somewhere that it is a historical?
  • "Made simultaneously in Tamil and Telugu" - I think it should be "Telugu and Tamil", considering how much priority the makers give the Telugu version, and the fact that the production company is in Andhra Pradesh.
  • "At the 63rd Filmfare Awards South, the film won five awards from ten nominations, including Best Film, Best Director for Rajamouli and Best Supporting Actress for Krishnan" - we know it was the Telugu version that won those awards, so please mention.

More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film and the Best Special Effects" - You could mention that Baahubali was the first ever Telugu film to win in the former category (courtesy, this source). On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if the awards were shared with the Tamil version. Pitiable, since the NFA announcement did not mention the language.
  • I see that, regarding IIFA Utsavam, both the versions were nominated and won in multiple categories (such as Kattappa winning in Tamil and nominated in Telugu, but Sivagami winning in both). Please mention that.
I guess that's it from me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kailash29792: Done (the first one) but I really don't know how to mention the Utsavam awards. It would be too confusing.Krish | Talk 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Then please ask someone. Or write, at the IIFA Utsavam, both the Tamil and Telugu versions won numerous awards, including Best Supporting Actress in both Tamil and Telugu categories, or something like that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Just that I show my support for this and hope it becomes TFL-worthy before Baahubali 2's release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

To the best of my knowledge the list is good, sourcing is nice, alt text and prose are fine. I support this nomination though i have two minor issues with this.

  • "Grossing gross over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against a budget of ₹1.2 billion, the film became the first South Indian film, and the first non-Hindi film to gross over ₹1 billion in the dubbed Hindi version" -- I suggest you to source this as the claim is quite big.
  • "At the 63rd National Film Awards, the film won Best Feature Film,..." -- the Best Feature Film?

That's all from me. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 16:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I do not believe that the "See also" section is necessary as it add much to the article. While looking through other FLs on film accolades, I did not see a similar section.
  • To the best of my knowledge, you only need to link something in the table on its first mention. For instance, you link Mohan and the film multiple times in the article. Please revise this.
  • @Krish!: Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Well, many Indian lists include the "See also" section. Coming to your second point, well, the linking is done for the tables. Someone very early had told me that either link all or just the first appearance, I have always chosen the latter.Krish | Talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points. I am still not certain about the value of the "See also" section, but if it is standardized, then it is okay with me. I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant
  • "the highest grossing film in India and third worldwide" - this can be misleading, you might want to switch to "the third-highest grossing Indian film worldwide".
  • "Grossing over ₹6.5 billion worldwide against" - That's the third occurrence of grossing in close proximity, you might want to rephrase.
  • Be consistent with the use of "the" with the awards.
  • "Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in the both Tamil and Telugu categories" - "Both the Tamil and Telugu versions won several awards in their​respective categories".

Rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

List of London Monopoly locations

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk)

There are a variety of different Monopoly board sets, but the London one is second only to the Atlantic City original, and every place is independently notable. Yes, even the miniscule Vine Street has seen bizarre tales of erotic asphyxiation and libel charges against Oscar Wilde - what more do you want? It's been played all around Britain and the Commonwealth as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and tourists still come to London to find where the locations on the board really are. For about the past 18 months, I've been going round all of our articles on the real-life London places on the Monopoly board and improving them to good article status. Most of them have now passed a GA review, so to give the final push to a good topic status, we need a suitable list article linking them all together. And that's where this comes in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Support, more than happy to support this great list. (If someone wants to find the code, and cap my comments, feel free. I can't find it right now, and have other things to do!!) Harrias talk 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This list is fascinating, and really well-written and researched. Great work for all the editors involved! --haha169 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: This is probably one of the most interesting, comprehensive and well put-together FLCs I've encountered during my last decade on Wikipedia. I had no idea about the vast majority of the facts before I visited the article. If you could take a little time to add to my FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated-- we're just about passed, as well! :) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: I think everything's you've raised has been addressed one way or another, is there anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wiggles discography

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I had success with Hi-5 discography and thought I'd give the same treatment to The Wiggles, also a very popular Australian children's group. They have many more releases so much more to dig into.SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work SatDis! My comments are below:
  • Studio albums table:
  • Compilation albums table:
  • Singles table:
  • Make the table the same width as other above
  • A reference is required for the Christmas single year of release
  • Is there a reason why the label and the format of the singles is missing?
  • "—" denotes items which were not released... This can be deleted as both singles charted
  • Notes:
  • Could you please add a reference for notes b, c and f
  • Note h – change Apples and Bananas to Apples & Bananas
  • References:
  • Ref 52 – fix display of page 7
  • Categories:
  • Extra note:
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou for the speedy feedback @Ianblair23:. I have addressed the issues as I could. My only troubles are finding a reference for the Christmas Single (however its chart appearance is referenced so I know it existed), and one of the notes: proving the album was not released in Australia (I've proved it existed in the US, but not sure how to go further). As for the extra note, I really haven't been involved in those album articles so I'm not sure! Thanks as always! SatDis (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Norwich City F.C. managers

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dweller and yours truly are nominating this for featured list. We've working across the divide for the first time in a while, this is another in the series of Norwich/Ipswich featured articles/lists that we have collaborated on. The list is almost secondary as the mighty prose preceding it is thorough, well referenced and (the bits that I didn't do) well written. In light of some of the recent managers nominations, we think this is in keeping with the current standard expected of such lists. We are both dedicated to resolving any and all issues as soon as practicable. As ever, our combined thanks to anyone prepared to give up their time in reviewing this list. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

  • "but most notably in the 1958–59 FA Cup" - I've just never been happy with "notably" in articles, see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED - I'd normally go for "most significantly" or something like that. The word appears quite a few times through the remainder of the prose too. Any thoughts?
    Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich City was founded as an amateur football club" - what year?
    Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "and we know that he spent the summer of 1903" - as "we know" doesn't appear inside a quotation, shouldn't this be something like "it is known" (ie: using third person)
    Don't think we need it at all. Deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "remains as one of the truly great periods in Norwich City's history" - though this is a quote, I think a simpler paraphrase like "it is regarded as one of the most successful periods of the club's history" would be better
    I think this kind of [what would become] editorialising is far better done as a quote from RS --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but in which case I think it would help to attribute who said the quote - in this case the official history of NCFC (?). The source attributing the quotation is a dead link, incidentally. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Attributed to the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "but bounced back to the top tier the following season after finishing third" - I'm not sure that "bounced back" is particularly encyclopedic
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Independent described the win in Munich as "the pinnacle of Norwich City's history"" - the source given is the Eastern Daily Press - I can't see where in the linked article that The Independent is mentioned as attribution for the quote
    Great spot. Probably my fault. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the club's performance nosedived" - "nosedived" - see "bounced back" earlier
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich's spell in the top flight" - same issue, "top flight"
    Not sure, this seems okay-ish to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A very informative list about a longstanding team you don't hear too much about outside the sports columns, despite major success from time to time. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Major success"? I don't think so... thanks for your comments, we'll get to them ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oi. Watch it. ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I think all your comments have been responded to and addressed where appropriate? Thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one issue to follow up, above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 done I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, one more thing is I'm picking up quite a few deadlinks, which are :

I assume most of these can be fixed relatively straightforwardly with a Wayback Machine link. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think, but one or two were already there with archive urls. Could you check again please? Ta. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html is still being reported as dead. I'm going off this script, btw Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Got it I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - no more concerns, everything checks out Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Nanjing Metro stations

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am putting forward this list as a potential FL. I've been working on it since late last year, and I believe it fits the FL criteria. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions on how to improve the article if you disagree. Thanks to all reviewers in advance! haha169 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Looks great, well written article. I made some tweaks to the wording of the lead.
  • There is an issue with station number. The list has 126 stations but the lead says 139. This discrepancy should be fixed. Also since this article is about stations themselves, we should not count one station multiple times for each line that goes through it. Maybe this is the root of the discrepancy?
  • Under lines, start date should be opening date. Grand Total should just be Total.
  • The lines table should only include lines actually constructed (or only the parts that are constructed), and totals adjusted for accordingly.
  • Again in the stations section, we should not double or triple count transfer stations, since this is a list of physical stations.
  • The list sorts by line image a bit weirdly, can this be fixed?
  • No need to include stations in both tables, for example Nanjing South Railway Station is there twice.

Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thank you for your comments! I've gone and fixed them thus:
  • Regarding the station count discrepancy, I went and compared this list with the official station list at Nanjing Metro's website, and after confusing myself back and forth with math, I think I've finally figured it out. Without counting interchanges, there are 128 stations -- two were mistakenly left off the list and have been added. Counting interchanges, there are 139. I've changed every instance to reflect 128 stations, although the note mentions the 139 figure.
  • I changed opening date to start date, and grand total to total.
  • I moved the under construction lines table to the under construction section; does this move satisfy your concern?
  • The way I've designed the list to sort is, from top to bottom: interchange stations, L1 stations, L2, L3, L4, L10, LS1, LS9, and alphabetical order within each category. I'm open to new suggestions if this is not intuitive.
  • I've included stations in both tables because not including it in under construction would hide the fact that parts of those stations are currently under construction in order to add platforms for the new line.
Thank you again for your review! I really appreciate it, and it helped me catch an error that I really should have caught before listing this list. Please let me know if my fixes and replies satisfy your concerns! --haha169 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No prob, looking very good. Just a few more little discrepancies. You say the number of stations is 128, which now matches the number of stations in your list, however the next line says "with 105 stations on the system's five urban lines and 25 along its two S-lines" 105+25 = 130? If a station is double counted you can add "and x intermodal stations" or something like that. This occurs twice. Other than that, it's the only problem I can find! I haven't done a source check, but formatting looks in order. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: There's a note after each instance that leads to this sentence: "Discrepancies between these figures are explained by interchange stations. If interchange stations are counted once for each station line they serve, there would be 114 urban line stations, 25 S-line stations, and 139 total stations.". --haha169 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for satisfying all my questions, as long as source review passes, this is a great list! Mattximus (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful review! It means a lot! --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops, I just realized that you forgot one of my points. You have strange issues on sorting by line number, I suspect is has something to do with the use of "data-sort-value=" as it is only the interchange stations that are out of order. I see you want to keep the interchanges at the top (I would strongly suggest you just sort by line number, with the interchanges at the top of each line), but if you want your method, at least the interchanges should be in order. Mattximus (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't really understand how you want me to sort the interchange stations. Unfortunately, sorting by line number is messy, not least because of the S-lines, so I came up with the current arrangement, which is to list the interchanges by alphabetical order. Each interchange has at least two lines, so I don't know how I could order by line. Could you please explain your suggestion again? --haha169 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The best would be something like this:
  • 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ....

or if you want to keep your way and have the interchanges first, they should be in order

  • 1-2, 1-3, 1-3-S1, 1-10, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10.....

Mattximus (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Done, thank you so much for your helpful suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That is better, I would just switch the order of Gulou and Nanjing South Railway Station, and then it's much more consistent. Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, that was a mistake on my part. Fixed it! --haha169 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson filmography

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson's list of film and television credits, which includes some of my favorites. After completing the article extensively from top to bottom, I'm now confident that this deserves the featured list status. Have at it! Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Australia Test cricket records

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I present for review this list of Australian cricket records played the oldest and greatest form of the game – Test cricket. Based on the Sri Lankan list which was promoted to featured status back in April 2010, this has just appeared on the Main Page in the DYK section. I look forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of municipalities in Rhode Island

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.

I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shruti Haasan filmography

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This was never planned. It started off as a small pet project kind-of work intended as a constructive birthday present to User:Ssven2 and remains to be one. But, after finding it potential enough, i am nominating the filmography of this actress for FL status. All constructive comments welcome. Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
  • She appears only in Telugu, Hindi and Tamil films, so I think "predominantly" is not required. I also suggest you sort the languages in the first sentence in this same order, based on how many films she has acted in each language.
Removed the word.
  • Although Tamilians don't typically use surnames, I think Shruti uses "Haasan" as such, since it is not a patronymic (just like Rangan is not Baradwaj's surname, but he still uses it as such). But please consult someone before making the change.
Forgot this; i referred to her as Haasan in Srimanthudu too!
  • In Hey Ram, she plays Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter. But I am not sure if the character is Maniben Patel, or if she was named at all since I haven't seen the film. Do please ask someone on what value to fill in the "Role" column.
Not really sure that she has had a notable appearance in the film. The source mentions her as Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter, though.
  • Perhaps you could wikilink South Indian cinema since non-Indians may not be aware that Tamil and Telugu cinema are a part of it.
Done.
  • This ref is missing the publisher/work field.
Good catch. Fixed.
Couldn't do that due to poor internet facilities. Updated it properly now.
  • Please see that the refs in the table show her characters' names.
Crosschecked them. Except for Hey Ram, at the moment, all set.
  • Sabaash Naidu is titled Shabhash Kundu in Hindi, so you may have to split the cell (see Oopiri/Thozha in Tamannaah filmography). Also, do please see if the trilingual is still set for release in 2017 since I've been hearing rumours about it's delay.
Thanks for the info; i was unaware of that. Well, the sources say 2017 and we can wait.
  • You could put {{TBA}} in the cells for those roles that... I guess I don't have to say this.
Got it. Done.

Overall, I'd say this is damn impressive of you to expand the article in just a few days and already make it FLC worthy. Once my comments are addressed, this FLC will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: All addressed. Look forward for your response and further additional comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my comments. Before I can give this my support, I must ask are you okay with the fact that Ssven has centered all her character names? Because I'm not. But if that is not prohibited in FLs, I'm not gonna oppose it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Removed them. Pavanjandhyala 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason for centering all the names was that in her future films, where her roles are not yet known hence "TBA"", they were all centered, which seemed a bit off, but that's just me. So I figured why not center the roles for her previous films? Hence I centered them. I apologise if I had done anything that I shouldn't have.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
No apology is required. :) But do remember that the TBA is a template-text and we cannot base the remaining contents on its structure because the TBA shall not last long. Pavanjandhyala 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Support: Impressive work Pavan. Hope this passes FL within this month. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I too hope so. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I do not believe that the character names in the table should be centered. It looks odd as it is the part of the table that is centered, and I have not seen a table for a FL for an actor's filmography set up in this way before. It should be an easy fix.
Removed them.
  • I would suggest altering the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph to make it flow better with the rest of the paragraph. I have never heard of this person or seen her films before so right now, the sentence appears like a random fact thrown into the beginning of the paragraph without any context of its importance or relevance. It seems from the chart that this is her first film credit, but I would make the context clearer for an uninformed reader like myself.
I hope that the new additions would serve the purpose.
  • In the sentence about the film Luck, please specify who she played as a part of the dual role. The sentence appears incomplete by just saying she played a dual role and ending the sentence there.
As per the source, she played a woman who wants to avenge her twin sister's death. I've mentioned the same.
  • The word "fetched" seems a little too informal and I would suggest revising it with a stronger word.
Opted for earned here. Hope that should be fine.
  • Something about the phrasing "failed at the box office" also seems a little too informal to me. I would say instead "were commercially unsuccessful" or something along those lines.
Rephrased as suggested.
  • I am not a fan of the construction "managed to x" and I would suggest removing it completely in the two instance you use and just say "achieved" and "gain" to be more direct and less editorial.
Rephrased as suggested.
  • The lead seems to be completely focused on the commercial success of the films and the actor's awards and nominations. You only mention the actual performance through the brief reference to a "dual role" in the first paragraph. Would it be possible to include more information about some of the characters she played?
I made it for Premam. For the rest, i didn't find any proper description of those roles (some of those are too harebrained).
  • @Pavanjandhyala: Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for the participation. Looking forward for further constructive comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Pavanjandhyala 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I couldn't find any issues with the sources, and seeing that comments have already been left here I wouldn't have anything else to add. JAGUAR  14:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jaguar. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. :) Pavanjandhyala 05:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Good enough to be an FL. Congrats on your good work, Pavan.Krish | Talk 14:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Krish. Pavanjandhyala 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review

I am not too familiar with this project but all citations have consistent dates and archives. I think one reference needs a link (riff) but everything else is reliable. I will give it a support. By,I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with the prose review in my FAC, D.Gray-man.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Checked all the references now. Thank you so much for the review. And, i am sorry; i can't help you as i am really weak at prose. Pavanjandhyala 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment another very popular and heavily supported list, within a week of nomination. I'll review this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments
  • Unless she collaborated frequently with her parent/s, we don't need her parents' names here. "Born to the prominent Haasan family" can stay though.
  • She did collaborate with her father in her early stages of career more as a musician (singer, music composer). One of her ongoing projects is directed by that man too.
  • Beginning with the third sentence, I read four consecutive sentences which start with "she made her".
  • "full-fledged" is informal.
  • "She also made her South Indian cinema debut with" so many debuts. "She also appeared in her first South Indian film(s)" might also work.
  • Fixed all the three. Hope those lines look better now.
  • "Haasan received her breakthrough" I don't know but receive does not feel sound. Perhaps "Haasan had her breakthrough playing..." (you might want to describe her role in the film).
  • What can i say about her role in particular? Too vague that shall be. Moreover the sources too would not support that.
  • "She went on to be a part of few successful Telugu films" since they were successful, you need to elaborate; describing her (types of) roles would also do.
  • I might sound too judgemental here, but to be honest, those characters are not well-written/fully developed.
  • " Gabbar Is Back and Welcome Back in Hindi, Srimanthudu in Telugu, Puli and Vedalam in Tamil" an "and" needs to be added after Telugu.
  • Done

Been a while since I was at FLC. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All addressed. Looking forward for constructive comments if any. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Leaning Oppose

I feel that the prose is severely lacking, and the have some concerns regarding the flow of the lead. However, its nithing that cannot be fixed. Here are some early observations :

  • "Born to the prominent Haasan family, she is the daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur." - born "to" a family? I believe "into" is the word that you're looking for?
  • "daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur" - isn't Shilpa Thankur an actor too?
  • "made her cinematic debut at the age of six as a singer with the 1992 Tamil film" - somehow this reads rather awkwardly to me, did she play a singer in the film? if so maybe add a little more (you may want to mention that is was a minor role) as currently it's not very clear as to what her role ware.
  • "Her South Indian cinema debut happened with Anaganaga O Dheerudu in Telugu and 7aum Arivu in Tamil;" - "happened" might not be the best suited here, also, isn't Hey Ram her "Tamil debut".

The article reads in a very disconnected way up until now and it doesn't seem to get better :

  • "Haasan received her breakthrough with Harish Shankar's Telugu film Gabbar Singh (2012)." - That sounds like an overstatement; there's no mention as to why this was her breakthrough, also, the lead up until here suggests that her previous roles seem to have earned her repute already, both critically and commercially. Not to say the phrasing is awkward, "receive a breakthrough"?
  • "of few successful Telugu films" - "a few"?
  • "Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu award for her performance in Race Gurram" - repetition of the word Award in close proximity.

The second paragraph is better structured, but, still has some issues, most notably the lengthy yet ambiguous entry on Premam, they are a lot of words for an "average grosser". The comments are not exhaustive, will go through it again. You also might need to work on the flow of sentences, in its current state the leads seems to be doing too much in differentiating Tamil, Telugu and Hindi films, and isn't looking good. NumerounovedantTalk 16:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thanks for taking out time to review this candidate. Tried doing what i could, given my limited ability to frame proper sentences. Also, if you believe that Premam was undue, go ahead and remove it. Looking forward to further constructive comments, if any. :) ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes, feel free to revert/work around them. I still believe that the lead is not the most comprehensive, it can use some expansion/polishing (her roles and the reception of her performances are largely missing). However, it covers her major roles and doesn't seem to have any more glaring flaws, it's a Weak Support. Also, cross check the refs, some of them are not working in my server. Good luck with nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 09:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll check them in the night. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Editor 2050
  • Support - looks wholly accurate to me content-wise. I cannot find a reliable source, but this is very much true at the moment [2]. Also this was out today - maybe can have some use [3]. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: Thank you so much. As for the links, i have no proper idea of how to use them. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49–72)

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This list is about the second part of Part II of the manga Naruto. I ask the coordinator if I could have this up, and they approved after it has been two weeks since my first nomination. I hope this can get it's support. MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All references are archived. However, the first citation needs a link to Masashi Kishimoto and a "trans_title" for non-Japanese speakers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Then article passes it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would suggesting an image to lead as done in the FL for List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48). Maybe the cover of volume 49 would be suitable? This is more up to your personal preference so feel free to tell me if you prefer not to have an image at the top.
  • @1989: Everything else looks great. I will support it once my comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Wonderful job with this list! If possible, could you also provide some feedback for my FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Eddie891 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great, can't find anything major wrong with it that sticks out. Could you if you have time have a look at my FAC? - AffeL (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment lots of rapid supports, I'll do a review of this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, this weekend hopefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Inna

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I've never promoted an 'awards-list' to FL status so far, but I've put a lot of work into this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please provide an ALT description for the infobox image.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Be more descriptive than that with your ALT description. "A photograph of Inna" could refer to almost anything related to the singer, and your ALT needs to be more specific to be actually helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Done now!
  • I would remove the dynamic list template from the top of the page as I would assume that this could easily be completed as done with either awards/nominations pages.
Yes check.svg Done
  • I would rephrase the first sentence to the following (Romanian singer-songwriter and dancer Inna has received various awards and nominations.) to keep the focus on her awards.
Yes check.svg Done
I have altered this to include the "nominations" part as this list goes to both her awards and nominations, not just her wins. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest looking at the structure of the lead for similar lists that have already passed FLC, such as List of awards and nominations received by Adele. The second sentence from the first paragraph should be removed as it is more appropriate for her main article but not necessary for this lead. The same goes for her studies in political science. I would start with her unsuccessful audition for A.S.I.A.
Yes check.svg Done Tried to amend this
  • I would look through the lead again and revise the language. There are many examples of awkward wording and sentence construction. Looking at similar lists that have already passed FLC would be helpful with this. I would also suggest a c/e from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
Yes check.svg Done Tried to work on lead; I knew it's problematic ;)
I will do a more detailed prose review soon, but I would recommend trying to correct any prose issues prior to putting something up for FLC in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation.
Yes check.svg Done
This has not been done. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation to support the "the first time for Romania" bit. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the brief descriptions with each award section, you do not need to include the references to her wins and nominations as the references are already present in the tables. The references about the awards themselves should stay.
Yes check.svg Done I've only left refs for award galas without an own article or if there was any other info mentioned about the award that needed support from a ref.
@Cartoon network freak: You still need to include references for the definitions for the awards even if they have a Wikipedia article so please add those back per my original comment. The lead itself still needs a lot of work and revision and I will provide a more thorough review of its prose later in the day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Good job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through it again. My primary concerns are with the lead, which has several prose and sentence construction issues that need to be corrected/revised. Hope this helps. The actual list itself seems really good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for your review! Please let me know your follow-up thoughts ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I will provide a more extensive review of the prose later in the day if that is okay with you as there still some problem areas in the lead that prevent me from fully support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would organize the lead chronologically to help make a cohesive narrative for the reader. Right now, the first paragraph has information about a 2011 award for a 2010 song. This should be moved down to one of the later paragraphs. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • I would spell out 13 in this context as it looks odd to have that be the only numeral in the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • In the start of the second paragraph, I would include information about her initial record deal if possible. See the Adele example I linked above to see what I mean by this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done I have no source to add this information; sorry :(
No worries. I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "native trio" is very odd. What do you mean by "native"? If you mean "Bulgarian", then just say that for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Remove "itself" in the phrase "the record itself" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Just say "singles" instead of "single releases". "Single releases" is unnecessarily long. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Could you go into more detail about the awards and nominations from her first album. You only devote a sentence to it, and I believe that it should be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done She only received a single nomination for the album at the RRA Awards, so there is in fact nothing to expand.
Makes sense, thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would put the phrase "her second studio album" in front of the album's name for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • I do not know what you mean by the transition "The same year" as you list two years (2010 and 2011) in the previous sentence. Do you mean 2010 or 2011 by this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Could you also expand on the awards and nominations she received for her second studio album? You only have a brief sentence about one award, and this should be expanded if possible to not give undue emphasis on a singular award. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Eliminate "for purchase" in the phrase "made available for purchase" as it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • Please include any information about the awards and nominations associated with the third and fourth albums in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done She only won awards with her third album
  • The sentence about "P.O.H.U.I." needs to be revised as it reads awkwardly to me. It also comes out of nowhere following the brief statement about the third and fourth studio albums so a transition would be helpful in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Tried to do both things
  • I think you should include information about the awards and nominations for "P.O.H.U.I." in the lead, but provide a more comprehensive overview of its awards and nominations. You only include one nomination in the lead, but it was also up for other awards.
Yes check.svg Done Included the other award received
  • This question is not specifically relevant to this review, but do you think that "P.O.H.U.I." is notable enough to have its own article or at least a red link? Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I may make an article about it this weekend. It really is notable, you're right :)
Good luck with it. If you put it up for GAN, let me know and I will review it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the sentence "Diggy Down" closer to the sentence on its parent album to make the connection clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • In the lead, I would recommend including a sentence or two about the awards and nominations that the singer has receive outside of her music career, such as those for her style or her dancing, to provide a more comprehensive overview of the awards and nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
@Cartoon network freak: I have added additional comments above. Also, remember to address my responses to my original comments. One of my main issues is that there is not enough of an overview of the actual awards and nominations in the lead. It lists the albums and includes one or two notes about its awards and/or nominations, but this needs to be expanded. Please refer to a FL on a similar topic and use that as an example for the expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: The lead is in a MUCH better shape now. Please check it out again! I'm going to add refs for the award definitions tomorrow. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the prompt responses. I have also made some edits/revisions to the lead as well. Ping me once you have added the references for the award definitions and I will look through it again and most likely support this nomination. Thank you for your patience while going through my rather long review. You have done an excellent job. I have to admit that I have never heard of this singer until reading through your work on here lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've added the sources for the awards. Inna is not big in the US, she's only had a few Dance Airplay hits there ;) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Thank you for your patience with this review as I know it was rather long and drawn-out. I think the list, specifically the lead, has been improved a great deal and I could support this as a FL. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Celtic F.C. players

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added sources for all appearance info, added photos and some narrative text to give some more context. ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --PresN 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest of my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as other FL lists of SSSIs such as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Passing comment: All Latin species names should be italicized. Example: Juncus inflexus should be Juncus inflexus. Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done thanks. 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

This is another impressive list. All entries have pictures links to article and other supporting information as appropriate. Having looked at some of the similar lists I am familiar with the format which we have discussed previously. Random checks of sortable columns all work sensibly. Just a few specific minor comments:

  • Citing the whole of the first paragraph of the lead to Encyclopedia Britanica could be improved (eg by providing a specific ONS source or similar for the population).
I agree that it is unsatisfactory and I devoted considerable effort to finding a better source without success. I could not find a list by county on ONS and the Cambridgeshire site has figures by administrative county which excludes Peterborough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Here we have "a population as of 2011 of 708,719". Cambridgeshire we see "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 841,200" and Peterborough says "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 194,000" so unless there has been major change between the 2011 census & the mid 2015 estimates (ie an increase to 1,053,000 from 708,719) then something doesn't quite add up. Perhaps the Cambridgeshire article does include Peterborough & the increase has been 708,719 to 841,200 which is more believable.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I have managed to track down sources with the help of List of ceremonial counties of England, which is referenced. For the area you have to add the ONS figures for the 5 districts and Peterborough, which comes to 339,746 hectares. This is 1312 sq mi, slightly higher than the ceremonial counties figure of 1309, and I do not know why there is a difference. ONS for mid-2015 population has 647,238 for administrative Cambridgeshire and 193,980 for Peterborough, total 841,218, which agrees with the ceremonial counties figure. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How is "major river" defined in the lead
Not defined so I have deleted "major". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the measurements in the descriptions do not have conversions (eg "more than 20 metres of Upper Oxford Clay" in Warboys Clay Pit)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Should "fossils reptiles" on Ely Pits and Meadows be "fossil reptiles"?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I would wikilink terms such as ancient woodland as some readers may not be familiar.
Done - although I do wonder whether all the writers were using the term in the technical sense described in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On cherry Hinton Pit "British Red List of Threatened Species" is wikilinked to IUCN Red List, whereas on Upware North Pit we have "British Red Data Books" unwikilinked. Are these the same - if so it would be good to be consistent
The British books are different from the international IUCN list and there is no article on the British ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK Should the British "Red Book" have an article? I'm sure you could create one as it is mentioned in many articles.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking again, I think all three Red Book cites are to British reviews based on IUCN criteria, but only one spells out the source clearly. I have added a short section to Regional Red List and linked to it. Is this OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On Holme Fen should "which aims to create a 3,700 wetland wildlife area" be 3,700 acre, hectare or something?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On Adventurer's Land I would link "BP" to Before Present as some may not be familiar with the term.
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 21:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, it's suitable to be one. I have made major tweaks to it so that could be the case. If you notice something wrong, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • References 26, 29, 12, 24, 18, 25, 17, 30, 19, 20, 22, 15, 5, 23, 21, 14, 42, 43, 13, 46, 60, 62, and 64 are dead and either need to be archived or replaced with new links.
  • The image at the top needs an ALT description.
  • Is this sentence really necessary (Viz had stated the English dub would be released sometime in the near future.) as the release date for the English dub is stated in the next sentence?
  • You use the phrase “made and broadcast” twice in close proximity; I would suggest having some more variety for this.

@1989: Great job with this list. I will support this after my comments are addressed. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FAC? Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Quick question, did you just give the source review? MCMLXXXIX 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @1989: Unfortunately, I do not think that I am experienced enough to do a source review. I also think it would be better to get a new perspective and have a separate user not already involved in the review do it instead. I can say that the Bibliography needs to be revised to remove the error message pertaining to the "|duplicate_archiveurl=" and the "|duplicate_archivedate=". Also, make sure not to SHOUT in your reference titles (putting reference names in ALL CAPS) as done in References 1, 2, 5, and 6. I apologize for not being more help on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done That duplicate thing, I don't know what happened there. I noticed bot edits were made after my changes for some reason. Thanks for your feedback. MCMLXXXIX 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Anytime! The same thing has happened to me several times in the past so I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2

Some parts appear to be referenced like "Episodes 1 through 53 were broadcast in 4:3 standard definition fullscreen, while episodes 54 onward were aired in 16:9 widescreen." and some tables that mention the DVDs like the ones from UK. I'm pretty sure "amazon.co.uk" could be used.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • By the way, one comment. The list lacks a small premise that could be used in the lead like "It follows the ninja teenager Naruto Uzumaki and his allies in their fights against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the "Tailed Beasts ".Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done MCMLXXXIX 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Source review by ProtoDrake
  • Maybe not necessary, but an FA requires all links to be archived, so I think it would be wise to archive them. It will take some time, so it's not urgent to this review.
  • All the XtraVision links are registering as dead on Checklinks.
  • The Amazon links all redirect. They need updating.
  • Refs 3, 9, 10 and 13 lack publishers. Several other links also lack links for publisher/work that have articles on Wikipedia.

That's what I can find and see immediately. I'll do a more thorough look through at a later date once the major issues are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

After looking through and rechecking with Checklinks, I think that (provided the archiving does happen eventually) I'll Pass this on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by AffeL

Support. Everything looks good, I can't seem to find any problems with this article other than to archive all the sources. - AffeL (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @AffeL: Thanks! I also have an FAC request open. Could you review it when you get a chance? MCMLXXXIX 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I've come a bit late, but I don't see any problems with this so it should be good to go. JAGUAR  14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: is there a reason why the sources for the English air dates end on November 5, 2011? Eddie891 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Eddie891: That was the last episode that aired on Disney XD. MCMLXXXIX 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK then, Support Eddie891 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: The list looks good. I used to watch Naruto a lot, but lost track of it along the way during the initial stages of Naruto Shippuden.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment loads of quick supports, I'll do a review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry, I'll get to it this weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Here is a comprehensive rundown of all of his work in film and television. As always look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I have made some minors edits (addition of some commas) with these edits. Feel free to revert them if you disagree with them.
  • Reference 12 is dead and either needs to be archived or replaced with a different source.
  • The image in the "Television" subsection needs an ALT description. I am also not certain if that image is entirely necessary. The placement of the image has some interference with the gallery (it is cutting through the section) and it doesn't add much to the list as the image at the topic gives the reader an understanding of what Hitchcock looks like and this second image is a little repetitive.
  • Is the "Gallery" section really necessary? I haven't seen a section like that for other filmographies and I would suggest removing it according to WP:IG as I find it a little shoehorned into the list.

@Cowlibob: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Please ping me when you are finished with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Support: Since the nominator has appeared to have addressed all of my comments, I will support this nomination. Great work with this! Good luck with this list. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2
  • "In 1935 Hitchcock directed spy thriller The 39 Steps" — Shouldn't it be "In 1935 Hitchcock directed the spy thriller The 39 Steps"?
  • You can mention a little bit about how he went around the production code in Notorious (Grant's kissing scene with Bergman).
  • "The show made him a household name" — Wasn't he famous before that?
@Cowlibob: That's about it from me. Good work on the filmography of my most favourite director.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Thanks for having a look. I think I've fixed the above. He's one of my favourites as well, you could probably make a pretty strong top five Hollywood films of all time just from ones he's directed.Cowlibob (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: I support this nomination. Good luck with your FLC. As for top five Hitchcock films, here it is: Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Notorious and Strangers on a Train. You can even include Rebecca, Dial M for Murder, The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest and Suspicion too.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • Is Hitchcock's birth and death date really necessary here? I don't know, just asking.
  • Dubbed the "Master of Suspense" - by whom? Or you could write something like Popularly known as the "Master of Suspense".
  • I believe genres don't have to be linked unless they are uncommon terms.
  • He collaborated with Grace Kelly on three films - we typically don't begin paragraphs with pronouns.
  • In 1960 he directed Psycho the biggest commercial success of his career - there has to be a comma after Psycho.
  • In the table I don't think we have to mention if a film was a remake of another. This applies to The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
  • "Murder!" redirects to "Murder! (1930 film)". Was it deliberately linked like that in case the article were to be moved to not include (1930 film) in its title?
  • In the ref column, the refs must be arranged vertically, not horizontally. They make the table look cleaner that way.
  • After running Checklinks, I saw that all links were working, while two are classified as "Uncategorized redirects". You may archive references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Thanks for the review. I have sorted the above comments I think. I mention birth and death dates for articles on deceased people as I think it's standard practice for such article. It probably helps to tell the time period they worked in. eg. Laurence Olivier on stage and screen, John Gielgud, roles and awards, and Gene Kelly filmography. Cowlibob (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I need not say anymore; this has my Support, and I hope it passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dhanush filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792, —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the ROW sees Dhanush merely as a Kolaveri boy, he's more than just a singer in the Tamil Film Industry. I've modeled this list based on the existing ones and believe it meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Include an ALT description for the image.
Done —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "debutant director"? It makes me think of debutante, but I do not think you mean that so I am not sure what this word "debutant" means.
Debutant is masculine, while debutante is feminine. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I still find that to be an extremely odd word choice as I have never ran across that word at all before, but I guess it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Be careful about using the following phrase and its variations too much (commercially successful) as it can make this appear too much like a list rather than a cohesive narrative. I would add some variation and be mindful of this.
Fixed, hopefully. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the following transition (The same year) twice in close proximity in the third paragraph of the lead so I would change one of them for variety.
Rephrased —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • While it is interesting, is the information about "Why This Kolaveri Di" necessary for a list about his film career? It would seem more appropriate for the article about him or a list directly about his music, but is it appropriate for this list?
You make a good point, but the song was an integral part of the film in which he starred. So I don't think it's out of place. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that it is important, then it is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Great work with the list. Overall, everything looks to be in shape. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:
Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)
Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)
Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.
In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondit created the article, while I cleaned it up a bit, added a lead, and cited all the wins through ESPN's website. Tried to model this after the Featured Lists of List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. All feedback is welcome. This is my first FLC so forgive me if I have a couple of questions along the way. Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101
  • One of the first things I noticed was that none of your references have archive links. I don't think it's a requirement to get an article upgraded to featured status, but if the websites that you are referencing go down in the future, or if the website admins rearrange the website's content and put the relevant data in a different place, it could lead to a lot of dead links, which could lead to an article's featured status being revoked. This could be an especially significant problem if the ESPN website, from which most of your references originate, rearranges its data. Archive links in your references will prevent this from happening, as it will "freeze" your reference the way it was when you retrieved it. In case you don't know, creating archive links is super easy. Just copy the url and paste it into archive.org/web, then copy the new archive link it spits out and include it in your reference using "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Other that that, your article looks good overall. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Thanks! I am familiar with this process and will take your suggestions into consideration. ESPN still has articles from over a decade ago that still have workable links, but it's certainly something I'll keep an eye on. Of course, many websites have these race results available; I just used ESPN to be consistent with the other two featured lists. Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to any potential reviewers: I will be on vacation from April 15-24 and will likely be unable to respond to comments until I return. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Hopefully you're not on vacation yet so you can have a look at these:

  • "Gordon won at least one pole in 23 consecutive seasons, making this a NASCAR record." The "making this" is wordiness that doesn't add anything to the sentence, so you can just cut it to make the writing tighter.
  • Sprint Cup Series: A comma would be useful before "leaving Kentucky Speedway the only track where he failed to win." Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Suriya filmography

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Suriya is currently one of Tamil cinema's most versatile and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The addition of the fact that he appeared with Vijayakanth in the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph is a little odd to me. What makes this stand out from his other co-stars in the other two films being listed? Why is this important for a reader to know? As someone who has no idea who either of these two people are, the importance of this mention is not made clear to me. If you feel that it is absolutely necessary to keep this fact in the list, then I would move it outside the parenthesis for the year and find a way to fit it into the sentence more seamlessly.
  • The phrase "Bala's second collaboration" is a little off as it literally means the director's collaboration with something that is not entirely made clear. Instead, I would say something along the lines of "Suriya's second collaboration with Bala" or "Bala's second collaboration with Suriya".
  • I am not sure about the (in which he played twins) construction. If you want to include this information, then I would recommend putting this information a little more seamlessly into the sentence.
  • The "In this" transition in the lead's final sentence is a little awkward. I would remove it and rephrase the beginning phrase "one of the year's highest-grossing Tamil films" as that can be a stronger beginning phrase/transition.
@Ssven2: Great job with this list! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved all your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Support: Great work with this list! I can definitely support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • I think "Ref." looks more formal than "Ref(s)". What do you think?
That's because in case more than one reference is added to support the content in the table I have written it as "Ref(s)" instead of "Ref".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All the refs in the table can be centered (type |style="text-align:center;"| before each ref).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could it be mentioned somewhere that Rakta Charitra was a two-part film? I have not heard of a single-edited version (the Tamil dub Ratha Sarithiram covers mainly the second part).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, you describe Suriya as playing only one role in 7aum Arivu - Damo. You could vaguely mention he also played Aravind (perhaps you could write "...and his fictional descendant".)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see that Aoba47 agrees with my comments. Otherwise it's very much FLC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Your comments seem appropriate, and I agree with them. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I have resolved your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: I promise you this support of mine is not a display of COI, but because this list indeed does look worthy of FL. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I just glad you did support it. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • I suggest you should trim the last sentence from the lead.
  • Is it important to mention that he dubbed for Guru? Since it was a hindi film and dubbed versions aren't of much significance.
  • Is the video in ref 49 and 64 from a RS?
  • "In 2005, Suriya starred in three Tamil films:" Is it necessary to mention 'tamil films', since he primarily works in them?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Resolved [1] and [4]. As for [2], he is credited with the dubbing for Junior B. In case of [3], refs 49 and 64 are the only ones available. I have even shown the time where he appears. Cinema Junction is a well-known YouTube channel, just doesn't have a Wiki Article. The MSK video is official BTW.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied with #2. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Usually dubbing is done by less prominent actors. A currently leading actor dubbing for a dubbed version is significant as far as Tamil cinema is concerned. It did create some buzz during its release as seen from 1.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Seconding Editor 2050, I think its better to remove his dubbing credit. It can be mentioned if its a billingual film not otherwise. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: I have resolved Editor 2050's comments. I have created a separate list of his other crew positions a la Kamal Haasan filmography and Vikram filmography. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Editor 2050
  • Sorry, just wanted to say that I'm also against the inclusion of his dubbing credit - it's like telling someone that Arvind Swamy played Simba in Lion King or Silambarasan played Jamal Malik in Slumdog Millionaire - maybe it should be left in the text or have a totally different "other credits" section/table like how it is on Vikram's filmography.
  • Again - "distributor" - I am sure Suriya has distributed several of his film's before - he usually takes the Telugu rights home too. Again, potentially remove it or put it in an another table.
  • In fact, could the table purely just be for acting roles? I am sure that is what most visitors to his article hope to see. The remainder could be inserted in a separate table?
  • Also Pasanga 2 was a guest appearance/extended cameo, I guess.
  • Manmadhan Ambu could say "Special appearance in the song Oyyale (?)" - Does he appear for anything else, I cannot remember?
  • The age old question - are Rakta Charitra and Rakht Charitra two different films? Is this the best way to list it?
  • Should we get rid of the award credits and put them in an article elsewhere?

Editor 2050 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Rakta Charitra is a two-part film with the same name. I have created a separate list of his films as actor and his other credits. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, Support. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Ssven2 - it could potentially be made clear that he dubbed for the Tamil version of Guru and The Ghazi Attack, rather than the originals. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: Read the footnotes [e] and [f], my friend. I have stated it clearly there. Besides, the information would look bloated on the list.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
Comments from Cowlibob

List of accolades received by The Act of Killing

Nominator(s): — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...

It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
  • I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
  • In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".
@Rhododendrites: Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments.
  • I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?
  • That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded from "According to Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'". Is this along the lines of what you mean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Support: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Good list on an important film. Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress

Nominator(s): Tsange ☯ Talk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to become a featured list as after a lot of work I feel that it now meets Wikipedia's FL criteria. In terms of the article's layout and style I have attempted to make it mirror that of the article Academy Award for Best Actress. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the table reference column contains a reference for both film nominations and individual references for the character names. Tsange ☯ Talk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. Back in November 2016, the list has passed a thorough A-class review from Military history. All the information is cited, and all the sources used are meet WP:RS. The list was constructed on par with List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army etc. which are featured lists. So I think there won't be much trouble regarding the FLC criteria. I welcome suggestions for the same. By the way, the list is about the recipients for the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Alt text is missing from the images.
  • Delink 'India' in the opening sentence, since WP:OLINK says that 'the names of major geographic features shouldn't be linked.
  • Indo-Pakistani conflicts --> Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
  • In the second para, the words "..of India" is repetitive. You can remove it in one of the instance.
  • Indian Army is linked twice in the lead.
  • Times of India --> The Times of India
  • Are "Factly", "Topyaps" and "knowingindia.gov.in" RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Many thanks for the review. All the issues raised have been fixed. Regarding the last one, http://knowindia.gov.in is an official site from the Government of India, the domain ".gov.in" makes that clear. Factly is strictly constrained by an editorial board, so this can be accepted. Also the content from Topyaps is tailored, the about us section on the site make it clear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced by Topyaps, you can replace it with a much reliable source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: Done, good catch. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments –

  • Feels like "the" should be before "one of the Indian Air Force."
  • Add "a" before "provision" at the start of the third paragraph, and remove "the" before "one recipient".
  • The abbreviation MTNL could stand to be spelled out.
  • In the table, Elisabethville isn't sorting in the correct order; it's appearing at the end. A sort template of some type may be needed here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

List of songs written by Tove Lo

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it for the past days and I think it meets the criteria for a FL. Tove Lo is a Swedish singer and songwriter who has not only written songs for herself but for other artists too, and this list features all of those songs, and it is referenced with sources such as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc.. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • All of the images need an ALT description. Yes check.svg Done
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some instances where you say "Lo" instead of "Lov" so double-check to make sure you correct this.  Comment: The nickname of the artist is "Tove Lo", not "Tove Lov". I understand, it is kind of confusing!
  • Oops, sorry for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who Lov offered "Love Ballad" to (you identify the person as "an artist" and I was just curious if we know exactly who this person is)? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands.  Comment: Sadly, no. Lo never revealed the name of the artist.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paparazzzi: Very strong list! I just have two rather minor comments and one clarification question. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments! Thank you so much for the review Face-grin.svg. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this! Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Ok, I'm going to take a look at your FLC. Regards Face-grin.svg. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thank you for everything! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What does "N/A" mean in the Artist column? Are these songs that were written but never recorded? How do we know about them?  Comment: Those songs are registered either on ASCAP or BMI, but it is not specified who has recorded them, or if they were written but not recorded. I don't know if you want me to create a note specifying that... --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding what "N/A" means to the key should be sufficient. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
  • Artists needs to sort under their surname (Template:Sortname is good for this). The Saturdays needs to sort under S. Yes check.svg Done
    • The artists are still sorting under their first names. Use {{Sortname|Tove|Lo}}, {{Sortname|Victoria|Justice}}, {{Sortname|Adam|Lambert}}, etc. to fix this. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to names like, say, Cinnamon Girl or Seven Lions. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
  • Similarly, songs and albums beginning with "The" need to sort under the second word in their title. Yes check.svg Done
  • "The Way That I Am" is still sorting under T rather than W. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
  • For sortable lists, every item needs to be wikilinked, rather than just the first example, in case sorting moves the linked item to the bottom of the table. Yes check.svg Done
  • The images are quite wide, and, on my screen at least, are squashing the table. Add |upright somewhere to each image's code to narrow them slightly.Yes check.svg Done
  • Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT.  Comment: Working on that...

Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @A Thousand Doors:, I have addressed your comments, I'm just working on your last comment (that is not a FL criterion). Thank you so much for your time Face-grin.svg Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: I tried to archive some of the links, and it is kinda impossible Face-sad.svg I don't know why, but the archive.org, archive.is and webcitation don't archive the sites (BMI and ASCAP), I don't know what to do in that case.Paparazzzi (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Vijay filmography

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Vijay is one of Tamil cinema's most iconic and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments from Editor2050
  • 1. I have mentioned this before but is it necessary to include something as trivial as "playback singing" in his actual filmography? Could this not be put on a separate table (or even separate Vijay discography article?) Credits like Velai and Thulli Thirintha Kaalam probably involved ten minute commitments for the actor. It certainly fails to give a clear and concise picture of what readers/viewers hope to truly find out - "which films Vijay has starred in".
  • 2. Is there any supposed order that the names for dual roles are supposed to be written in? Are they meant to be alphabetical or order of on-screen appearance? eg. see "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham" and "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham"? etc
  • 3. Wasn't Sukran an (extended) guest appearance? It was never publicised as a Vijay starrer.
  • 4. For Sivakasi - his real name "Muthappa" is listed without brackets, but in Nanban - his real name "Kosaksi Pasapugazh" is listed in brackets.

Editor 2050 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Editor 2050. BTW, there isn't any order for dual roles. I've listed them in alphabetical order of names.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Awesome work. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: So, support or neutral?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Sources look good too. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Editor 2050: Can you do a source review in that case? Officially of course.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • The lead image should an ALT description. I would also imagine that the caption should be more descriptive and include where the image was taken for the complete context.
  • I would clarify the last line of the lead's first paragraph. By "unsuccessful", do you mean commercially or critically or both?
  • What is "a lean period"? I would revise this/change the wording to make this clearer.
  • I would change "Uncredited role as child artist" in the table to "Uncredited role as a child artist".

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. As someone has never seen even one Indian film, it was an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the list and good luck with getting it promoted. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Pinging you for source review.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Just add it to the yellow box at the top of WP:FLC; someone will get to it soon (it doesn't have to be a director/delegate). --PresN 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vensatry

Regretful oppose

  • "Vijay is an Indian actor who works mainly in Tamil language films." - Given he hasn't acted in other languages, do we really need to use mainly here?
Done. Removed mainly.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "he made his debut as a lead actor in Tamil cinema with" - As it's pretty obvious that he was only acting in Tamil films to that point.
Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "where he was paired opposite Sangita Madhavan Nair." - Two things. He wasn't paired opposite her (they had a dream duet though). Next, I don't see a reason why the actress' name should be noted here? She wasn't a leading actress even at the peak of her career. It seems his pairing up with other actresses are randomly chosen. He made a hit pair with Simran, but a relatively lesser known actress is preferred to her.
Done. Removed her name.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The film's success established him as an up-and-coming actor in Tamil cinema" - This isn't backed up by either of the references.
Done. Removed the sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "His subsequent films, Fazil's Kadhalukku Mariyadhai (1997) and Vasanth's Nerrukku Ner (1997) were successful" - The latter was released first.
Done. Placed the latter before.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Vijay's portrayal of a singer who becomes responsible for the loss of his lover's eyesight in Thulladha Manamum Thullum" - He did not portray a singer but played a cable operator who "aspires" to become a singer. Furthermore, the "earned him the image of a romantic hero.[4][7]" bit isn't verified by the sources.
Done. Tweaked the sentence and found another source to support the romantic hero bit.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Vijay began the new millennium with a series of films in the romance genre such as Kushi and Priyamanavale, both of which were released in 2000 and were critical and commercial successes" - Millennium or 2000 - either one should suffice. Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres.
Done. Removed the 2000 bit. I don't know what yo mean by "Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres" though, Vensatry.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like Kushi and Priyamanavalae are sub genres of 'romance genres' (and not films). A punctuation can easily solve this issue. —Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He continued to achieve commercial success with..." - Did he?
Yeah. Both were successful and both the Sreedhar Pillai sources back them. Sivakasi was termed a super hit while Pokkiri was a blockbuster.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The latter garnered him his first Filmfare Award nomination for Best Actor." - First? I'm sure the source doesn't mention it.
Done. Removed first.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't Vettaikaran commercially successful?
2007-10 was undeniably the worst period of Vijay's filmi career (all five movies in this period: ATM, Kuruvi, Villu, Vettaikaaran and Sura bombed with critics, though Vettaikaaran must have been profitable due to the hype forced by Sun Pictures, unlike the other four). But it wasn't successful enough to break the flop streak I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Times of India source (Reference no. 21) Says Vijay's films from 2007-2010 were failures. But Sify says it is a hit.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Nanban mentioned in the lead? I'm sure it would rank among the top ten films of his career.
I'd mention it if he earned a major nomination for his performance. He did win the Ananda Vikatan award for Best Actor and Vijay Award for Entertainer of the Year for Nanban, but are they as significant as Filmfare, which (unfortunately) nominated the film in only two categories? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It probably did not get much significance just because it is a remake (almost frame-by-frame) of 3 Idiots. Thalapathy was brilliant in it though.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If Filmfare wins/nominations are going to be the 'yardstick', the lead would nearly be empty. Going by the same 'awards'/critical acclaim logic, how can one include Puli, Bhadri and the likes? —Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Written a few bits about Nanban.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "star-studded" is journalese
Done. Written "multi-starrer" instead.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we really have sources for the "becoming Vijay's highest grossing film to that point" bit?
Done. Removed the sentence with the reference.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The latter featured him along with Mohanlal; both films were successful." - I must say the usage of semicolon is incorrect.
Done. Tweaked this part.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Vijay featured as a tribal ... -> He featured as a tribal ...
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest you to remove the translations of reference titles as they are misleading and not really helpful. "Do you know why 'Ghilli' Vijay is being given 'Parrot'?" was an eye-roll moment for me!
I have changed the Ghilli reference title.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier, it's better to remove them as hardly serve a purpose. Besides, they are optional and can very well be explained at the talk page (if reviewers insist upon translating them). I'm not sure whether the outsiders would be able to get 'Kili'? (when some natives are unable to differentiate between the bird and the given term). Perhaps, better translate the articles rather than just their titles on the talk page. —Vensatry (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Removed the trans_title fields.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The lead needs to be more engaging. More than just list down his films, it should provide an authoritative overview of his career by explaining the kind of roles he's played in some (important) films. I've not checked the sources yet, but based on a few spotchecks in the lead this needs a thorough source review. —Vensatry (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments

  • Are you sure that his characters (as uncredited child artist) had no names?
Didn't he play the childhood character of Vijaykanth in some movies? Not a big deal if you're unable to confirm it though. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs. #1 and #3 don't mention the character names. You need to find sources for films supported by these refs. Sendhoorapandi, Deva, Rajavin Parvaiyile to name a few.
  • Character name for Poove Unakkaga isn't mentioned in the source.
  • For Kaalamellam Kaathiruppen, neither his role nor the director is mentioned in the ref.
This one is still unaddressed. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Found a reference for it.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the TOI ref. (that supports Nerukku Ner and Once More) needs replacement. Vijay's part in NN isn't covered in the source. Ditto with 'roles' as far as both films are concerned.
  • Character name is missing in the ref. for Kadhalukku Mariyathai.
  • The ref. for Ninaithen Vandhai does not even talk about the film.
Remove the 'parrot' ref. as it does not even talk about the film. —Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hindu ref. (for Priyamudan) doesn't cover role, year and director.
  • Year and role missing in Thulladha Manamum Thullum.

... I'm stopping here for now. I'm sure there are a few more (especially the ones centering around 2000). Be sure to check the remaining ones as well. —Vensatry (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Resolved your source review comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look tomorrow. —Vensatry (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

  • Sura in the lead is linked to Surah
Done. Redirected to the film.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For Rajavin Parvaiyile, you could replace the Cinema Junction Tamil link with this one as it seems a verified publisher.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Dinamalar link (for Nenjinile) talks about all of his films that released during that time except Nenjinile.
Removed link.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Role still missing for Minsara Kanna, Shahjahan, Pokkiri and ATM. Saravanan (for Villu) and Pulivendhan (for Puli) aren't verified in the sources.
Done. Rectified for all.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Can you point me out at least one instance where? I really can't spot it. Is it the references or sentences?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the references. Not just one but ten instances. —Vensatry (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vensatry: I have removed the spacings between the emdashes.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Accessdates are not needed for archived references.
Removed accessdates.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Kumar, S. R. Ashok should be listed as S. R, Ashok Kumar (Kumar is not his last name)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For some reason, the archived Hindu link - for Velayutham - doesn't work (the original link works though).
Done. Rearchived.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't we have a English source for Vijay 61?
Done. Replaced with English source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

—Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Krish
  • Support: After reading the list, I feel it meets all the criteria required for an FL.Krish | Talk 07:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Krish!. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll be reviewing this in the next few days. Please hold on any closure decisions before then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob
Comments from The Rambling Man

List of accolades received by Nightcrawler

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's another film accolades list. This one is for Nightcrawler a thriller film that stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a psychopath who records violent events late at night in Los Angeles. Fun stuff!

For anyone afraid of the list being too short, I asked Cowlibob, a major contributor to FLs on film accolades, if the list met notability requirements, and it was allowed. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Anyway, have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: After reading through the list several times, I did not find any errors. The prose in the lead is good, all of the references seem to be in order, and the images are all appropriate. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything seems good. Great job. - AffeL (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made a few moves to take into account unnecessary disambiguation. I'll review the content in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: The Online Film & Television Awards article was recently deleted, as it failed notability standards. Therefore, the 10 award nominations in this table were removed, bringing the total awards and nominations to 76. I still think this table is long enough to warrant its own list article. Also @Giants2008: I believe a consensus has been reached. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review
  • Passed, no concerns, though you should consider archiving your sources to avoid linkrot breaking them. Closing as promoted. --PresN 17:42, 3 April 2017 (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.

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

comments Ozzie10aaaa

perWikipedia:Featured_list_criteria

  • Criterion 1- is consistent with professional standard [4]
  • Criterion 3- a. covers the scope of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines very well[6]
b. consistent with Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and does not violate Wikipedia:Content_forking
  • Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?


--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Have adjusted the headers[7] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • perfect,and consistent with the rest of the list, thank you.
  • the other issue is images as indicated above (2-5 images) as our readers will be more interested when they see as well as read.[8] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay will pull in a few more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


as a result of [9] and [10][11][12][13][14][15] in reference to this Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates nomination I therefore


BlueRasberry
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. No evidence is provided that the WHO released the copyright to this creatively compiled list, nor is any argument made that this list is ineligible for copyright. This is an ordered ranking based on judgement, separating medicines which matter more from ones which matter less. The WHO's copyright policy is at http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/. They forbid anyone from having access to their health information with only some exceptions, and it seems that they do not find it essential for anyone to have access to their essential list of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry anything else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Support from bluerasberry

A Thousand Doors suggests that this article include more discussion of the items in the list. That user also suggests merging essential medicines to this article, saying "There isn't really a massive amount of content in Essential medicines anyway – a merge probably wouldn't be entirely unreasonable." I had these thoughts too, and I think other people would.

I do not think these articles should be merged because this article already has a large browser size Wikipedia:Article size and should not be made longer. Also, this list is complicated enough already, with 400-500 technical terms to maintain.

I agree that the "essential medicines" article is short but that article could be much longer. On the talk page there, I posted links to sources about the history of determining what is and is not an essential medicine, and to discussions of drug patents for essential medicines, and the impact of identifying essential medicines. Each one of those concepts probably passes Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines and could be its own Wikipedia article. Besides that, these concepts each apply regionally - so the story about history, patents, and impact of the essential medicine concept in India will be different from Brazil. It seems like there are sources to tell these stories from the perspectives of multiple countries.

There is another muddled concept here. This list is for the "model list", which is sort of general and global, whereas individual countries may have their own list. Like for example, a country with tropical diseases may need medicine which a colder country would not need, and both of those countries may have their own modified lists separate from the model list. There are thousands of papers published on this concept and it seems like at least 100 of them are comprehensive enough to cite. I am not aware of anyone with broader plans to summarize all this in Wikipedia, but combining the list with the concept compromises both. If this model list were combined with information about regional variation, then that confuses the purpose of the model list.

I am not bothered that only a few self-published sources are cited here. Typically on Wikipedia we establish notability and neutrality with third-party sources, but in this case, notability of this list is not in question and the WHO is the only authoritative source for the list.

I did question whether there should be a section about the history of revisions to this list. I would not mind it, but neither do I think it is essential. List articles do not always go into such detail, and I think that history of the concept is better placed in the "essential medicine" article, leaving this article to be a well-considered copy of the list.

The criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Points 3-6 I take for granted; the list is comprehensive, has the correct wiki-structure, follows Wikipedia's manual of style, and this is a non-controversial article. I will comment that not every featured list has established Wikipedia articles for all its list items, but this one does, and that is superb.

Criteria 1 is about the prose, which is suitable. Criteria 2 is the toughest one. I addressed the issue above by talking about what should and should not be in the article. I fail to recognize a sort of additional prose content which could be added to this article to complement the list. Right now, the lead introduces the concept, describes the ordering of the list, describes the historical list versions, and describes a derivative concept. There are other derivative concepts, particularly lists for countries, but I think it is fair to mention the children's list because that one too is a model list where as country lists are not. I am open to conversation but I say pass. ✓ Pass Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)



Support from RexxS

This is a commendably comprehensive list in Wikipedia terms – not just because of the breadth of its content, but because of the depth of coverage provided by all the linked articles on each individual medicine, a factor sometimes overlooked when assessing whether a list deserves to be described as "one of Wikipedia's best works". The contributors to those articles deserve our gratitude for the immense amount of work put into them as well as this list.

I usually try to assess lists for common breaches of accessibility compliance, and baring two minor concerns, I believe that the list meets our accessibility requirements in general:

  1. The list is properly structured with sections and headers meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Article structure;
  2. it contains no text that is too small to read per MOS:FONTSIZE;
  3. no use of colour makes text unreadable, per MOS:CONTRAST;
  4. no information is conveyed solely by use of colour, per WP:COLOR;

However, the use of the dagger typographical symbol † might be worth re-considering. Older versions of some of the most common screen readers don't read that symbol, although I'm told that support for many symbols has been improved in the latest versions of JAWS. To address that problem, we have a template {{†}} which substitutes an image and alt text that all screen readers can speak. The only other small concern is the lack of alt text in all five of the images, but as those images serve merely to illustrate the appearance of particular medicines, rather than making a point, the caption alone serves the main needs of alternative text. In these sort of cases, I wouldn't feel that the lack of alt text a sufficient issue to prevent promotion, although I'd naturally encourage editors to provide alt text where they feel able. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hum, the article uses {{ref}} which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that template {{ref}} is being misused as it's designed for each {{ref}} to have a corresponding {{note}}, rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Added alt text for completeness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS have switched to an "Alpha" symbol. Does that solve the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: That's likely to be an improvement, as most screen readers can make some sense of some Greek characters. You never really know unless you have the time and facilities to test large numbers of screen readers, and there are often settings that can be enabled to speak text that is not voiced by default. Anyway the web helps sometimes: for example, there's a resource at http://accessibleculture.org/research-files/character-references/jaws-we-all.php that gives a survey of what characters JAWS and Window-Eyes will speak. If you really, really want to be sure all screen readers will speak a symbol, you have to stick to normal text plus the symbols you get on a standard English keyboard, like *, #, $, etc. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you should change the symbol again, as one could spend forever trying to cater for every possible case. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'm sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but I really don't think this article is good enough just yet to be featured. I see that this candidacy has already achieved support from four editors, but I'm pretty sure that two of them have never even reviewed a FL before and one is apparently "not bothered" by the lack of sources, which raises something of a red flag for me.
I really don't think that this article is of as high a standard as it could be. As I've mentioned previously, there's very little in the way of prose – the Notes section is longer than the lead, which I don't think I've ever seen in a FL before. Speaking of which, the difference between core medicines and complementary medicines should actually be the in lead, not buried away in a note at the bottom.
The layout is a little uninspired – it's just the list itself with half a dozen images dotted about. The WHO structure this list in a table, which contains much more information – could that layout just be copied?
If nothing else, at the very least the lead image issue needs to be resolved, which, for my money, is this article's biggest issue. If that image isn't used yet by the WHO then including it in this article to illustrate this subject is original research. If it might be used by the WHO then it violates WP:CRYSTAL.
As I've said before, this was a challenging article to improve, as there are currently no similar FLs – when this article reaches FL status, it will probably set a precedent for similar lists. But I do think it should perhaps it would benefit from a thorough peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes getting images is an issue as getting WHO to adopt an open license is a slow effort. I guess all we can do right now is wait and see if they use the image unless you have a better one in mind.
World Health Day is now over. The lead does and has for some time discussed the difference between core and complementary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DarthBotto
Comments from DarthBotto
  • In the lead, the first sentence reads, "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is a list, proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO)..." It says it's a list that's a list. Would it perhaps be better to describe it as an inventory or catalog proposed by WHO?
    It is a list though and not an inventory (which is more physical in nature) or a catalog. We could use the term enumeration but IMO that is overly complicated. I have however linked to that term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that flies-- and we don't want to over-complicate, convolute or mislead with the opening descriptor. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The flow of the lead gets off the tracks in the third paragraph, where it blurts out a series of short statements with little synergy between one another, save for the connection that it says it is on a two-year basis, with the last one being in 2015, thereby implying that the upcoming one will be this year. Could you include a statement with a source about the upcoming list, if that is possible? Is there a special significance about the 2005 list that I am missing? Perhaps bridge the 2015 mention with the two-year mention, as well.
    Yes. A new list is supposedly coming out in a couple of months. I can find no sources talking about it though. Do you know of any? The reason why the number of items in the 2005 list is mention is because that is the only source I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking around and I cannot find anything that talks about the 20th list, I am sorry to say. Damn, that would really have been a great addition! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Details on the 20th list will be avaliable in a couple of months and will add them than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The organization of the sources is very well composed and reliable. The notes are succinct and so far as I can tell, aptly placed.
    • I do get nervous around the volume of primary sources, specifically Reference 1, but assuming that there are no easily accessible alternatives, I suppose it works.
    It is a statement by a major medical organizations and therefore fulfils WP:MEDRS. I could also add the Lancet review to that statement but not sure it is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of MEDRS. It was certainly not the most pertinent question in my mind, but this satisfies what little doubt I may have had. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the fourth paragraph makes me realize that the lead is somewhat disorganized. You have some history components between the third and fourth paragraph that is intertwined with content about the core functions of the list. Could you reorganize said paragraphs, so the third discusses core functions, like the fourth discusses the history?
    Adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Very well done! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • All in all, I don't believe extensive work will be necessary. The deterrents are in the flow and organization of the lead. If you could give these core points proper attention, I would be glad to support this FLC. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may say so myself, this list satisfies all six of the criteria for Featured List status- you have my Support vote. @Doc James: If you could spare a bit of time to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Giants2008, USer:PresN, and User:The Rambling Man was hoping to have a health related list on the main page for World Health Day on April 7th. The review has run slower than I had hoped but wondering your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • For us to schedule it now, this FLC would need to be promoted in the next day or two. I can't edit the TFL blurbs in the final couple of days before a main page appearance because I don't have the necessary admin tools. Colleagues, do you think a consensus has been achieved here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I am heading to the mountains tomorrow and likely will not be able to address any further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bagumba

I quickly went through the prose, which has the boilerplate text (e.g. HOF inductees, handedness, etc) that other baseball FLs possess. I'd like to see more a bit more text that uniquely puts .400 into context:

  • Add that .300 is considered a fairly good season already.
    • Added at the end of the 2nd sentence (supported by 2 refs). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To appreciate The Washington Post's comment about it being "unattainable", mention modern day players that came closest: Brett (.390), Gwynn (.394).
    • Done. Hope the wording of the additional sentence is okay and non-weasely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if/when I'll be able to do a complete review, but do want to at least see these addressed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed. It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.[18][19]—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
            • This issue is still unresolved. Similar point on "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark 'both mystical and unattainable'". The opinion is not limited to the Washington Post, and a paraphrase is sufficient as opposed to a verbatim quote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
              • The Washington Post quote has been resolved below with the comment from Giants2008. I also agree that with him that it should be attributed, since those are not common words used together by other sources to generically describe the .400 'club'. And those words are, in my opinion, the most fitting words to describe the club – can't think of any paraphrase that captures the same essence. I know I can't satisfy everyone, and have no inclination to act as a middle man between two editors who have differing views on wording or use of direct quotes from sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
              • As for "the standard of hitting excellence" quote, I again can't think of any other phrase that more appropriately captures the feat achieved by this group of players. I'm not trying to water down the achievement by quoting only one source. But I do think SABR is a source universally respected across the baseball world that it is capable of speaking not just for itself, but for the overwhelming baseball community —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Bagumba – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I did a Google search on "bat .400", and seems there should be more discussion on .400 being common before Williams, and why it is now considered out of reach.

  • Impact of relief pitchers.[20][21][22]
    • The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400.[23] They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence.[24] The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.[25]
    • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 3 players hit .400 in 1922[26]
    • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since[27]
    • Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The NY Times also mentioned Carew. Multiple experts in reliable sources mention Carew; it's not for us to do OR and create our own threshold of a round number.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not in favour of creating my own threshold. But there is a longstanding norm[28] for baseball FLs to only include players who have successfully attained the milestone, not the 'almost made it' players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.[29]
    • Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66[30]
    • 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does). And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Bagumba – I've responded to all the latest comments above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bloom6132: I've marked the old comments that are still outstanding, and left a comment or two above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – The one thing that stuck out at me in a negative way was saying that the Washington Post itself was responsible for the "both mystical and unattainable" quote. Since there is an author provided in the piece, this should be worded "The Washington Post's Barry Svrluga" or similar. Other that that, this is a nice-looking list, and I didn't spot anything else to complain about. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I've changed it to "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark …". Is that alright, or would it be better to identify the writer in question by name? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008 – I think I've addressed your comment satisfactorily. Any follow-up vote? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Sorry for the delay, but I've been so busy that I've barely been able to edit here lately. As I said, that was my only concern with an otherwise solid list. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the most thorough compilation of storms affecting the Arabian Peninsula. The region has been affected more and more in the past decade, with the three strongest storms on record in the adjacent Arabian Sea (Gonu, Phet, and Chapala) causing significant effects to the region. Add in a Yemeni civil war, the massive amounts of oil in the region, and a typically desert region getting lots of rainfall from storms, and you get some interesting effects. I believe the article is now ready for the rigors of the FLC process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Nice work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with the disclaimer that I've done some minor copyediting. I believe the article is a great resource that easily meets the FL criteria. My only suggestion would be to include a time period for the following: In 2014, an archaeology team discovered evidence that a major flood affected Ras Al Hadd in eastern Oman, possibly the result of a tsunami or a severe storm. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose until maps are provided. You guys have tons of maps showing paths, and I am sure you can create one for this list too. Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. I contacted @Cyclonebiskit: about it. He said he would be able to, but it just might be a few days. 03:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, keeps slipping my mind. Just need to compile a few more tracks then I'll be able to produce the map. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: just waiting on a few more track files to be converted into a format I can use with the map generator. Thought it would be a simple copy/paste job but turns out all of the pre-2007 systems needed to be re-transcribed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Any timescale? I know there's no deadline but this has been ongoing for a month now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: The program is having a lot of issues with these tracks for some reason. I'm getting busier and busier and not sure I'll have the time to sit down and redo all the tracks again within a reasonable amount of time. Any way this can be overlooked with the agreement that it will be eventually added into the article? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the original opposer has apparently "retired", I guess that's ok. I'll take a last look shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I hadn't realised that DarthBotto had supported contingent on the tracks being included as well. It looks like we're stuck here, although three supporters haven't mentioned the need for tracks, one opposes based on their absence, and one support is contingent on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
←@The Rambling Man: For whatever it's worth, I'm happy to reaffirm my support despite the requested map having not been added. In my experience working with regional tropical cyclone lists, the cumulative track maps are mostly for aesthetics with limited illustrative value. They can show you the prevailing storm track, but that's easy enough to explain via text. In most cases the map will be missing the storms that occurred prior to the start of the official tracking period, and for this region in particular, even the storms with documented tracks don't always have available intensity data, so many of the tracks will simply be gray instead of color-coded for strength. Add to this the fact that there's no way to identify individual storms in the mass of dots and lines, and then the map really doesn't have a lot to tell you. It's a nice thing to have to make the article look nice and professional, but I've never considered it strictly necessary, and I know it's not a universal feature of similar lists. Just my thoughts... – Juliancolton | Talk 22:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've decided to bump my support vote from contingent to good faith, with the assurance that the storm track will be included at the earliest convenience. The Rambling Man, you can count this as a support vote. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Alien characters

Nominator(s): DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page, which I have poured countless hours into, is ready, as it meets and exceeds the Featured list criteria. It is of professional writing standard, it has an engaging and current lead, it is comprehensive, it has an easy-to-navigate structure, it has a consistent style and it is stable, despite the fact that there is an upcoming sequel that will feature a whole new host of characters to be added near the bottom of the page. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't we wait until the new film is released? The page will change substantially in a few months. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I would reason that this page is in the same position as List of The Last of Us characters, in that it is stable and ready for Featured List status now, though it will have a short period of retrofitting in a few months, when the new installment hits. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I share the same concern as Mattximus about the upcoming release of a new film with a whole new cast of characters to be added to this list. I understand why you brought up List of The Last of Us characters, but that list was promoted in July 20, 2015 and the sequel was officially announced in 2016 (there were rumors about the sequel as far back as 2014, but it was officially confirmed after the list became a featured article). This is why I think these two cases are very different from one another, and I share the same concern listed above. However, I can also understand your point of view as it should not be that difficult to add the new characters to the list, but I am concerned that the amount of traffic that will mostly likely come to the page after the film's release may interfere with this somewhat. Hope this makes sense, and great job on the list as I can tell a lot of time and effort has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Firstly, I appreciate your compliments towards the quality of the page, as it truly has been a complete 180 from being nominated for deletion after being of poor quality year after year. No matter what happens with this nomination, your words are recognized and I know this page will be a Featured List this year, sooner or later. That being said, I maintain my perspective that the article will remain stable, given that the organizational structuring of the list. We'll see, however; if it's not passed this time, it will be after May. Thank you, again. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Thank you for your response, and I can definitely see this becoming a featured list sometime this year as it is very strong. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (and even newer to editing lists) so if other users determine that the upcoming film does not affect the stability of this list (as I would trust their word far more than mine), then please let me know and I would gladly provide a review. The Alien franchise is one of my favorite so it would fun to look this through when the time comes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus, Aoba47, there's no reason to delay reviewing the list in its current state. If it's complete and comprehensive right now, that's fine. Most lists will need to be updated, some annually, some substantially, some trivially. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man:@DarthBotto: Thank you for your message. I just wanted some confirmation either way as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, and even newer to working on lists. I apologize for any delay on my behalf. I will provide my review of the list by the end of today. I look forward to looking through this in detail. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the delay. I will get to this as soon as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Aoba47, The Rambling Man, thank you for your concern and clarification. I have appreciated the mutual respect in this review and with that note, no worries, Aoba47, as I look forward to reading your input. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • I might just be overthinking this so feel free to ignore this, but I am uncertain about the use of the word "character ensemble" in the first paragraph of the lead. I understand the meaning, but it seems odd to have the entire sentence be very in-universe in terms of providing a really strong summary of the setting/narrative and have a more production/out-of-universe word in the same space. I am mostly likely overthinking this, but let me know what you think.
I personally prefer including "character ensemble", but to test the waters, I'm trying "...the film series centers around different groups of people's struggle for survival..." I can't think of alternative wording that would not sound redundant. But, this should be suitable for completely in-universe context. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at it again, "character ensemble" is probably the best word choice. I cannot think of a better replacement as all of the characters come from a very diverse background and they cannot be easily group together under a single title so "character ensemble" is probably the easiest way to convey that idea to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with the table in the “Summary section”
Thank you so much for that! :) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the final sentence of the “Newt Jorden” subsection, would it better to revise it to the following: (The decision to kill Newt in Alien 3 was criticized by James Cameron, who called it a…). Kill off seems to colloquial for Wikipedia, I do not believe "opposed" is the best verbiage, and the comma between opposed and the James Cameron portion leads me to think there was a large opposition to the death than just Cameron's criticism.
That's a valid point and the reference is specifically referring to Cameron's, so I'm trying a different take: "The creative decision for Newt to die in Alien 3 was opposed by James Cameron, who referred to it as a "Temple of Doom slap in the face"." DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the “Amanda Ripley” subsection, I think the parts about Inglis reads a little awkwardly. You currently have one sentence about Inglis being the picture model at the end of the first paragraph and then a second sentence about Amanda's design being based on pictures of a young Inglis at the end of the second paragraph. I would imagine that these two sentences should be placed closer together as they inform one another rather than being separated by the second paragraph.
I've taken the content from the end of the first paragraph and introduced it to the start of the end content in the second paragraph. This way, the source supports it and it has flow with describing the performers. I briefly tried having it in the middle and even at the beginning, but it didn't work as well-- in my opinion, at least. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the “Christie” subsection, you use a similar sentence structure when introducing the source. It may be beneficial to add some variety to prevent this from coming across as a list.
    • It would appear as though the Guild of Copyeditors may have trimmed down fluff wording and the cloud to the silver lining would be that small things like this may seem redundant. I've taken the liberty of changing things up a bit. That being said, @Aoba47:, I'm very much back from my travels and am at work at this. I also wouldn't be concerned about the drastic edits the IP editor is trying to implement, as they have a history of not following consensus and copyvios on articles already, so they certainly don't represent any considerable wave. I abruptly put things back into order. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your response and take as much time as you need with this. I was not concerned about the edits being made as you have a very good handle of the list and I imagined that you would have this under control. I hope you had a wonderful time with your travels. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more for clarification purposes, but is there any other information on Sabra Hillard. Just want to confirm this as her subsection is significantly shorter than the others, which is fine if that is all there is out there about the character.
There were a couple of walls I ran into while rewriting this list and unfortunately, Hillard was the absolute worst, as she's notable enough within the context of the film to get mentioned, yet obscure enough for nobody to care. I removed her at least once, but upon consulting several administrators and standard editors, the consensus was for it to be included. Quite literally the only discussion about her part in the film was the analysis of the brief sex scene. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is understandable; the subsection on the character looks fine with that in mind then. I agree that she should be included in the list and I have definitely hit similar walls to that when working on articles on fictional characters. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the “Meredith Vickers”, do you think it would relevant to add criticism of her death sequence to balance it out? The running in a straight line bit was pretty ridiculous (even though I could see something like that playing out in real life). I was wondering as there is criticism to the character so I was not sure if it would be helpful to provide balance for the parts on the positive reception. Feel free to not do this as it is more of a suggestion/question on my part.
I'll try to have a crack at this after I get some sleep. She's an ice queen and deserves due service! ;) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me lol Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Aww-right, I've added the donut-rolling criticism. I think that with that, I've hit all your extenuating points! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Great work with the list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this FLC. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Just want to let you know that several edits have been made to the list from other users. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for notifying me. I'm traveling for the next day, but I will address this and all extenuating issues as soon as I am home. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @DarthBotto: Support: You have done an exceptional job with the list, especially given that its AfD was relatively recent. It was a very interesting and thorough list that made me want to go and watch some of the Alien movies, which is a success in my book. If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Good luck getting this promoted and I apologize for my earlier confusion.
@Aoba47: Absolutely, I would love to. Just let me wrap up a few things, like my Virgin America GAN and I can hop on over to give some input. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Thank you! Good luck with your GAN and with this nomination. I look forward to your feedback and to working with you further in the future if our paths cross on here again (I primarily focus on fictional characters/television/music). Have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Activity with this nomination has slowed down somewhat. Do you reckon there is a way to prompt more feedback and reviews to help secure the Featured List status? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate reviewing other nominations and politley noting this one is still looking for input! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive work on this page. But source 57. The Gametap source does not work for some reason, that page is not working. Everthing else is great. - AffeL (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I archived that source for you. So it works now. - AffeL (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Amazing catch, and thank you on all counts, AffeL! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

BaldBoris, Hurricanehink, Doc James, would you like to review this article, as a return of favor for my reviews of your nominations? I would really appreciate it! :) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The details of the people for 2017 is much less. Only a sentence for a few of them. Wondering if this could be expanded to balance this with the others? Or is it that since it hasn't been release no more can really be said? The article is amazingly comprehensive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Thank you for the feedback! At the moment, the Alien: Covenant section contains all the available information about the principal characters, with the blanks being the ones whose details have not yet been revealed. With how much I've been admittedly hovering over this article, I guarantee to expand every principal to have the standard two paragraphs that contain summaries, development and reception! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is an amazingly complete list. Support for FL. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've only looked at the MOS (including the table) and citation style. I've tidied up the source cites for the books, nothing contro I hope.
    • It is normal to put the sources below per WP:CITESHORT (the four FAs on today's front page all have them below).
    • I heard the Daily Mail banned earlier this year, so I would suggest replacing those. I can't actually find where it says it's banned but WP:PUS says "it should be used with caution".
    • Title cases should be consistant per WP:CS1, so no CAPS.
    • The long TOC makes the page long and leaves a large empty area, with some sections only having one line. It may be better to use {{Horizontal TOC}}.
      • I changed it to a Horizontal TOC. It's a big change- an adjustment, at that- but hopefully for the better! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's it from me. A very comprehensive "list", by that I mean it's more of an article, but it's an exception. BaldBoris 03:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @BaldBoris: With that, I think all your recommendations have been fulfilled! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

List of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC) and 2013 (FLC). The bulk of the work done on the tables was done by Cs-wolves and Ytfc23, I've just identified it as a possible FLC, tidied it up and then add the lead. BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment – In the second photo caption, is the first "stage" in "before the stage of the fourth stage" intentional, or was that meant to be "start"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo, thanks. BaldBoris 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Support – That was the only issue I found in an excellent piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

  • What is "HD" originated from?
    "Hors délais". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Do you think a footnote is needed? BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The "by section" tables should give out the team classification times+positions (below the director?).
    Do you mean "by team"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Can only benefit the reader I suppose. Something like below? Please change it to how think it looks best. BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Team Sky (SKY)
No. Rider Pos.
1  Chris Froome (GBR) DNF-5
2  Bernhard Eisel (AUT) 126
3  Vasil Kiryienka (BLR) 86
4  David López (ESP) 105
5  Mikel Nieve (ESP) 18
6  Danny Pate (USA) 153
7  Richie Porte (AUS) 23
8  Geraint Thomas (GBR) 22
9  Xabier Zandio (ESP) DNF-6
Directeur sportif: Nicolas Portal
Team classification: 7th; + 1h 40' 36"
Movistar Team (MOV)
No. Rider Pos.
11  Alejandro Valverde (ESP) 4
12  Imanol Erviti (ESP) 81
13  John Gadret (FRA) 19
14  Jesús Herrada (ESP) dagger 61
15  Beñat Intxausti (ESP) 114
16  Ion Izagirre (ESP) dagger 41
17  Rubén Plaza (ESP) 91
18  José Joaquín Rojas (ESP) DSQ-18
19  Giovanni Visconti (ITA) 37
Directeur sportif: José Luis Arrieta
Team classification: 3rd; + 1h 06' 10"
Team Katusha (KAT)
No. Rider Pos.
21  Joaquim Rodríguez (ESP) 54
22  Vladimir Isaichev (RUS) 157
23  Alexander Kristoff (NOR) 125
24  Luca Paolini (ITA) 136
25  Alexander Porsev (RUS) HD-13
26  Egor Silin (RUS) DNF-6
27  Gatis Smukulis (LAT) 100
28  Simon Špilak (SLO) DNF-17
29  Yuri Trofimov (RUS) 14
Directeur sportif: José Azevedo
Team classification: 17th; + 04h 02' 46

Thinking about, the section is really about the cyclists, so this would need to go in the teams section. Perhaps a wikitable simlar to List of 2016 UCI WorldTeams and riders#Teams overview. Instead of "Groupset" and "Bicycles", have the directeur sportif and the team classification place and deficit. This could mean we could do away with the "By team" section entirely. BaldBoris 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: I've made a table for the teams as mentioned above. Take a look at my sandbox to see what it could look like, also without the "By team" section. Pinging Giants2008 and The Rambling Man, as I know they'll want this off the urgent list. BaldBoris 23:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Legend
Code The UCI code of the team
Country The country registration of the team
Category The UCI category of the team
Time Deficit to the winner of the team classification
Teams of the 2014 Tour de France
Code Team Country Category Directeur sportif Time Ref
ALM Ag2r–La Mondiale  France WorldTeam Vincent Lavenu 270h 27' 02"
AST Astana  Kazakhstan WorldTeam Alexandre Shefer + 1h 36' 27"
BEL Belkin Pro Cycling  Netherlands WorldTeam Nico Verhoeven + 34' 46"
BMC BMC Racing Team  United States WorldTeam Yvon Ledanois + 1h 07' 51"
BSE Bretagne–Séché Environnement  France Professional Continental Emmanuel Hubert + 4h 52' 09"
CAN Cannondale  Italy WorldTeam Gilles Pauchard + 7h 20' 37"
COF Cofidis  France Professional Continental Didier Rous + 3h 37' 12"
EUC Team Europcar  France WorldTeam Andy Flickinger + 1h 34' 57"
FDJ FDJ.fr  France WorldTeam Thierry Bricaud + 2h 30' 37"
GIA Giant–Shimano  Netherlands WorldTeam Marc Reef + 7h 44' 45"
GRS Garmin–Sharp  United States WorldTeam Charly Wegelius + 5h 52' 54"
IAM IAM Cycling   Switzerland Professional Continental Eddy Seigneur + 3h 21' 32"
KAT Team Katusha  Russia WorldTeam José Azevedo + 4h 02' 46"
LAM Lampre–Merida  Italy WorldTeam Simone Pedrazzini + 2h 32' 46"
LTB Lotto–Belisol  Belgium WorldTeam Herman Frison + 3h 36' 07"
MOV Movistar Team  Spain WorldTeam José Luis Arrieta + 1h 06' 10"
TNE NetApp–Endura  Germany Professional Continental Enrico Poitschke + 3h 24' 11"
OGE Orica–GreenEDGE  Australia WorldTeam Matthew White + 7h 03' 46"
OPQ Omega Pharma–Quick-Step  Belgium WorldTeam Wilfried Peeters + 3h 26' 34"
SKY Team Sky  Great Britain WorldTeam Nicolas Portal + 1h 40' 36"
TCS Tinkoff–Saxo  Russia WorldTeam Steven de Iongh + 2h 59' 36"
TFR Trek Factory Racing  United States WorldTeam Kim Andersen + 2h 06' 00"
  • The teams section should have stylized jerseys listed too (you guys have something like {{Football kit}}?
    Stylized jerseys are purely decorative. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't want to go into too much detail but cycling jerseys/kit aren't the same as other pro sports teams. The majority of cycling teams are reliant on sponsorship, which can change every season, and thus their kits are a reflection of the team's sponsors (not plain colours like a football clubs). Regardless of this, I highly doubt we'll ever have all the kit images done, with the amount they change and the little amount of people able to make them. You can imagine the inconsistency. We currently use non-free images on the team's article, but nowhere else. BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Relpied to comments above. Can I ask why you changed the legend font size to 90%? Where's the MOS on this? BaldBoris 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing in MOS to support that, so I've restored the normal text size. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DarthBotto

Pinging BaldBoris, as I don't want this nomination to go stale!

  • What would you think about having a picture of either Chris Froome or Andre Greipel in the lead, directly above the map? It could say that while Froome won the race, Greipel secured his fourth victory with the completion of the final leg.
    This is a personal preference of mine; I've chosen to put images of all the classification winners in the "By starting number" section. The two others I have promoted (2012 and 2013) use the same. I do think believe in consistency though and think all the Grand Tour team list should all follow the same style. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The race was contested by 22 teams". Why not "22 teams competed in the race"?
    I can't find where but someone pointed this out to me at WP:NUMNOTES. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, I see: "Avoid beginning a sentence with figures". DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The number of riders allowed per squad was nine..." The wording is a little off, in my opinion. How about "Each squad was allowed nine riders"?
    I agree it's off, but I think the revision should be "Each team was allowed a squad of nine riders" or "Each squad was allowed a maximum of nine riders". The FL List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España uses "As each team was entitled to enter nine riders, the peloton...". BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would go for the latter of your two suggestions. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Of this, 47 were riding..." Would "Of them" be more appropriate, as we're talking about athletes? "This" sounds possessive of the number, rather than the individuals themselves. Or, was this your intention?
    I think I just recycled it from another. During the FAC of the 2012 Tour de France, Mike Christie changed it from "Of this" to "Of these" [31]. So, it's between "them" or "these"? BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think "these" is better -- starting a sentence with "Of them, ..." sounds very unnatural to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would settle for "these". DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond this nitpicking, I am very impressed with the composition and referencing of the lead. I can see that you have put a large amount of effort into getting it polished and up to snuff.
  • The references would appear to be in good order. Previous Featured List designations use similar sources with a similar ratio of first to third party ones. Good job!
  • There is very little work to be done before you have my support vote. I ask that you at least look into having a good picture in the lead, as well as applying the minute suggestions I have in mind. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments DarthBotto, I had almost forgotten about this myself. Your ping to me didn't work BTW. BaldBoris 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a damn shame! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@BaldBoris: Thank you for being so reasonable, methodical and showing of logic behind addressing my concerns. You hereby have my Support for Featured List status. When you have a little time, I would love it if you could return the favor at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, (which is almost as old as this one! :P). DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film)

Notified: DrNegative, WikiProject Film

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a number of issues. The main table needs to be reformatted to fit current standards. There are numerous dead links per [[32]], some non notable awards such Phoenix Film Critics Society, Oklahoma, and Las Vegas are included. Uses some non reliable references such Alt Film Guide, Get the Big Picture and The Daily Mail, the references are also not formatted correctly e.g. Ref 68. No Alt text for main image. Cowlibob (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and save this one. The current issues with this list don't seem to be too bad, and could probably be fixed in a day or so. I haven't looked at the prose yet, but I'll get around to the list later today. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, the table has been reformatted to meet current standards. I also added an alt text, filled in some missing references, and have started working on the deadlinks. I'll also been finding replacements for non reliable sources soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo: Good work so far, let me know when you're finished. Cowlibob (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

List of works by Sax Rohmer

Notified: WikiProject Bibliographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it contains a section of entirely uncited information reliant on nothing but original research. An editor is insisting that it remains, which means that this article now fails the criteria necessary to be classed as one of WP's best. - The Bounder (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)