Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your 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. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1981[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thus far 31 of these country number ones lists have been promoted to FL and another one looks on course, so here is what I hope will be #33, covering a year in which the King of Rock and Roll had a country number one more than three years after he died...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A new list from the series of World Heritage Sites, it follows the standard format, it is up-to-date and complete. I have currently the Austria nomination open but I was told that it is fine to go with the next nomination since the support there is solid. Probably it will require some copyediting but I can take care of it during the nomination process. Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • "practiced par force hunting, hunting with hounds." Should be colon not comma
  • Kujataa: Replace hyphen with a dash
  • Can you make the descriptions more original please? Now I feel like I've been negligent on this in previous reviews but most of them are extremely close paraphrases of the general descriptions on the UNESCO website. Lists I've written have also come mainly from the primary sources but I try to mix it up a bit more with info inspired from our WP article and subpages of the source, rather than doing just enough to avoid a copyright violation. See if you can summarize what's in the "Outstanding Universal Value" sections of the website in your own voice instead of relying on rewriting the brief description at the top, even if that's the highlights. Reywas92Talk 19:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of cyclists with a cycling-related death[edit]

Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it since I stumbled upon it in July 2010 - this is what it looked like back then. I think it has been improved, statements have been researched, the main Table is sortable, the images have alt texts and so on. The memorializing of cyclists who die while participating in races or while training is an important part of cycling's culture. These cyclists and their feats are remembered by cycling fans and historians of the sport, their memorials are places of pilgrimage. I confess - this has been the only List I have made meaningful contributions to, I've gotten some articles to WP:GAs but this List has always been something special to me. I feel a personal responsibility to these men and women - they deserve verifiable facts about their lives and that is what I have tried to do. Thanks in advance for all your feedback on how to improve this List. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

comments
  • fix dashes.
    • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the dash-placeholder for the blank images? I fixed that down below. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to "-" to "–" some i.e. Case 36-74. Walrave and Koch -> Case 36–74. Walrave and Koch.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on it - this will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Went through and checked all the hypens/dashes both dash-em & dash-en, adjusted when necessary. So far as I can tell (and I might have missed some), the hyphens that are left aren't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink For future reference, install this script and you can fix dashes with one button. – zmbro (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • remove unused "publisher=" from refs.
  • publisher=ABC (newspaper) - > ABC
  • |title=Piet-Dickentmann.de -> Piet Dickentman biography
  • no shouting in ref.
    • Heh, ok, I just took the refs/titles exactly as I found them, so if a title was all in caps (not unusual in early 20th C newspapers for instance) I left it alone but Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • archive sources.
    • So. Just to make sure I understand before I set down this long road...I need to convert the approximately 160 simple cite webs to wayback urls, correct? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You can use this tool [1].___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Working on this one too, it'll take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cycling related deaths including professionals who died during training section (why are some date in brackets and some are not)
    • Are you referring to some being set off by periods? I have made the date-style in that section consistent - does that address your concerns? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring below the image some dates have brackets on them however other two don't.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh! You're referring to the 4 photos in the training section. The parentheses for the 2 photos are a stylistic choice for those photos - I didn't have a firm date for them, just a decade for the one and a year for the other. The dates without parentheses are for the two dated photos. Using the parentheses for this gallery isn't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • in the table it contains dash, some don't have the dash
    • Done. The dash is a placeholder for possible photos. Which, sadly, can be very hard to find. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • overlinking in table
    • I need more info on this particular bullet point, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying is overlinked. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are overlinked.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Countries are overlinked...do you mean in the Nationality section of the table, that just the Name of the country should be linked and the flags should be unlinked? Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

────────── For example you mention France which is linked, than you mention France which linked too.. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking (with Flag & country) has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • remove format=mdy from the article. it already says it on top.
    • With the dts coding, that's the way the table was set up, so when people put dates in they all come out the same - keeps things simple. Every so often, the List sees a flurry of activity. That code should stay there so if folks are adding a new entry to the table section they can just follow the other entries as a template above. I did remove df=mdy-all from where I found that parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it says MDY but it isn't consistent i.e. "collided with his pacer during a 11 October 1903 race on the Dresden"
    • Fixed what I could find. Are there any others? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
comments ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
* publisher=Channel News Asia |accessdate=7 August 2019 |date=4 August 2018 * website=California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside |publisher=(Los Angeles Herald, Volume XXX, Number 236, 31 May 1903) |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=31 May 1903 * publisher=The Sydney Mail |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=28 September 1904 * website=Newspapers.Com|accessdate=15 August 2019 |pages=1, 2 |date=22 June 1907 * has a different date of death - 18 October 1908. See "Opgevouwen * to death on his bike") |accessdate=August 18, 2019 |date=22 February 2012 * Geschiedenis24/History 24/Nederland 24 |accessdate=17 August 2019 * ongeluk-in-Het-Stadion.html |archivedate=11 August 2011 |date=5 August 2007 * History Workshop Journal |accessdate=17 August 2019 |page=166 |date=18 January 2015 * Melbourne, Victoria |date=12 August 1936 |page=10 * The Sporting Globe]] |location=Melbourne, Victoria |date=10 December 1938 * Cyclingarchives.com |date=1915-04-29 |accessdate=2012-07-17 * in sources as being in 2 different months in 1952 - 28 July * publisher=ABC |accessdate=17 August 2019 |date=5 August 1958 * publisher=BBC|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=18 July 2005 * =The Independent|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=19 July 1995 * 20Deaths%20ABC.pdf|archive-date=8 September 2008 * publisher=Cycling News |accessdate=17 August 2019 * website=VeloNews.com|accessdate=2019-03-11 * language=fr |date=12 February 2014 |url-status * round of Enduro World Series|last=|first=|date=2015-08-02|website=VeloNews.com|publisher=|language=en-US|access-date=2016-09-26 * publisher=Farrelly-Atkinson Limited|accessdate=7 April 2017 * publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|accessdate=31 March 2017 * Immediate Media Limited|accessdate=29 April 2017 * Roubaix | work=CyclingNews.com | date=8 April 2018 | accessdate=8 April 2018 * Belgian elite race incident|work=CyclingNews|date=19 March 2019|accessdate=9 August 2019 * heart attack|first=Jonny|last=Long|date=26 April 2019|website=Cycling Weekly|accessdate=6 May 2019 * race|last=Williams |first=David |work=CNN|date=30 July 2019|accessdate=7 August 2019 * |work=CyclingNews|date=5 August 2019|accessdate=5 August 2019 * Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> add comma. * accident |publisher=ESPN |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16 * cyclingnews.com |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16}} * death |title=Driver to face trial over Burry Stander's death |publisher=Times LIVE |date=2013-07-30 |accessdate=2014-08-12 * in-training-crash_304886|accessdate=3 October 2013|publisher=Velonews|date=3 October 2013 * overreden door bus aan Noxx|date=18 February 2014|accessdate=18 February 2014 * dies from crash injuries] Julia Wright, 28/12/2016, CBC news * Gazzetta dello Sport|date=22 April 2017 * publisher = news.com.au | accessdate=22 December 2017 
Ah, within the references. I think I got them all - Done.Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • add a short description.
    • If you are referring to Tim Johnson, Josef Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf (all in 1907), Hans Schneider (1920) and maybe any others I am missing atm the early cyclists are especially difficult to find out any details about. What you see is literally what I have been able to find. I am waiting on a German collaborator who has access to original documents to see if there is possibly any additional information available, but the bare bones of what is there might be all that we can get. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to Wikipedia:Short description which you put at top of a page. use one like {{Short description|List of deaths of cyclists during competition or training date.}}___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Duh on me - of course. Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • roughly translates to "Verbist, if you hadn’t ridden your bike, you may not have ended up in a coffin." -> hadn't
    • ?Sorry I don't understand this one...what you posted above is identical to what is already there... Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • pacing event, Stuart’s front tyre blew -> Stuart's
    • ?Don't understand...I changed the spelling of tyre but? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Casarotto's
    • ?I am not sure what issues you are pointing out with this and the previous two bullet points. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I was pointing out " ’ " to " ' " -> Casarotto’s -> Casarotto's.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
these are the some issues.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes, greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink I have added some more notes.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA I have fixed all the points above with the exception of three two areas: I am still working on archiving sources & fixing dashes and I have a pending question about what you specifically mean by overlinking in the Table. Re; overlinking - I don't want to change something if it isn't what you're concerned about. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Finished hyphens/dashes fixes, I think I caught them all. Am taking a break but hope to finish up sometime next week. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Much thanks to Zmbro for lending a hand. The hyphens/dash-em/dash-ens should all be corrected now. Shearonink (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

────────── for archiving ref, you can use this [2] which automaticly archives all the refs in the page. Also see the comments that I've left above.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA I think of your issues posted above have now been fixed. Archive cites, dates, overlinking, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Shearonink thanks for fixing the issues. Also you're welcomed to review my FLC sumbsion here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sanjay Dutt filmography/archive1___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • some further comments.
  • Scheuermann posed on bicycle from between 1905–1906. -> between 1905 and 1906.
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stahurskaya Dies In Training Accident, Says Coach -> Stahurskaya Dies in Training Accident, Says Coach
? I'm sorry but I don't see what you are stating needs to be changed here... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Head injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Head injuries claim Casarotto's life
Done. I must say, though, that I am such a purist on quoting text & material that I don't even like to change punctuation, say from a ' to a ' in what had been an exact rendition of a title... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • shrines to cycling’s fallen heroes -> shrines to cycling's fallen heroes are scattered
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> Hugh McLean, September 3, 1909
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Julia Wright, 28/12/2016 -> Julia Wright, December 28, 2016
Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
some comments added.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment
  • One obvious thing that jumps out at me - any particular reason why one section is a table but the other is just bullet points.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The List has gone through many generations of designs. The present layout makes complete sense to me though - splitting the two sections - the during a race and the during training - into two completely different designs sets them off as being different. The Table is laid out as just the facts, all those deaths happened during a race when cyclists are racing on a public roadway or on a track in supposedly controlled environments surrounded by fellow cyclist and with safety protocols. And yet...and yet they sometimes have accidents, and yet sometimes they die. The deaths in the during training/bullet point section happened on mostly everyday roads in normal everyday environments. The individual listings, the sheer numbers of professionals or competitive/notable amateurs, the people who have died during an otherwise normal day while on our shared roadways - especially since 1994 - is mind-boggling. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude See my response on this matter to Zmbro below. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I take your point below that FLs have differing styles, but I can't see any compelling reason to have differing styles within the same article when the subject matter is essentially the same. For example, in a musician's discography, I wouldn't expect to see the albums in a table but the singles done as bullet points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude (& also zmbro per a comment below) I see what you're saying about a discography, that does make sense. But I've been thinking about this and those discography Lists are all about one person's or one band's performances (and since the content used in a single is repeated in its album the actual digital files or recordings in these cases are not just essentially the same, they are exactly the same, the presentation is just different). The discography Lists are not about different activities by different people. To my mind - though they are (of course) related - racing is not the same as training, being in a race is not the same as being on a public road, and dying months or years from the aftereffects of a horrific accident that happened during a race is essentially different from dying instantaneously during a race. And regarding not expecting...why not? There are already Featured Lists that co-mingle text/bullet-point lists with Tables like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (especially between their Projects in development sections and various Table sections) and Audie Murphy honors and awards. Does co-mingling Tables + bullet-point lists/text paragraphs in a List specifically go against or specifically not fulfill WP:FLCR? Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well they could be said to be the same but they don't seem the same to me. An overwhelming number of the bullet-list deaths happened on regular roads, usually in completely-mixed traffic. To set the deaths off as being in different conditions is not a compelling reason? Is there a compelling reason to have all the information presented in exactly the same way in different sections? Let's say that the different death conditions are not a compelling reason to have the sections be different...then what is the compelling reason to have it all be the same. The WP:FLCR says about structure: "It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities." It doesn't say table sort facilities are required. The text list seems as easy to navigate as the table, they're just different, neither one is better over the other. I don't understand why they must be the same...I'll have to think on this quite e a bit more. Shearonink (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro

Since I've been helping you out with dashes and archiving I'll go ahead and leave some thoughts:

  • To me, the lead seems a little short, especially for how long a list this is. Maybe add a paragraph or two on notable cyclists who have died and/or the most common causes of death? Just some ideas
I'll have to work on that. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. I expanded on the concepts of *different rates of death at different eras and *the memorializing of dead cyclists by fans. Take a look and tell me what you think. Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the image col would look better after the name col (have the names first); that's how I've seen many other lists of this nature
  • Having "Notes" as the heading seems a little broad, as most individuals have their location of death first then notes, while others only have location of death and others have none at all and just a reference. Perhaps change it to "Location of death and notes"?
Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be interesting to see the ages everyone died at. I know that might take a while but having just their death date and no birth date seems a little odd (to me at least). Doesn't have to be its own col, maybe below the death date.
I agree, it would be interesting but it might not be feasible to have an age for everyone, especially for some of the early cyclists - for a lot of them there just isn't any more information than what is already here. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Going along with a previous point, some notes, like Hubert Sevenich, read "Died as a result of a collision with a pacing motorcycle during a race at the track in Brunswick, Germany." (a complete sentence) while others, like Josef Schwarzer just read "Düsseldorf track". Another one reads "Tour of Portugal. Died of dehydration during race." instead of "Died of dehydration during the race at the 1958 Tour of Portugal." I'd make them all complete sentences. A good reference is how User:Dudley Miles has been crafting his lists on SSSIs, etc. (see List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire for a good example (how there's a complete description for each site))
Will work on that, I agree. Should have it done within the next day or two. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll do what re-writing & editing that I can but there is something that I must mention. Many of the early cyclists - starting with Hubert Sevenich in 1905, Tim Johnson/Josef Schwarzer/Ernst Wolf in 1907, Theile (1911), Bachmann/Lange/Kraft/Max Hansen in 1913 and so on - what you see here in this List is probably all there is. Many of these early cyclists, especially the Germans, only seem to have received coverage in Sport-Album der Rad-Welt a German-language sports-newspaper which is (so far as I know) only available in Germany, is printed in German, and only available in its physical form. I would have loved to included more information on the individuals who only have a place of death listed but in many cases it is not accessible to me and is apparently only available to librarians who have access to certain archives. In Germany. I will do what I can to coax the fragments into complete sentences but I think you should know that some of what you're asking of me just might not be possible. Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Have finished re-crafting the following:
  • Andrei Kivilev
  • Brett Malin
  • Garrett Lemire
  • Juan Barrero
  • Tim Pauwels
  • Alessio Galletti
  • Bob Breedlove
The following entries with somewhat-truncated "Died of" sections have references that are in 1)German, 2)Only accessible in paper form, 4)only accessible to researchers & librarians in archives in Germany, & use either Sport-Album der Rad-Welt or Illustrierter Radrennsport. Giving more details on the following's manner of death, etc. might prove to be impossible:
Tim Johnson Track cyclist (coach), Ernst Wolf, Josef Schwarzer - 1907, Fritz Theile - 1911, Max Hansen - 1913, Bachmann & Lange - 1913, Hans Schneider and Emanuel Kudela - 1920, Franz Krupkat - 1927, Emil Richli - 1934.
I have been trying to find more details but it is proving to be very difficult to find out any information beyond the bare-bones/facts about these cyclists already posted because of the source-material being used as references and the way the sources were initially posted. Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA and zmbro I've done all that I can do with the "Location of death and additional information" parameter for the following cyclists:
  • Huhndorf, Tim Johnson, Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf, Fritz Theile, Hans Bachmann, Hans Lange, August Kraft, Max Hansen, Max Bauer, Hans Schneider, Kudela, Walter Ebert, Franz Krupkat, Emil Richli, and Stefan Veger.
I am still working on:
  • Kaminski, Ravasio, Connie Meijer, Saúl Morales, Espinosa, Manuel Galera, Jean-Pierre Monseré, Valentín Uriona, and José Samyn. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some individuals don't have a competitive status listed. Some of these individuals have WP pages, such as Stan Ockers, which says he was a "Belgian professional racing cyclist." That sounds like a status to me, right? I'd make sure there's a status for everyone where applicable, and if not, just put "N/A"
I'll work on that, just got overlooked. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude, it's weird seeing one section in a table and another in prose. I think they should both be in a table
I'll have to think about that. Before I nominated this List as an FLC, I looked through various Featured Lists and I realized something...there are many different forms in Featured Lists - some are one big Table (List of tallest buildings in New York City), some are in Separate Tables (List of Mesopotamian deities and List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse), some are bullet Lists-only or have paragraphs about each separate subject or sub-section (List of culinary nuts, List of vegetable oils, and Snow in Florida), some seem short (Robot Hall of Fame - File size: 131 kB) and (List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis - File size: 112 kB), some are long(List of West Virginia state parks - File size: 599 kB), some have a short lead section (Ed Chynoweth Cup and List of retired Pacific typhoon names), some have linked sections in table without extensive text (Ed Chynoweth Cup again)...I understand other editors' hesitancy about the present form but...I'll have to think about it. Just because WP maybe hasn't done it before doesn't mean we can't have different but acceptable forms for Featured Lists. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see above reply to ChrisTheDude. I've pinged you on it to make it easier for you to find. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe this was mentioned previously but date formats should be consistent – note 8 and 16 are UK-style while the rest of the articles is US-style (there's also a script to help with that)
Date-issues have all now been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what I got so far. I'm sorry if this may seem overwhelming but I'm more than happy to help out when I'm available. Best of luck :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Table vs bullet points[edit]

@Shearonink: @Zmbro: As two of us have raised this concern, I thought it might be worth centralising the discussion in its own section rather than having it in two separate places above. To my mind having half the list in a table and half as bullet points looks a mess. The second section could easily be converted to a table and then the article would look much more polished and much closer to exemplifying WP's best work (IMO). I personally don't believe that the slightly different scope of the two sections justifies having them in wildly differing formats, but that is just my opinion and I am prepared to be swayed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts. It just never occurred to me in all the years I have worked on this List that the different styles of the two main sections would be a concern. To me, as the List's structure exists right now, everything simply fits. I dunno, I suppose I could possibly even convert the table to a bullet-list so the different sections would be in the same format. Maybe, but anyway, I'm taking a few days off to think about it. Thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally think tables look better in these types of lists but that's just me. – zmbro (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Lana Turner performances and awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is properly sourced, covers the subject's entire filmography, and has appropriate images. Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (and appeared in several films for the studio before signing a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), I would us the exact number rather than "several".
  • I do not think the wikilink for "comedy film" is necessary.
  • For this part (by casting her in several youth-oriented comedies and musicals), I would also wikilink "musicals" to "musical film" since "comedies" is wikilinked.
  • For this part (including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941),), I would replace the first comma with "and".
  • I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
  • I would wikilink "film noir" since "comedies" was wikilinked the previous paragraph so it would be consistent to wikilink all genres.
  • The lead should have references. Since there are several parts that require citations like Lana's discovery at age 16. Additionally, claims like (Turner's role as a femme fatale in the film noir The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) advanced her career significantly and established her as a dramatic actress.) needs a reference. I would add sources for every sentence in the lead. See a similar list, List of Emily Blunt performances, which includes these references.
  • For this part (before being cast in a recurring guest role on the television series Falcon Crest between 1982 to 1983), I would clarify that Falcon Crest was a soap opera.
  • I have never seen a box office parameter in a filmography list so I would remove it.
  • Since the tables are sortable, everything should be wikilinked (lik Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros.).
  • Since there is an entire section devoted to Lana's radio work, then it should be mentioned in the lead.

I hope this helps. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • In the whole lead, only one sentence is sourced - pretty much everything else needs sourcing
  • "including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941)" - if there's only two examples listed, then they should be separated by "and", not a comma
  • Personally I would combine the "By decade" film tables into one
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude and Aoba47: Hello all, I've addressed these concerns above--for some reason it never occurred to me that leads for list articles needed citations, as the contents of the article don't adequately source the summary of the lead. Long story short, I've added appropriate sources for all of the sentences in the lead, aside from the film count in the opening sentence, which is self-evident (and sourced throughout). --Drown Soda (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Banana Fish episodes[edit]

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

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

Comments
  • "(alternately stylized as BANANA FISH)" - is this needed? If all it means is that the title is shown in capitals, I think it is unnecessary. Coronation Street has its title shown in caps in its opening sequence, but I don't think the lead needs to say "(alternately stylized as CORONATION STREET)"
  • "although detectives Jenkins and Dickenson believe he is innocent, Evanstine arrests Ash" - presumably Evanstine is a third detective? Might be worth saying "their colleague Evanstine"..........
  • "used as a frontfor a" - missing space between two words
  • "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, the five men visit Ash's family home" - that makes a total of nine men, which I don't think is what you mean. Best to just say "Together with Shorter, Max, Eiji and Ibe, Ash visit s his family home"
  • "Shorter later discovers that the Alexis Dawson" - don't think the word "the" is needed there
  • "the then kills Abraham" - seems to be at least one word missing here
  • "the National Health Institute, federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim" => "the National Health Institute, a federal health facility run by Dr. Mannerheim"
  • Spelling of Blanca suddenly changes to Blanka (and then later back to Blanca)
  • "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire Eduardo Foxx's group of mercenaries and former members of the French Foreign Legion, to capture Ash" - comma after Legion not needed
  • "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so" => "Meanwhile, Lao Yen-Thai, Sing's half-brother, who has never forgiven Ash for killing Shorter, is ordered by Yut-Lung to kill Eiji, though he refuses to do so"
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A few further comments
  • The image seems to have disappeared?
  • I can see both "the group prepares" and "the group use" (eps 5 and 6) - is a group a plural or singular noun in the form of English in which the article is written?
  • "After visiting to Max's ex-wife" => "After visiting Max's ex-wife"
  • "discovers that young man" => "discovers that the young man"
  • "Golzine and Yut-Lung hires the militia of Eduardo Foxx" => "Golzine and Yut-Lung hire the militia of Eduardo Foxx"
  • All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've incorporated these changes. Looks like the infobox was removed by an intervening edit, so I've re-added the image. Morgan695 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a massive pedant, which I am sure you find very irksome, but in episodes 5, 6 and 7 I can still see four uses of "the group [verb]" and in two cases the verb is singular and in the other two it's plural. I would just fix them, but I am not sure which version of English the article is written in (American?) so I am not 100% sure which usage is correct. Sorry again...... :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

  • @User:Aoba47 Thank you for your review, and I'm happy to hear you learned more about the series from doing it. I've incorporated the citation and copy edits you suggested; a key visual is essentially a piece of promotional art, so I've used that word as a more widely-recognized alternative. Re: the citation in "The Catcher In The Rye," I added it awhile ago because this article and Banana Fish were the subject of a quasi-trolling edit war over whether the series truly ends with the protagonist dying; the citation clarifies the plot directly from the creator of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything, and that all makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. It was a pleasure to read this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. However, I understand if you do not have the time or interest so do not feel pressured to do so. Either way, good luck with this nomination and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1987[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

  • Thanks for your comments. I will endeavour to take a look at your FAC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – looks great as always. Care to check out Ojorojo and I's new FLC? – zmbro (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Will do. I am working my way through the eight FLCs which were started while I was away on holiday, and will get to that one in the fullness of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jimi Hendrix[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) and – zmbro (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

After a previous failed nomination, User:Ojorojo and I have resolved the differences we had from that nomination and have collaborated extensively over the past few months into what we feel is FL worthy. Hendrix is known as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, and we made sure to make that known. We also decided to split the table into songs released during his lifetime and songs released posthumously, as we feel his most well-known songs were pre-1970, as well as most of his posthumous catalogue not being majorly well-known. As always, we'll take any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! – zmbro (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "However, Hendrix supplied his own interpretations, " => "Hendrix supplied his own interpretations, however"
  • "as well as more the contemporary rock" - think a couple of these words are in the wrong order
  • "Songs, such as "Freedom"" - don't need that comma
  • "nonetheless has become part of his recording legacy" => "nonetheless it has become part of his recording legacy"
  • "A majority of Hendrix's song catalogue" => "The majority of Hendrix's song catalogue"
  • I would put the notes about alternate titles (Instrumental Solo, etc) against both listings, that way whichever one comes first will always have the note and readers don't have to scroll down to the other
  • When sorting by title, "...And the Gods Made Love" comes at the end because of the dots - this should sort under A.
  • "The Stars That Play with Laughing Sam's Dice" also sorts at the end when sorting by title but I have no idea why
  • Stone Free is missing its opening "
  • Refs against the last sentence of the Songs released posthumously section are in the wrong order numerically
  • Might be worth clarifying that this section contains (I presume) only songs from the Douglas and Experience Hendrix releases and not the nine million other albums of dubious provenance released since his death. Or if it does include tracks from other releases, clarify which.
    Clarified: all are official, but kept it simple. There are others including by Kramer and Mitchell, Michael Jeffery, John Jansen, and Eric Blackstead, but thought this was too much detail. If it helps, I'll change it. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Same comments as above about multiple title/see also entries
  • When sorting the second table by title, "The Little Drummer Boy" / "Silent Night", "The Queen" and "The Sunshine of Your Love" all appear at the end, again not sure why.
  • Note Z - "Up from the Skies" was as a single in the US - missing word there
  • Note AQ - "Hey Baby" is sometimes titled "New Rising Sun", although that is also the title of different earlier demo => "a different...."
  • Note BE - "Straight Ahead" was titled "Pass It On (Straight Ahead)" on Live at Berkeley - in that case should there not be a listing for "Pass It On (Straight Ahead)" as per other alternate titles?
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Everything should be taken care of. Sorry it took a while, been pretty busy irl lately. – zmbro (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Austria international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I currently have one FLC active however, it currently has three supports and no outstanding comments so I believe it's OK to move ahead nominate a new page. This is another international player list, this time a slightly longer one given the history of the nation. I believe it meets the standards of the previous lists and is ready for FLC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "The team is governed [....] and compete" - singular/plural disagreement
  • "Austria have played 777 international matches since its debut" - and again
  • "including three hat-tricks and six braces" - "brace" is not wikilinked, and I suspect many people would not know what it means
  • "his final international goal but, Horvath went on to score two more goals" - I think the comma should be before "but", not after
  • "If the number of caps are equal" - the subject of the sentence is "number", which is a singular noun, so plural verb is inappropriate
  • Note a (at least on my screen) has a line break in it. Can't see any need for this.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review Chris, I've amended all of the issues above I believe. Although, I can't see a line break on either my mobile or laptop? Do you know what's causing it? Kosack (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the issue with the note. I would still like to see "brace" (in paragraph 2) either wikilinked to somewhere or else clarified in prose, as I don't think every reader will necessarily know what it means..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Woops, thought I'd added that in for some reason. Linked it now. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Basshunter discography[edit]

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

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

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Basshunter's second single" => in the table it's his third single
    •  Done. Numeration could be removed anyway. Eurohunter (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was also certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" => "It was also certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry"
  • "was certified gold by British Phonographic Industry" => "was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry"
  • "like the single was certified platinum by British Phonographic Industry" - guess ;-)
  • "The album was certified silver by British Phonographic Industry" - ;-)
  • "the tracks "Go Down Now"" =>: "and the tracks "Go Down Now""
  • That's what I have so far........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

  • I support this for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of battleships of Japan[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This is a list of all battleships built or acquired by Japan, covering the period between the advent of modern pre-dreadnought battleships in the 1890s and the end of Japan's status as a naval power of the first rank in 1945. This list is the capstone to the Japanese national subtopic of the Operation Majestic Titan special project. It just passed a MILHIST A-class review, so hopefully there aren't many problems that need to be addressed. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

I guess lists never get old and long too. :) I'll review this one later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson announced the resumption Add "American" before "President".
  • US v. U.S.
  • as part of Admiral Kurita's Center Force.[155][152] Re-order the ref here.
  • See a lot of British afterwards.
  • I could remember that you Sturm said to me "True, but I don't want to switch between Imperial and metric formats half-way through the list" however some tables tell to me that metric units are the primary units. Why that now?

That's it, I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so just a few quibbles here:

  • in the lead, suggest "and rebuilt the Kongō-class battlecruisers into fast battleships and modernized the existing ships"
  • suggest "The ships were also assigned to the 1st Fleet before the Russo–Japanese War, were present..." to avoid starting a sentence with "Also"
  • drop the comma after "Sagami and Suwo," and after "Pobeda"
  • "by an air attack ion Kure Naval Base"
  • which sub sank Shinano? Earlier you have named the sub that sank Kongō

That's all I could find. Nice job on this list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • The first paragraph just has one ref right at the end - does that source the entire para?
  • "But to counter" - don't start a sentence with "but" - suggest changing "To counter the Imperial Chinese Beiyang Fleet in the early 1890s, however....."
  • "they ordered" => "Japan ordered" (to make is absolutely clear who "they" were)
  • "rebuilt the Kongō-class battlecruisers into fast battleships and modernizing the existing ships" - seems to be a bit of a grammatical mish-mash here - should it be "modernized"?
  • "As part of the 1st Fleet the sisters participated" - presume the "sisters" are the aforementioned ships? Might be worth clarifying.....
  • "Sagami and Suwo, were originally" - don't need that comma
  • "the Satsuma class were obsolete before they were even launched" - previously (eg under "Sagami and Suwo") you treat "class" as a singular noun, here it's plural - best to be consistent
  • "it couldn't afford to upgrade all of them" => "it could not afford to upgrade all of them"
  • I've just noticed that "sister ships" is linked under Ise class, even though it's about the eighth time the term is used. Best to link the first usage.
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The 2015 Pacific hurricane season was one of the most active seasons in recorded history. This timeline documents the formation, intensification, weakening, landfalls, and dissipation of all 31 systems that formed during the season. I have been working on this list for several weeks and I would now like to put it up for featured list candidacy. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • There is inconsistent date formatting in the references (archival dates). NoahTalk 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Miles needs to be abbreviated (one occurrence). NoahTalk 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That should be it. NoahTalk 10:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • There's one sentence under June 7 which is in the past tense, whereas the rest is in the present
  • "Tropical Depression Fourteen-E develops from and elongated area" - typo
  • That's all I've got......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks great to me. – zmbro (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lorenzo Bandini Trophy[edit]

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

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

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

List of chief ministers of Jharkhand[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I've tried to solve the issues, please take a look. Also, @Yashthepunisher:, do you like or dislike pings? I realized some time ago that not everyone likes to be pinged. TryKid (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Well, I don't like or dislike pings. They are simply a necessity. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • The lead is quite short at less than 1400 characters. I think you could beef it up by talking more about Shibu Soren. The fact that he held the post three times and was never an MLA both probably merit highlighting in the lead. Also, one of his terms only lasted nine days - how was this possible? Why did Munda leave the role for nine days and then return to it?
  • "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" - I think "Half of them, including the inaugural officeholder Babulal Marandi, represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)" would be better (this also gets around the fact that at some point one or more won't belong (present tense) to the BJP because they will have retired/died.
  • "Two chief ministers, Shibu Soren and his son Hemant Soren belong to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)" - need a comma after the second Soren's name
  • "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda; Koda is one of the few independents " - could be streamlined to "The state has also been governed by Madhu Koda, one of the few independents"
  • "In between their reigns, the state has also been under President's rule thrice" - "thrice" is a very archaic-sounding word, I would just say "three times"
  • In Soren's cells, there's no line break between his name and the brackets - be consistent with the other rows
  • In note d, write "could not" in full
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • ChrisTheDude, I've solved second to fifth issues. Also, after thinking about it for a day, I've made a decision to remove constituency data entirely. This means no need for note d. I made the decision because it was unverifiable, and plain wrong in one instance. It's actually possible to find the required information, but I'll need to search up the election archives for individual constituencies, as many of chief ministers were elected in bye-elections. It's sad because it was very interesting that Soren got to be chief minister three times without ever being an MLA. So, what do you think about the change? Do you recommend that I reinstate constituency information and source it some way? TryKid (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • A map showing the location of the state in India would be helpful - or in words in the lead if no map is available.
  • "as he could not prove his majority in the house" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "as he could not prove that he had the support of a majority of the house"
  • The lead is rather short. Some more background would be helpful - e.g. Why was the state formed so late? What is its capital city? Presumably the first and last assemblies had BJP majorities and the frequent changes and periods of president's rule in the 2nd and 3rd assemblies were because no pary had a majority, but this could be spelled out.
  • There is a lot of white space on the right - maybe add some photos of the state? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think images of the state's location are necessary, the current shape is consistent with other featured lists of chief ministers of India and governors of US states.
  • I've replaced it with your version.
  • Information regarding the state can be accessed by a reader by clicking on the link to Jharkhand article. I'm sure someone looking for a list of chief ministers of Jharkhand would be reasonably familiar with the state. I'll try to expand the lead as per your recommendations.
  • White space seems to be a device specific problem; there's no white space on my device, but adding images would certainly introduce some white space on my device. TryKid (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in West Sussex[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to query -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I couldn't find anything to query either, despite a determined effort. Very happy to support. This is a fine addition to a marvellous series of articles. Tim riley talk 14:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Volpi Cup for Best Actress[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A list covers the Volpi Cup for Best Actress, presented by the Venice Film Festival since 1932. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Damian Vo (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (for her title role in The Sin of Madelon Claudet), I think it should be "the title role" instead of "her title role".
  • For these parts (1947 to 1949), (1983 to 1987), and (introduced in 1993), should the years be linked like in other parts of the lead?

Great work with the list. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any insight on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

All fixed. Thank you so much for your review. Please let me know if there's anything else you require. Damian Vo (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The 1st ceremony was held in 1932, where....." - the second clause hangs off 1932, which is a date not a place, so "when" rather than "where", I think
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the source for all the name changes in paragraph 2?
The changes are mentioned in the table references by year. Damian Vo (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The awards given from 1947 to 1949 were named the International Award for the Best Actor" - Best Actress, surely? This also applies to note C.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "There has been two films" - have, not has
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Damian Vo: apologies, I had missed that you replied. I've noticed that you have "Only three of them has won more than once", which should be "Only three of them have won more than once". Also, you mention the two films for which two actresses won the award, but it might also be worth mentioning the one occasion (1988) when the award was shared by two actresses in different films. As it's only ever happened once, this is probably worth highlighting in the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's great to hear back from you. I fixed all the things you mentioned above. Let me know if you have any further request. Damian Vo (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Gong Li isn't sorted by her last name
Her family name is Gong. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A Pornographic Affair should be sorted by "Pornographic Affair" per WP:Sorting
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Any reason the lead only has 2 refs? (and only the first paragraph at that)
Expanded. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Rest looks good. Great job on this. Perhaps Volpi Cup for Best Actor next? – zmbro (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Sorry for the reply. I'd love to promote the list for best actor someday. I made some changes per your comments. Let me know if you have any further suggestion. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better now. I do have a couple of final comments:

  • Do we know how the May 1968 events in France caused the award to be suspended for so long? If the events themselves only lasted a couple of months, why was the award not given for an entire decade?
None of the sources I found give the exact explanation. I gave the sentence a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think you really need the actress table in the Multiple wins section – the lead already conveys the same information in a single sentence. If there were an actress that had won, say, three times, then the table might serve more a purpose, but to me it seems a bit redundant. But I'll leave it to you to decide.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "35 Years Of Sugar Cane Alley To Be Marked At BFI Film Fest" -> "35 Years of Sugar Cane Alley to Be Marked at BFI Film Fest"
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Tim Cahill[edit]

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows all Featured List criteria (very similar to other FLs about footballers’ international goals) and it would be nice to see an Aussie who plays soccer on Today’s Featured List for a change. KingSkyLord (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Given that Cahill has retired, I think you need to change a lot of the tenses e.g. "Cahill has scored against Japan" => "Cahill scored against Japan", "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals have been scored" => "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals were scored" and so on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Further comments
    • Photo caption - it's the Confederations (plural) Cup
    • "first international hat-trick, where he scored three goals against Fiji" - I would say "when" rather than where
    • "scored his 29th international goal against Costa Rica on 19 November 2013, equaling Damian Mori's national record of 29 goals" - if he equalled the record by scoring his 29th goal then obviously the record was 29, you don't need to state it again
    • "On 17 November 2015, he would score" - "he scored"
    • "his second (and last) ever international hat-trick" => "his second and last international hat-trick"
    • "where he scored the first three goals of the match" - "when he scored the first three goals of the match"
    • "Cahill scored more goals against Japan than he has against any other side" => "Cahill scored more goals against Japan than against any other side"
    • "subsequently nominated for the FIFA Puskás Award for 2014" - might be worth a very brief explanation of what this award is for
    • "both of whom are the two cities" => "which are the two cities"
    • "that Cahill has scored the most international goals in" => "in which Cahill has scored the most international goals"
    • "He has also scored against nations" => "He scored against nations"
    • "The second of these was Cahill's 50th (and last) ever international goal" => "The second of these was Cahill's 50th and last international goal"
    • "This made him the 59th man to reach 50 international goals." - source?
    • "Cahill also scored at three AFC Asian Cups"
    • "He was also named Oceania Footballer of the Year for 2004" => "He was named Oceania Footballer of the Year for 2004"
    • "Updated to game played 10 October 2017" - you may as well show it as updated to the date of his last international game (as in fact the other section already is)
  • Think that's it from me - can't see any issues with the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of minor tweaks and now am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Carlobunnie[edit]

Made some edits of my own to the lead to organize things a bit better but I still have some questions:

  • 1st paragraph: would be good to mention how he retired (when it was announced, what his last game was, possibly mention length of his career)
  • 3rd paragraph: I'm guessing it is somehow meant to center around the idea of where he scored the most int'l goals of his career? If I am wrong then my apologies, but the way the information is organized makes it difficult to determine what exactly the reader is meant to understand the point to be.
  • You open with the most goals he ever scored against a side was against Japan but follow up with "He also scored against Serbia during the 2010 FIFA World Cup and against both Chile and the Netherlands at the 2014 edition." - what is the relevance of this sentence in connection to the opening sentence? Are these teams his second most scored against sides or something? If so, how many goals did he score against them to warrant being mentioned here?
  • The Puskas award seems out of place here. Shouldn't the information in the lead (after the opening p'graph) either be organized chronologically so that info from like years ends up together, organized by a theme or central idea, or a separate p'graph be created for the awards/accolades he received as relates to this list? (or even noted somewhere in the opening p'graph if this is not how these sports related lists are written)
  • It continues with "More than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia" but then you say right after "He scored six times in Adelaide...and...in Sydney, the two cities where Cahill scored the most international goals." - To me, placing both of those sentences one after the other is a bit confusing (maybe even a little contradictory?) because both of the cities where he scored the MOST int'l goals are INSIDE Australia after you just said he scored MOST ("more than half of" to be precise) of his int'l goals OUTSIDE of Australia. I think the paragraph probably should have started with "More than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia" (if that is the point of the p'graph) and then you tie in the Japan goals and other relevant info. Or the two sentences could be merged and reworded to instead say, "Although more than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia, the two cities he scored the most in were Adelaide (all at the 2004 OFC Nations Cup) and Sydney with six goals at each." or something along those lines. Again, this is all dependant on what the point of the p'graph is.
  • 4th paragraph: I assume this p'graph expounds upon his '50 international goals'? The first 3 sentences all connect to that theme so they're good.
  • This sentence seems out of place, "During his career, Cahill scored at three AFC Asian Cups (2007, 2011, 2015) and one OFC Nations Cup (2004). His late equalizer against Oman at the 2007 AFC Asian Cup was Australia's first Asian Cup goal. Doesn't clearly correlate to the '50 int'l goals' at all. You need to mention how many of them he scored at both cups, ie. 'Cahill scored sixteen international goals at three AFC cups and one OFC cup".
  • "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals were scored in friendlies. He scored against nations from each of the six FIFA Confederations." - this sentence perfectly mentions how his 13 friendly goals relate to the 50 int's goals and that's what you need to do as I mentioned above.
  • The Oceania accolade mention seems out of place here. (refer to my note about the Puskas award)

The leads of the lists for Drogba, Henry and van Persie are good examples to look at for how they address the things I've mentioned for your article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Support (noticed the improvements you made and the lead reads much better now -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC))

Comments from Teratix[edit]

Done 4 August
  • Can a more independent source than Football Federation Australia be found to source Cahill's signature celebration?
  • Refs 19 and 54 are both from Fox Sports but the website is named differently in each. – Teratix 23:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've decided to do a full review after all, since I keep commenting on this list.

Lead

Done
  • The Australian team is not nicknamed "the Socceroos", they are nicknamed the "Socceroos" (probably don't even need quote marks)
  • Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals were scored in friendlies "50" is written as a numeral everywhere else in the lead except here.
  • During his international career, Cahill scored more goals against AFC rivals, Japan, than against any other country, with five goals, two of which he scored at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, which were also the first two goals scored by Australia at any FIFA World Cup. Split into During his international career, Cahill scored five goals against AFC rivals Japan, more than he scored against any other country. Two of his goals against the country were at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, which were also the first goals scored by Australia at any World Cup. (Teratix 02:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC))
  • he scored his first international hat-trick, with three goals against Fiji. Since "hat-trick" means "three goals", this is tautologous.
  • On 8 July 2007, he scored his 12th international goal, and Australia's first ever AFC Asian Cup goal, against Oman at the 2007 AFC Asian Cup, drawing the game 1–1. The sentence is a bit long and the repetition of "AFC Asian Cup" in close succession can be reworded. Mentioning the year twice is also unnecessary. He scored against Oman at the 2007 AFC Asian Cup on 8 July, drawing the game 1–1. It was his 12th international goal and Australia's first in an Asian Cup.
  • In the lead, name and link the FIFA World Cup and the AFC Asian Cup in full on first reference, then just call them the World Cup and Asian Cup.
  • and announced his retirement following the end of the tournament Not sure this detail is important enough for the third sentence of the lead.
  • His 29th international goal was against Costa Rica on 19 November 2013, equaling fellow Aussie Damian Mori's record. On 5 March 2014, Cahill scored two goals against Ecuador during a friendly in London, England, surpassing Mori's record and making him the outright top-scorer for Australia. Avoid the informal "Aussie" and condense this into His 29th international goal against Costa Rica on 19 November 2013 equalled fellow Australian Damian Mori's record, which he surpassed on 5 March 2014 with two goals in a friendly against Ecuador.

Table

Done
  • Scores and results list Australia's goal tally first. The difference between a "score" and a "result" confused me on a first look. I would clarify that the score column indicates the tally after each of Cahill's goals (in a note similar to Drogba's or Henry's lists).
  • Updated to game played 20 November 2018. Cahill is retired from international football and thus won't be scoring again, so there's no need for this note (again, similar to Drogba, van Persie and Henry).
  • Linking the countries of the venues is excessive. I would also avoid linking prominent cities such as London, Sydney and Osaka, although similar FLs do link these.
  • New: Telstra Dome, Etihad Stadium and Docklands Stadium all refer to the same ground. To avoid confusion I suggest just using Docklands, as the non-sponsored name.

Statistics

Done

Final comments

I've found I don't have the time to conduct a review with the depth I would like. Adding small bursts of comments like this instead of taking the time to do a complete review is not fair on the nominator, and @KingSkyLord: I apologise for this.

These few points are the absolute last I will post here, and I support assuming they're fixed. – Teratix 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Done
  • No source name in ref 41
  • Refs 19 and 54 are from the same source (Fox Sports Australia) yet one is italicised and the other isn't.
  • Same with 9/16 and 18 (Goal.com)
  • The external link claims Cahill has only scored 18 goals in World Cup qualifiers, not 20.
  • Support – My couple of little nit-picks have been adequately addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanjay Dutt filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the biggest actor of Bollywood. Please leave any comments below.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would suggest the lead needs a copy-edit by a native English speaker, as the quality of the English is unfortunately not very good. For example: "Rocky became semi-hit at the box office, and it was ranked number 10 on the list of highest-grossing film of 1981" - "semi-hit" is not an English word and "highest-grossing film" should be "highest-grossing films". There's little things like this that I could pick up in almost every sentence, so I suggest a thorough copy-editing is needed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I've submitted the article for copy edit.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Something that can be fixed while you are waiting for the copy edit: there are a lot of instances like "....and Vidhaata (1982). In Vidhaata (1982) he was cast....". You only need to wikilink the film and give the date the first time the film is mentioned. You don't need to keep using the link and showing the date every time.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to hold off looking at the lead again until it has been copy edited, but here's some comments on the tables:
    • "Cameo Appearance" should not have a capital A
    • "Sequel of 1999 Hit Movie Vaastav: the reality" should be simply "Sequel to Vaastav: The Reality"
    • In one case "special appearance" is shown after the name in the "role" column, but in other cases it's in the "notes" column - make sure they are all in the same column
    • What even is a "special appearance"?
    • In the films table, the year is first, but in the other two tables the title is first - why are they not the same?
    • Why does one table have "Note(s)" whereas the others have "Notes"?
    • Are those really his only television appearances? Some of them are talk shows - has one of the biggest stars in Indian cinema history only appeared on talk shows five or six times in a career of nearly forty years?
    • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA and ChrisTheDude: I've just finished copy editing the lead of the article. I did not look through your list of suggestions, however; as a copy editor, I am only responsible for improving the prose of the article and not for any issues associated with FLCs. The GOCE Requests page has a backlog, and copy editors generally pick the oldest articles to copy edit first. Best of luck on the FLC. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobbychan193: thank you so much for the copyedit. @ChrisTheDude: thank you for the comments, I've gone through, and fixed all of them. If you additional comment's let me know.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments
  • Fix these links.
  • The lead should be trimmed. Actors with larger career that Dutt have shorter filmographies.
  • There are ref formatting issues. Starting from the the first ref of box office India.
  • I can see instances of unrealiable sources like IMDb, addatoday, Filmibeat and Glamsham, to name a few.
  • Several refs don't even mention their publishers name.
  • The second sentence of the first para should start with "He" instead of Dutt.
  • There are several instances of problematic prose, like the sentence about Rocky's financial success and the sentence about Vidhata.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I have fixed the comments listed above and thanks for your feedback.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Rocky sentence can still be rephrased.
  • Any other fact worth mentioning about Vidhaata apart from its commercial success? Because it sounds very repetitive.
  • "awardsandshows.com", "Planet-Bollywood", "Falling in Love with Bollywood", "moviefone" are not RS.
  • filmfare.com --> Filmfare
  • Fix the red markings in the references.
  • Publisher missing in the Mera Faisala source.
  • Ditto for a bunch of others.
  • Stick to only National Film Awards and Filmfare in the lead and in table, per other existing FLs.
  • "He also received critical acclaim for his appearance." Great, but there is only one review of the film. Provide a source that supports this claim.
  • There are a lot of box-office figures mentioned in the lead. I'd suggest you to remove most of them unless they are milestones. A success cannot be only measured by the monetary gains.
  • Comment #1 hasn't been fixed.
  • "Sanjay Dutt is an Indian actor and film producer". There is nothing mentioned in the lead of the film's he has produced (and their fate).
  • Some refs have a lot of redundant info in them. Like almost every refs used in the 'Television' section. Also, you should only mention the shows he has hosted.

I'm afraid there are still a lot of issues on ref formatting, prose quality and the articles overall comprehensiveness. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I have fixed the comments listed above, also the check links URL doesn't work anymore. Thanks.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead is too short now. Also, you haven't removed the IIFA's and the Screen awards from the article.
  • "Cinestaan" is not a RS.
  • Three receives cannot be enough to support the 'critical acclaim' and 'turning point' claim. Mention a source that specifically talks about the aforementioned.
  • Why his role in Ra.One in comma's?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: those have been fixed as well.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the critics review from the lead. They don't belong here.
  • Remove Sanju from the lead. It would be significant to mention, Dutt played himself, not otherwise.
  • Mention the status of his unreleased films in the table.
Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: now done.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was only mentioned as 'Khalnayak' in Ra.One.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: done. I have removed the Sanju from the lead, quotes, and other stuff as well.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just one thing so far. I was doing a spot-check of the refs and there are quite a few "deprecated parameter"/red-linked warnings. Per Help:CS1 errors#deprecated params all the deadurl= parameters need to be changed to url-status= with one of the following values as appropriate: dead, live, unfit, usurped. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
There are 97 different instances of dead-url, all of those will have to be converted into url-status= with the appropriate values. Shearonink (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shearonink: fixed. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the lead..."Widespread critical acclaim" is only supported by one ref and that ref talks only about a particular screening at the 2007 Cannes Tous Les Cinemas du Monde....that is not really "widespread critical acclaim" plus the wording itself is verging into WP:PUFFERY territory. You need 1)multiple reviews or articles about critics' thoughts about the movie & 2)the sentence should be changed to WP:NPOV wording, something like "the film was well-received by critics" or "received favorable reviews from critics", etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shearonink: fixed.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)a
CAPTAIN MEDUSA The BWW/Broadway World Ref (present ref# 18) ... all it does is say "some of the biggest and critically acclaimed Bollywood blockbusters since the turn of the millenium: 'Lage Raho Munna Bhai', ..." but it does not list out "critically acclaimed" with reviews to back up that assertion. Besides, the review is just a PR/sales listing for a workshop and is not a researched article from a reliable source with editorial oversight. In my opinion it should be removed. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
done___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for adding additional refs for "widespread critical acclaim". I still have a problem with the adjective & wording in this sentence: The film received widespread critical acclaim. I think it might be enough to say "The film received critical acclaim." or something similar, using "widespread" plus "acclaim" seems slightly unnecessary. Maybe the Bob Dylan example at WP:PUFFERY explains it better than I am doing... Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
done.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the 2003 box-office results in terms of money for Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. are laid out only in rupees. Since En.Wikipedia has a worldwide audience I think it would be appropriate to also have a conversion from rupees to dollars (like kms to miles, miles to kms, etc.), you can use the coding at Template:INRConvert which goes like
{}, so, for instance, the Indian box-office of ₹230 million in 2003 would be
{} which will give you the following: 230 million (equivalent to 630 million or US$9.1 million in 2018).
thanks, done.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In general I think this List is looking rather good but I will be doing a spot-check of your references. That will probably take me a little while, I'll post back here when I am done. Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Sussex[edit]

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

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

Comments from KJP1[edit]

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

Lead
  • "Designation as an SSSI gives legal protection to the most important wildlife and geological sites" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that all SSSIs get legal protection, due to their designation, or that only the most important of the SSSIs do so?
  • Changed to "The most important wildlife and geological sites are designated as SSSIs in order to give them legal protection." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "five are Ramsar sites" - I appreciate that it's linked and explained below, but the term, unfamiliar to me and I suspect most readers, caused me to stumble. Perhaps, "five are Ramsar sites, designated as internationally important under convention,"
List
  • Ambersham Common - "including the nationally rare" - I'm assuming this means rare to the UK, but more common elsewhere? I wonder if "nationally rare" is actually necessary, as you go on to state that it as been found at only three British sites?
  • Bognor Reef - "It is one of the few areas which has the full sequence of layers in the London Clay" - two points here. "the few areas", is that one of the few SSSIs in West Sussex or one of the few areas anywhere in England? Also, I didn't know what "the London Clay" was until I hit the link. Is it possible to clarify?
  • On the first point I think that "one of the few areas" implies one of the few anywhere and I do not like to say in England as London Clay is only found in parts of the southeast. On your second point, I am not sure how to give an explanation without going into excessive detail. Can you suggest a wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Chapel Common - "rare and scarce invertebrates" - is the "scarce" doing anything that the "rare" doesn't, or vice versa?
  • I have again linked to the article which explains the terms. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cissbury Ring - I appreciate that this list is focussed on the SSSIs, but is it worth mentioning in the Description that this is the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex? Perhaps, "The site, the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex, has unimproved chalk grassland..."?
  • I am not sure there is a reliable source for it being the largest but I have cited Historic England for it being a Neolithic flint mine and a large hillfort dating to the Iron Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Coates Castle - "There are an estimated 200 individuals" - are the crickets individually identified, Jiminy etc.? Perhaps, "They number approximately 200"?
  • Coneyhurst Cutting - "fossils of large Viviparus (freshwater river snails) preserved in three dimensions" - I'm displaying my ignorance here, but aren't all fossils three-dimensional? Or are most flat and only two? Forgive me, I did Combined Science for O-level, when only the most stupid boys were entered for that subject.
  • Many and maybe most fossils are two dimensional as they have been crushed flat. Three dimensional ones give far more information. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for the responses. All excellent. Shall move onto Batch 2 of comments as soon as I can (day or two most). It is a long list! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fyning Moor - "Open rides have diverse flora" - what are "open rides"? Horse-riding? The source doesn't say and I don't know.
  • Horton Clay Pit - "a thick and stratigaphically important" - typo, "stratigraphically".
  • Rook Clift - " this steep sided valley" - should "steep-sided" be hyphenated?
  • It seems to be commonly hyphenated so I have done so. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Pleasure all mine. A superbly detailed list, which I am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • It took me till K to find anything but then I got this: "This reserve's yew woods are described by Natural England as the best in Britain as it has the most extensive stands unmixed with other species." - singular plural disagreement?
  • I think this is correct. The reserve has the most extensive stands, not the yew trees. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "which are relicts" - is "relicts" a typo for "relics" or simply a word I am not familiar with?
  • "There are 1 metre (3.3 feet) high fossils" - earlier you converted a measurement in metres into yards, now you are using feet - why the change? As the earlier distance was shorter it seems odd that that one was converted to yards and this one to feet.....
  • "These disused railway tunnels are the fifth most important sites" - sites or site? If it's considered to be one SSSI then I would say the singular is more appropriate.
  • "This former quarry exposed.....It provided excellent three dimensional sections" - why the past tenses? All other notes are written in the present tense.
  • Clarified that the past tense is because the quarry has been filled in. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "These woods have steep sided valleys" - "steep-sided" should be hyphenated I think
  • Last three notes need full stops
  • Think that's it from me. Fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael W. Smith discography[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list because my nomination for List of National Football League rushing champions has passed. My other nomination, [[3]], has unanimous support so far with all problems resolved so a second nomination should be acceptable.

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

Comments on the lead
  • "as well multiple holiday albums" => "as well as multiple holiday albums"
  • "and his 16 No. 1 albums" => "and his 16 number one albums"
  • "I 2 (EYE) (1988) became Smith's first No. 1 album" - same again
  • "peaked at nos. 6 and 60" => "peaked at numbers 6 and 60"
  • "charting at No. 8 in Canada and No. 27 on the Hot 100" - you can probably guess what I am going to say here ;-)
  • ...and there's two more instances towards the end of the lead ;-)
  • Lots more uses of "No." in the notes
  • All of them are replaced now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks really weird to have a heading of "Notes", immediately followed by a sub-heading of "Notes". I would have the Notes > Notes section as a L2 heading in its own right called Notes, and then below that I would have a References L2 section, with sub-headings of General (for the two books) and Specific (for the individual footnotes). Does that make sense?
  • Yeah, that makes sense. Good solution. I think I’ve fixed that now? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@ChrisTheDude: why are you advising to ignore the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO? It should be consistent in the article and it should not change over time once consistent. No. is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Probably I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO. Having "No." in the middle of a prose sentence just looked wrong to me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Having read the guideline, do you agree that it is acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems so, yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible support: I don't see any issues apart from this possible one: Is the use of "rowspan" in the tables within WP:ACCESSIBILITY? This is an issue with numerous discographies (hundreds if not thousands) that has come to my attention today. I've opened up a discussion on the WP:ACCESSIBILITY talk page regarding "rowspan" in tables.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for looking at this, 3family6! I’m by no means on access so I’m kind of in the dark here, but what’s the potential issue here? If it’s an issue I can definitely change it. This article and all others should comply with access, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We've had the accessibility issue discussed in ACCESS before, and I think the decision was to avoid its use, but most modern screen readers can deal with the complexity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Austria[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This list follows the style of several successful FL nominations for European countries. The latest two promoted were List of World Heritage Sites in Albania and List of World Heritage Sites in Malta. Austria has even more sites listed. As usual, some copyediting is expected to take place during this nomination. Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Using "In the following table" is outdated phrasing that is no longer used in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. --Tone 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The notes section normally goes before references.
  • As there are only two notes, they look odd in four columns.
  • You are inconsistent whether locations are linked. It would be helpful to link them all.
  • "Salzburg was the meeting point between German and Italian cultures". Between when and when?
  • "The region built itself around salt mining". A region building itself sounds wrong to me.
  • "While only some of the sites have been excavated". This comment is superfluous as it would apply to any such set of sites.
  • Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests. The citation for this site links to a Chinese site.
  • Late Middle Ages could be linked.
  • "called Thalers". I do not think thaler should be capitalised.
  • You are inconsistent whether to capitalise Gothic.
  • "The Danubian Limes, a network of fortifications along the Danube river, was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire." "protected" would be better than "was protecting".
  • A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "As of 2019, Austria has 10 total sites inscribed on the list and further 12 on the tentative list" - I think the word "total" is redundant here, and also "further 12" should be "a further 12"
  • "which began as early as 2,000 BCE" - dates don't usually have a "thousand separator". Nobody would write "we are currently living in the year 2,019".
  • "The Semmering Railway was built" - the title of our article doesn't have a capital R - which is correct?
  • "This project was undertaken in the early days of railroad construction" - article doesn't seem to be written in US English, so "railroad" should be "railway"
  • "around 5000 to 500 B.C." - earlier you used "BCE" - be consistent
  • "The site is a part of transnational site" => "The site is a part of a transnational site"
  • "functioned both as a spiritual center"......"The historic centre" - article is inconsistent as to whether it uses US spellings or not
  • "was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire" => "protected the borders of the Roman Empire"
  • "a visual school of nature" - literally no idea what that means
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tone: are you still active? You haven't edited in nearly two weeks......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I haven't noticed the comments, I'll take care of them soon. Thanks :) --Tone 13:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:, @ChrisTheDude:, thank you for your detailed comments. I think I addressed all. I rewrote some sections, locations are now linked in a way that they are linked the first time in the section only (Vienna shows often, for example), the part about the meeting point of cultures does not give precise times in the source but it indicates that the main product was seen in the Baroque style. Ready for next round of checks. --Tone 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • You could say "Schönbrunn was the residence..." for a complete sentence.
  • Hallstatt: "The mining of salt deposits, being exploited...". "The name of the town gave name..." No comma after society; this is a restrictive appositive
  • Beech forests: doesn't need "a part of a transnational site"

Reywas92Talk 05:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Reywas92: Fixed, thanks for the comments! --Tone 06:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Support Another great list Reywas92Talk 07:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. A short list, but a high-quality and informative one. Morgan695 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to get this page nominated for FL status a while back, however it has failed for a number of reasons, mainly with the list not being able to pass WP:V. After quite a bit of time revamping the page and making large-scale improvements, I've decided to try and renominate the article again. All corrections were based on those brought up by other editors in the first FL nomination page. Here's what's been done to clean up the page:

  1. Table has been completely redone (thank you Dissident93), with franchises listed in a greyed-out column to distinguish them from the other columns. Licensed series are now highlighted in yellow to indicate they are not an original creation by Bandai Namco. The "Platform" section has been cut entirely, instead replaced with columns listing the first and latest releases.
  2. All entries present are reliably sourced, and all of these prove they are an actual series and not a one-off title. The articles themselves are also dedicated to these games/series and don't simply reference these franchises in articles for other companies' games, as was the case before.
  3. Minor edits have been done to the lead, simply removing outdated information.

Namcokid47 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by comment: you seem undecided as to whether the company is singular or plural, viz "The company is (singular) best known for their (plural)........" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll retract my oppose as all issues are dealt with. But I'm confused regarding this edit. How is Demon's Souls not apart of the table when it's officially the first game in the Souls series and was also released in PAL regions by Bandai Namco. – zmbro (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Dissident's edit summary, the GameSpot article states Bandai Namco only owns the Dark Souls games and not the Souls series entirely. Plus BN only published it in Europe, while Sony and Atlus published it in Japan and America respectively. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP, per this Polygon article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have also added a very short (heh) short description. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia no images.png
Also, you mentioned earlier that you added alt text for the logo, but it didn't have any, so I added it myself. If you're using Firefox, you can check if a image has alt text by typing in "about:config" in the adress bar, then searching for "permissions.default.images" and set it to 2. That should turn off all images in the entire browser so that they will just display as alt text. To turn them back on, just set it back to 1. I have attached a photo of what the page "Go Vacation" looks like without images, for your own reference. (I actualy only learned how to do this yesterday, I didn't expect it to come in handy this quickly!) I am not sure how to do this in other web browsers, sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You can also just use @Dispenser:'s alt text viewer, but I prefer to just turn off images. But, I think im going on a bit of a tangent here :p. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you find a better source for this, though? The Wired article discusses Go Vacation and simply mentions the We Ski series, which would make it fail WP:V. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What? But the Wired article says that Go Vacation is the third in the series. "After a little play I realized why it all looked so familiar: It's the sequel to one of my favorite Wii games, We Ski. This game (and its followup We Ski and Snowboard) [...]" I don't see how that fails WP:V. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Steven Curtis Chapman discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

My previous nomination here, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League rushing champions/archive2, is at three supports with all comments resolved, so I figured I'd nominate another list. This is the discography of Steven Curtis Chapman, one of the best-selling contemporary Christian music artists and the single most awarded figure in industry history. This list categorizes his major studio efforts and certifications along with chart positions for his studio albums as well as compilation albums, holiday albums, other albums (EPs and side projects), and video albums. It also includes a list of his singles and charting songs going back to 1987. Both of these sections are large, but I think they are summarized adequately in the lede, which notes his first albums, his major successes in the 90s, and his recent albums in the 2000s and 2010s, as well as brief mentions of his singles. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • I have only had time to look at the lead so far, where I have noticed the following:
    • No need to repeat his entire name at the start of para 3
    • "Chapman’s next two albums, Declaration (2001) and All About Love (2003), become" => became
    • "peaking at Nos. 14 and 12" - no need for a capital N
    • Same in the next sentence
  • I hope to get to look at the tables later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Corrected all of these now. Thanks in advance for taking a look! Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The only thing I could spot on the tables is that I strongly suspect that "Speechles" is spelt incorrectly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And you’d be correct... fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

  • The prose would benefit from some fine tuning. "Chapman" begins 7 out of 10 sentences, and some are quite long. Also, the uses of "would" and "became" don't really add much, when "Chapman released" and "Real Life was his first" are more direct.
  • The "Certifications" and "Albums" columns in the tables sometimes appear much wider than the "Titles" columns (the 2001–present singles titles are squeezed into a very narrow column). This gives an unbalanced look and draws attention away from the titles in the first row. Also, more consistency in column sizes from table to table is easier to follow (there's quite a jump from the first single table to the second).

Obviously, these are personal preferences, but something you may consider. Otherwise, good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catches. Did not notice the "singles" table does not have any length requirements - I've added them so they are consistent now (with the exception of the 2001-present table, as it has a certifications row). I've also removed several Chapmans from the lede and a few uses of the unnecessary phrasing. Toa Nidhiki05 20:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. In looking over the citations, I noticed many of the "Album details" entries use AllMusic reviews or the RIAA awards list. AllMusic is only considered a reliable source for its reviews. It's not clear where its sidebar info (dates, genres, etc.) comes from and is frequently incorrect. RIAA only shows the labels and album or single; the certification dates are not applicable. Amazon.com "should be avoided" (WP:NOTRSMUSIC). Release announcements, "breakout" entries, etc., in Billboard, genre magazines, or Chapman's own press releases are better sources.
    I’ll see what I can find but there is some contradictory advice at wp:NOTRSMUSIC (which advises against Amazon but does advise using Allmusic for internet-area releases). The RIAA sources actually do show release dates, though - if you click “more details”, it expands out to include the dates of certification but more importantly it does show the actual release date. I have access to Newspapers.com so I’ll see if I can find dates there. Would Chapman's website be a reliable source for this? He appears to have all the release dates listed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Occasionally, my computer won't show certain info, which is the case with the RIAA "More Details". If RIAA shows the release date, that's good enough. I think the first AllMusic sentence in NOTRSMUSIC is outdated (and out-of-place) and is contradicted by the following paragraph. Until this can be corrected, it is best to avoid the AllMusic sidebar info, especially when other sources are available. The Chapman website info should be OK for dates for the albums that RIAA doesn't have (I wonder how the three compare?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I've removed all of the Allmusic release dates and corrected the dates as well; there are still two albums cited to Amazon, but I could not find any other non-retailer sources that gave exact release dates. Regardless, both are out of print so I do not think the conflict of interest in selling still exists, and the dates line up well with other retailers as far as I could tell. Chapman's website does have a page that lists his long-form videos, but only the year of release. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
In looking for better sources for videos, I noticed some more.[4][5][6] Are these just earlier editions of the three you've listed? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
From the ones you listed:
  1. The Videos is already listed.
  2. I actually own the Live DVD so I know it exists, but it did’t chart and I couldn’t find much if any coverage on it.
  3. The Christmas Is All In The Heart VHS is, AFAIK, just a VHS music video released for promotional use, maybe in video stores.
  4. The Great Adventure VHS was bundled with some versions of The Great Adventure CD. Maybe a pre-order bonus?
  5. The Live Adventure was released as both a VHS and CD release, but since it charted on CD I included it in live albums while noting it was also released on VHS.
  6. Christmas Child was a made-for-TV movie he was in as an actor, so it’s not a video album.
  7. CCM United was a large compilation project with a ton of different artists, so not a Steven Curtis Chapman exclusive project.
  8. Front Row is an ancient VHS (1990, maybe)? It didn’t chart, and it didn’t receive much (if any) coverage.
Toa Nidhiki05 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The singles and charting songs show the references for peak positions, which may be sufficient for years. But if there is a general source for years, this could be added at the top of the "Year" columns (missing for "Other charting songs"). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed the lack of year in “other charting songs”. There is not a general source for years, the year column comes from the earliest date the song charted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This came up in a recent review, so I'll add it here: all the tables indicate "selected chart positions". I'm not sure where to add it, but a statement regarding the selection criteria should be given.
    Not sure what this would look like. I mean if there’s a criteria I guess it’s relevant, major charts he showed up on a lot? There’s not really a criteria since the number of charts he has appeared on is actually fairly limited due to him being a Christian musician (no international charts, no Hot 100, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
If you're not actually excluding any major charts that he appears on and including the ones he shows up on the most, then you've covered it. If he appears a few times on the Billboard 200, Hot 100, or RPM, these may be added as footnotes. The "selected" qualifiers should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. Aside from excluding charts that are typically excluded from discographies (Billboard 200 component charts and catalog charts), there was no real editorial decision here. The AC chart is the only mainstream singles chart he's appeared on AFAIK. I've removed the "selected" qualifier. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support All my concerns have been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

List of governors of Georgia[edit]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another state, another list of governors. This one was hard. I've been going generally in alphabetical order, and Georgia is the first state that was both a colony and secessionist, so it had complications from all corners. The fact that there were, at one time, as many as three schismatic governments didn't help. The state finally supplied a list from a blue book from the '70s that helped a lot in filling in the gaps, and I think it's ready. Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • The most immediate thing that jumps out is that the lead is far far too short. It should have three good-sized paragraphs, not three sentences.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Fleshed out. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The governor of Georgia is the head of the executive branch of Georgia's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor also has a duty to enforce state laws, the power to either veto or approve bills passed by the Georgia Legislature, and the power to convene the legislature." - none of this seems to be in the body, so it needs citing here
    • Done
  • "the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War" - same for this
    • Done
  • "The state seceded and was part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War," - ....and this
    • Done.
  • "each of which served two full four-year terms" => "each of whom served two full four-year terms"
    • Done.
  • "The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp who assumed" - need a comma after his name. Also I would tag this onto another paragraph so that we don't have a one-sentence "paragraph"
    • First part, done. Second part, What do you propose? The previous graf is about extremes in the office, so it seems improper to just latch this on to it for the sake of avoiding a single sentence graf.
      • I think it would fit OK onto the end of the very first paragraph.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • Governors section starts with another one-sentence "paragraph" - join this onto the next para
    • Done.
  • "This article relies on" - we try to avoid using "this article" or "this list" within an article, so find a way to re-word this bit
    • Done
  • Maybe it's because I am dumb and/or British, but I really don't understand why the first governor is number 7. The note says "It begins the numbering from the colonial governors" (which, BTW, should really be "it continues the numbering....."), but our article on the colonial governors says there were 10 of them???
    • Each state has a unique method of numbering. Alabama ignores acting and repeat governors; some states don't. Georgia and Connecticut number starting from their colonial governors. According to the source, that puts Bulloch at #7. I haven't looked at our other list, so I don't know where they get ten governors. I have to use exactly what is in the source, because there are so many different ways of counting and listing Georgia governors that once I found the source, which is the closest I'm going to get to an official source, I had to rely on it entirely. Deviations are handled in footnotes and text, but the numbering should stay. Either we start at 7, or we come up with our own numbering system. Changed to 'continues'. For fun, looking at the colonial list.. our source omits their #1, since he was a trustee, not governor; it omits their #8 and #9 because they were military/provisional governors; and #10 is the same as #7, and they don't number repeats.
  • Once you're re-sorted the table, it's impossible to get back to the original order, because there are 3 nulls in the "no" column. I suggest using hidden sort keys to make sure these appear in the appropriate place when sorting by number.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the notes are unsourced.
    • I'll work on this.
  • Some notes are not full sentences are therefore don't need a full stop
    • Is this really that important? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, it isn't correct as it stands.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
        • oh fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's it from me at the moment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Reywas92
  • I know this isn't the place to go into detail, but "local rule was re-established" (used twice) is quite the euphemism for "the right of black citizens to vote was no longer protected"! "exerted some control" also obscures that it enforced the US Constitution, the fifteenth amendment being relevant here. I'm not sure the best way to word this but Georgia during Reconstruction should at least be linked.
    • It's nicely euphemistic, isn't it. But that is the terminology near-universally used for the end of reconstruction. I did drop 'some', as the generals had dictatorial power.
  • I support your decision to go with your source on numbering to begin at 7, but this should be explicitly stated in the prose, not just hidden in the footnote. The numbering in List of colonial governors of Georgia should be made consistent with this source then, since it also goes through 7.
    • Made an attempt.
  • No comma after "provided for a lieutenant governor"
    • I dunno, that makes it seem like the constitution provided for the Lt Gov to serve the same time, etc ... no, it provided for a lieutenant governor, stop, which also has these other qualities.
  • The second paragraph could be split to be more chronological
    • I don't know which paragraph you mean.
  • The final paragraph seems out of order, should be more chronological
    • You mean the one about the Battle of Savannah? I thought it would be useful to mention it right before the list. It's also a separate topic from the constitutional changes, so making it chronological doesn't seem to help...
      • The entire thing being chronological may be the clearest. It reads as early history - statehood - civil war - back to statehood, term limits, and succession - civil war again and term limits again - back to succession, back to term limits - finally back to the revolution era for some reason? I know you're doing history of the state - everything in the constitution chronologically - facts relating to numbering, but it feels quite jumbled. It would would be more cohesive to do everything chronologically (the cleanest, which puts the line on readmission dates and the capture of Savannah near the relevant constitutional changes, or do one paragraph with everything about term limits, one with everything on succession, one with Civil war changes, etc. Subsections either way could also work, but not the best if a couple only have one paragraph. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I combined the first two grafs, since they're purely about when it became a state. As for the ordering, I agree. When I wrote this I probably thought chronological was needed, but yeah, it works better going by subject. I still think we need a notice why the list is going to be so different from most lists online, and it doesn't work "chronologically". --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The final sentence is not grammatical, I think "which" and the comma should be removed.
    • Dunno how the 'which' got there, but I don't know which comma you mean.
      • The one between clauses, I got it.
  • Update see also link to First Ladies of Georgia (U.S. state)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The early days were chaotic with many gaps and schisms in the state's power structure, as the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War." 1. "The early days" is vague and the word "early" is repeated later in the sentence. 2. The sentence is a non sequitur as a battleground does not necessarily cause schisms. Maybe "The state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War and between x year and y year the state's power structure was chaotic with many gaps and schisms."
    • Tried to fix.
  • "as the state capital of Savannah was captured". "as" implies that the capture was the sole cause of the schisms. Is this correct? Otherwise, I would profer "and" or "partly due to". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • All sources linked say or indicate that the fall of Savannah was the sole cause. On the other hand I have no sources that state any other cause; therefore it would be incorrect to offer a sourced statement of "partly due to", wouldn't it?
  • "The state was solidly Democratic-Republican until the 1830s" Only from 1789.
    • Parties didn't exist before then. I tried to fix.
  • "split elections" This sounds odd to me. Is it AmEng?
    • Don't think so? They split elections, they went back and forth. Like how you might split your time between work and home. Not sure how better to write this.
  • How about " the governorship swung between the Whigs and Democrats"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Tried something.
  • The rest of the paragraph is vague on dates and I suggest clarifiying.
    • Is it? It has few dates at all, because it's prose, not a rote list of dates. That's what the list and later paragraphs are for.
  • The second and third pagragraphs of 'Governors' are the wrong way round.
    • I'd disagree but since I rejiggered that section anyway, this criticism is moot.
  • "While the 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, the other constitutions surrounding the American Civil War brought lots of changes." "surrounding the American Civil War" does not sound right and "lots of changes" is too colloquial. Maybe "The 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, but later constitutions during the American Civil War and Reconstruction brought many changes."
    • In the above-mentioned rejiggering I fixed some of this. Did a little more editing.
  • "An amendment in 1941..." This belongs in the next paragraph, not the one about the Civil War period.
    • Moot, I think, since I moved things around.
  • "The revolutionary government was thrown into disarray by the capture of Savannah in 1778, which led to two governments with varying levels of influence; they would reunite in 1780. The Official and Statistical Register of Georgia ignores the Council of Safety of William Ewen in favor of Archibald Bulloch's government, and omits the government of William Glascock and Seth John Cuthbert.[26] The Register also begins the numbering at 7, including the previous colonial governors." 1. I think it would be better to merge this with the first short paragraph of 'Governors'. 2. I assumed at first that the omitted governors were British appointed, but I see that this is wrong. I think you should clarify this, particularly for Ewen as he is not mentioned in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I tried clarifying this. I still strongly think that a paragraph explaining 'why is this list different than all the others' is about more than just chronology, it's important info.
  • I still think you need to clarify that Ewen, Glascock and Cuthbert were not British appointees. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were British appointees. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Muddy Waters discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've recently expanded this discography to include inline citations for each release, added several charting albums, and revised the lead. Muddy Waters is one of the most important blues artists of all time and I hope to make this a featured list. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Alright all good for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Firstly, great to see a bluesman getting recognition at FLC!
  • What's the criterion for "selected" live and compilation albums i.e. why are these selected but not others?
  • Since there is such a large amount of questionable material out there, I tried to include the ones that 1) were issued by his official record companies, 2) appeared on the charts, or 3) noted in his bio by Gordon or other references, such as the All Music Guide to the Blues. I used the same approach with the Elmore James discography. The many releases by Charly Records and related labels were excluded, because it lost the copyright infringement lawsuit over its unauthorized releases of the Chess catalogue.[9]Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I notice that that discog has a couple of sentences at the top of the relevant section explaining the selection. Would something similar be possible here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In some cases where multiple refs are together they are not in numerical order
  • Ref columns are usually centred
  • Fixed, although most discographies lack inline citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "as accompanist - singles" table, not a single one charted, so is there really any point in having the chart peak column?
  • It gives a more consistent, professional look, IMO. I'm not a fan of jumping to different sized tables with different columns from section to section. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be tempted to show the two versions of "The Last Waltz" as "The Last Waltz" and "The Last Waltz (deluxe re-release)" or "...(box set re-release)" rather than use the dates, as using the dates doesn't rule out the possibility that they are two completely different albums that happen to have the same title.....
  • Some (although not all) of the notes are complete sentences so need full stops
  • Quick commentRef 46 doesn't include the publication year in the cite, which is causing a nasty red harv error message to appear. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed (mine doesn't show in red). Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • DISEman has created several new Muddy Waters album articles and added links to the discography. However, some didn't use a sort key for titles beginning with "The", etc. (see WP:SORTKEY). These have been restored to the reviewed version. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) episodes[edit]

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

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

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • When we have lists of episodes for dramas/sitcoms/etc, normally there's a two or three sentence summary of each episode, but here there's nothing, so I can't glean anything about the content of the episodes from the list. Could a brief summary of the key moments in each episode not be given........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, if it's the norm then I guess that's OK. My other comments:
    • "last remaining HouseGuest in order to win a grand prize of $250,000" - I don't know how important it is to mention this in this article, but do the celebs actually receive the money themselves? I only ask because here in the UK celebrity editions of quiz shows, reality shows, etc, without exception have the celebs playing for a nominated charity rather than looking to pocket the money themselves.
    • "Allison Grodner and Rich Meehan serve as executive producers and is produced" - missing "the show" or similar before "is produced"
    • need a comma after "host of the series"
    • Not sure the words "on multiple nights" are needed. If it airs over more than two weeks then obviously the episodes aren't all on one night.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I fixed the second through fourth issues. In the American version the winning celebrity receives the money themselves. Even I found this a bit odd at first as this is the first American celebrity reality show I know of where the winner receives the grand prize instead of it being donated to charity. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I wasn't sure if it was just us Brits who deemed that celebs didn't need the money for themselves ;-) I am now happy to support this nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Gonnym
  • I'd rearrange a bit the lead so instead of Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is an American reality television series that premiered on CBS as counterprogramming to NBC's coverage of the 2018 Winter Olympics on February 7, 2018. and The show is a spin-off of the American adaption of Big Brother created by John de Mol. change to Celebrity Big Brother, also known as Big Brother: Celebrity Edition, is the American adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Big Brother, which was created by John de Mol. The series premiered on CBS... or instead "adaptation of the reality competition television franchise Celebrity Big Brother" which is more precise.
  • including competitions and the nomination/eviction process. - MOS:SLASH so maybe "including competitions and the nomination and eviction process."
  • In note "a" (both of them) you have "Days" with an uppercase "D" - it's a normal word so should be lowercase.
  • In the reference section you have 2 section headers which should follow MOS:HEAD and act as normal section headers (== ==).
  • The image used should have an "alt", see MOS:IMAGESYNTAX
  • Not required by the FL criteria (no idea why not), but would help and nice to have, is to add archive links to the refs so this article won't have WP:link rot.

Other than that looks good. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review Gonnym! I fixed all the issues you mentioned and I reworded the notes in the table. With the English language adaptions of Big Brother they capitalize the word Day(s) when talking about a specific time in the house. The American & Canadian versions will also capitalize week if someone is talking about "Week 2", etc. Here is an article from CBS where day and week is capitalized when referring to a specific day or week. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I would expect to see a synopsis of the major events in each episode, especially given that there are only 26 in total. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The reasoning for this is explained above after the issue raised by ChrisTheDude. It's not possible because of the way the template is set up. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Then don't use the template. That's hardly a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode. This, in my opinion, does not qualify as part of Wikipedia's finest work as it stands. Don't get overtaken by templates, even just handcrafting the table would be better than trying to excuse a lack of detail. The template is clearly insufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Okay what about this being a reason for avoiding a synopsis of each episode? This is the standard on list of television series episode articles including featured lists such as List of Dexter episodes, List of Millennium episodes, List of Quantico episodes, and List of Lost episodes. It also follows MOS:TV specifically the paragraph that reads It may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. [...] If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries. Each section should have a {{main}} link to the sublist.. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well times have changed. And I'm sorry, I cannot support this as being amongst Wikipedia's finest works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: thank you for your comments and with all due respects I followed MOS:TV when creating this article and looked at various list of featured episode lists to find the appropriate table setup to use for this article. While this series is short with 26 episodes currently it has individual season articles where the episodes are summarized. All the featured lists I looked at with this setup do not have episode summaries even the series with less than 40 episodes that could accommodate short episode summaries. Instead of going against the established guideline would summarizing each season similar to List of Lost episodes work for this article? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think the Lost example you've given is a reasonable compromise. If you could write a few paras on each season as a summary, then I could be convinced to reverse my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay The Rambling Man I've added the paragraphs to the seasons as requested. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I've struck my oppose. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • This may be a question that's bigger than this FLC, but is the 'No. in season' column really necessary, given the 'Title' column? It seems a little redundant to me. Obviously Episode, say, 7 is going to the the seventh episode in the season. I may bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television...
  • The caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
  • "purpose built" -> "purpose-built"
  • "Julie Chen Moonves continues her role as host of the series, a position she ...". This confused me the first time I read it, as I didn't know that she had hosted the regular series. How about "Julie Chen Moonves hosts the series, continuing a position she ..." instead?
  • Both the Season 1 and 2 sections seem quite under-referenced to me. This might be fine if this were an article on a fictional TV series (per MOS:PLOTSOURCE), but, since we're dicussing living people here, it might be best to err on the side of caution and make sure that the text is fully-referenced, even if that just means citing to the CBB episodes themselves.
  • In the Season 1 section, I don't think you need to repeat the phrase "grand prize of $250,000" quite so quickly.
  • What are the "Head of Household" competitions? They're mentioned out of nowhere without any context given for what they are and what they represent. Presumably the houseguests competed in regular challenges, which meant that they were exempt from eviction, or something like that?
  • "season long" -> "season-long"
  • "Days 14-20" -> "Days 1420"
  • "never used it where she wasn't nominated for eviction". I didn't really follow this. Do you mean she never used it because she wasn't nominated for eviction? Also, avoid contractions in prose.
  • Could you maybe write a paragraph about the show's ratings for the Ratings section? I don't think I've never seen a level 2 header with nothing but one image in it. You could just merge the sentences about ratings from the Season 1 and 2 sections into it, then maybe say, for example, which episode was the highest-rated of each season. Happy to help, if you'd like.
  • Most of the publishers in the References section aren't wikilinked. Is there any particular reason for this?
  • Avoid shouting in reference titles (see citation 3).

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Thanks for reviewing this! I've implemented most changes sorry for not getting back sooner work has implemented mandatory overtime and its been brutal LOL. Here is some things that I haven't done yet or some comments I have:
  • I will be going back and adding references to the summaries to Season 1 and Season 2. All of this information is backed up and verifiable by the episodes but I totally understand your point of wanting to err on side of caution here since we are dealing living people here. I will try to use the episodes since I currently subscribe to CBS All Access and episode recaps from reliable sources like Entertainment Weekly as well.
  • I added a new summarized paragraph in Season 1 describing the elimination process which explains the regular competitions and terms such as Head of Household and Power of Veto, etc.
  • I moved the two lines about the season averages to the ratings section I will be going back to expand upon them later like you suggested when I go to add the references to the summaries. I'm gonna try to do this on my days off this week (around Tuesday-Thursday hopefully).
  • Had to edit the actual pages since the tables are just translucent here. Some publishers are not wikilinked like Programming Insider because they don't have a English Wikipedia page and some like TV By The Numbers were wikilinked once I was unsure if they should be wikilinked everytime so I went back and made sure they were.
  • For the reference (like citation 3) I thought we had to copy the title exactly as written so since the press release used all caps I did here. Sorry about that.
  • I can't remove the "Title" column it is required by default and the show doesn't name the episodes so these default titles are used. If I remove the "No. in season" column then "No. overall" defaults to just "No." which may cause some confusion to new readers. What's your take on this?
Thanks again for the comments! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Rock music

This list has multiple citation-needed tags, a table that doesn't adhere to WP:Sorting nor is it updated per MOS:ACCESS, it also doesn't even adhere to the basic rules of MOS:ITALICTITLE that albums are italicized. Also largely based on a book source and many "refs" are just urls. It clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove. This list has slipped very low since it was featured. A bunch of changes have been made, especially using false Halstead references with impossible page numbers, which I have removed. Other poor quality changes include violations of WP:NOR such as unreferenced assertions about songs being leaked to the internet. The list is in terrible shape. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - Lots of other strange things going on. Like "Name of this song was mentioned in 1993 Mexico deposition"... what is the Mexico deposition? Where is the missing "the"? In addition to citation issues and sorting issues and unaddressed tags. Mattximus (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Baltimore[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers

This list was nominated back in 2008 and has not aged well. The lead is 3 short sentences. The history section is a giant largely unsourced blob of a paragraph that is very difficult to read (having many run-on sentences). It uses out of date terminology (ex: "this list...."). Building 16 is unsourced. The section on under construction or proposed is out of date (says buildings were completed last year). And many of the proposals run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL being simply speculations (some are from years ago and nothing happened). The notes use a strange outdated mode where note A has sub note a and b in it? The sources are almost exclusively Emporis, which uses user generated data (I believe) and thus is not the most reliable source. Also, none of the many image have alt-texts. Anyway it's a mess. Mattximus (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Delist. It needs a lot of work to come up to standards. --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Delist – the fact that it has multiple tags and an only 3-sentence lead says the star should be removed ASAP – zmbro (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games[edit]

Notified: Tezero, WikiProject Video games

Reading through this I notice a glaring number of errors that featured lists pages do not, and should not, have. These being the following:

  • GameFAQs is used a multitude of times throughout the article, which is not considered a reliable source per these discussions
  • Infobox should list all companies that developed Digimon games, yet it only lists Dimps and Namco Bandai
  • Several links are not archived
  • Several links are missing dates, authors or publishers, sometimes all of these
  • Lead is not written that well and is a bit hard to read. Examples being: "Digimon is a series of role-playing video games and other genres (such as fighting, action and card battling)", "The series started in 1999 (in the West) with the game Digimon World for the PlayStation, but released in 1998, there was a Japan-exclusive...", etc.

Article does not seem up to snuff with the Featured List criteria, and as such I vote to have it demoted. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey it does not look like you informed the original nominator and WikiProjects about this. GamerPro64 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just something that you can fix yourself. If you see something you don't like, just be bold and make those improvements yourself. Personally, I am not a huge Digimon fan, so I would have little knowledge of how to fix the lead and make it better. According to your name and user page, you are a big Namco fan, so this seems like something you could do better research on than me. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 18:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species[edit]

Notified: WP:CETA, WP:WPLISTS, User:Dunkleosteus77


  • "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
Do you have any recommendations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it not a list? You shouldn’t feel compelled to avoid recognizing it is in fact a list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that it is a list is not the point. TPH is correct that "This is a list..." or the like is not an appropriate way to open a Featured List. But I think the revised current opening to the list is fine. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
that reads pretty formal to me, and the IUCN link is the ref. To create a footnote ref would be redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
this was already discussed as a harmless note   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.
I see just the 1 ref with an error, are there any other incomplete or otherwise incorrect citations or is it just the 1?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)