Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} 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

  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 {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please 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 {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. 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:

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:



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)

List of Sacred Games episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The first episodes list of an Indian series to be nominated for FLC. I believe it meets the criteria. All the criticisms are welcomed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The first season episodes have descriptions which (on my screen) are ten lines long, but for season two each episode is just a single sentence. Any reason why? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a content dispute on the article regarding plot of the episodes and the season two plots are significantly shorter than Anon IP's version of the season one plot. Also, stuff like "Unsettling truths, complex betrayals and unforeseen connections emerge for Sartaj, Gaitonde and Shahid Khan as doomsday descends on Mumbai." sounds like it's directly lifted from the episode trailer and very non-neutral; probably shouldn't be in the plot summary section at all. Rest looks good to me though. A logo would be look lot better than a captioned poster but isolating the logo and creating a svg would take a lot of time. TryKid (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude and TryKid Your queries have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Yashthepunisher:. I was waiting for what Chris had to say before commenting so forgive me for not responding. I think the episode summaries need to be expanded quite a bit. Maybe it's possible to completely remove episode summaries in favour of season summaries or is that only for shows with different season articles? But the episode summaries are currently too short. TryKid (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
TryKid I am following the similar existing FLs and I don't see any issue with the current version. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I see Gunsmoke list is similar but that was promoted in 2010. Other mainstream lists like GoT and Office (British) have much longer episode summaries. Can you provide some recent-ish FLs that have short episode summaries? Apparently the ping didn't properly go through (my signature got messed up). Let's try again: @Yashthepunisher:, hope this works this time. TryKid (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
[1] There are no rules as such. Some lists have long summaries, some short, some with no summary at all. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: If episode summaries is not a problem, I support the nomination. TryKid (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Resolved the above mentioned issues. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I made a few little tweaks which it would have taken longer to explain here than to just fix. My one remaining comment relates to the final episode of season 1: He eventually finds an underground bunker with Trivedi and filled with weapons - this wording is slightly confusing. Does it mean that he went with Trivedi to find the bunker? Or does it mean that he found the bunker and Trivedi was in it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
He went inside the bunker after getting a clue, where he finds stashed weapons and Trivedi tied to a chair. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying/amending. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would include ALT text for the logo.
  • I am wondering if you could expand more on this sentence (Gaitonde tells him to save the city within 25 days.). Why only 25 days? Is Gaitonde threatening to destroy the city within 25 days or is there something else threatening the city? Some more clarification would be helpful here.
That's the whole suspense on which the entire story is build as Sartaj tries to find the answers and the meaning of the '25 days' mystery. Gaitonde tells him to save the city and then shoots himself. It's only revealed towards the end of the second season. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The series was conceived after Erik Barmack, the Vice-president of Netflix,), I do not believe "vice-president" needs capitalization.
  • I think this part (contacted Motwane to create Indian content for the platform in 2014.) would read more smoothly for the "in 2014" part was moved directly after "Motwane". The date is more connect with the time Motwane was contacted. The current wording could imply that he was contacted to make Indian content for Netflix only for 2014.
  • I have two comments on this part (they opted to adapt Chandra's novel in the local Indian language,). I would specify the exact language rather than "the local Indian language", and I would also clarify that the novel was in English. Without the point of reference that the original is English, it is not really clear why the language choice is important.
  • For this part (The first season of the series was mostly shot in Mumbai; the second season was shot over different locations of Delhi, Mombasa, Nairobi, Cape Town and Johannesburg.), why are multiple geographic areas linked, but not Delhi or Mumbai?
  • For this part (Each episode of Sacred Games is named after a story or character derived from Hindu mythology.), would a link to "Hindu mythology" be helpful?
  • Any word on a third season?
Nothing yet. But I will mention it when its announced. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Since you mention the critical reception for the first season, has there been any reviews for the second season? It has just been released so I understand if there is not enough to form a consensus, but I was just curious.
There is no clear consensus available yet for the second season. Not even on RT. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am wondering if a source should be used for this sentence (The second season premiered on 15 August 2019.[7] A total of 16 episodes have aired over the two seasons with eight in each.) since the rest of the lead has citations.

Wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 The rest has been resolved. Thanks for your comments, and sure I will look into your FAC. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for covering everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 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)

  • 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)

  • "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)
  • 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)

List of international goals scored by Gareth Bale[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Welsh national side related list for me, inline with the numerous other international top goalscorer lists that have been promoted recently. I believe this meets the same standards that the rest have achieved. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "scoring a hat-trick in a against China" - spot the missing word ;-) - Woops, done
  • "every FIFA World Cup and European Championship they've entered" - don't use contractions
  • In fact are the words "they've entered" even needed? It's not like there have been World Cups/Euros which Wales haven't entered..... -Removed
  • "The side reached the semi-finals" - could be made slightly clearer which tournament this actually refers to - reworded
  • "He has scored more times in qualifying matches than in any other type with 20 goals. His other goals include three in friendly matches, three in the China Cup and two in the UEFA Nations League" - might be worth mentioning the three goals at Euro 2016 again, because my first thought on reading this bit was "hang on, that doesn't add up to 31??" - Added the extra goals
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've fixed all of the above issues. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments from KingSkyLord

Hey @Kosack, I noticed that you reverted my good faith edits from yesterday, and I honestly think that that was not a great idea. There are a lot of apparent flaws with the prose that should be fixed.

Hi KingSkyLord, I reverted your additions as there were some questionable terms introduced, such as "since Robert Earnshaw put three past Scotland" and "helping Cymru successfully qualify". I did reintroduce some of your additions immediately after. Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The goal was his seventh during the qualifying campaign." → "The" should be changed to "That" OR that sentence should be combined with the first one OR removed entirely. Scoring 7 goals in 10 games is impressive, but that would only place him joint-sixth (in qualification statistics) with four other players.
I don't particularly agree with some of one but I've expanded the sentence slightly to add more relevance. Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "At the tournament, Bale scored in all three of Wales' group matches, victories over Slovakia and Russia and a defeat to England, as Wales reached the semi-finals." → Yikes, this sentence is bad and should be rewritten to "At the tournament, Bale scored against all three group stage opponents: Slovakia, England, and Russia, as he helped Wales reach the semi-finals."
Again, I'm not convinced your alternative is an improvement but I've reworded slightly, hopefully as a compromise. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bale started the match on 26 goals, having not scored an international goal for nearly two years,[7] two short of Ian Rush' s record tally." →
    • First off, references should not be placed mid-sentence. It should be placed at the end of the sentence.
The ref is not mid sentence, it's after punctuation which I believe is perfectly acceptable. Kosack (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Second off, that sentence is also really awkward and sounds weird. I would much prefer if it were rewritten as: "Entering the match he had not scored an international goal in 18 months, having only scored 26 international goals since 2006; leaving him two goals short of Ian Rush's record tally."
I don't believe "having only scored 26 international goals since 2006" is suitable. Sounds almost like you're saying his 26 was a poor record. Reworded slightly Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "to equal Rush's record before overtaking" → Comma after "record" - Done
  • As a result of his hat-trick, he has scored more times against China than any other opponent with three goals. → This is wrong. He has also scored three goals against Andorra. So, the sentence should be removed entirely. I would say to correct it and add Andorra as well as China, but that has no relevance with the previous sentence. If you are going to keep that sentence, it would be better to add that to the third paragraph rather than the second, since the third paragraph talks about his general statistics and the second talks about his Euro 2016 run and goal progression. -Done
  • "the finals of one tournament, Euro 2016" → Comma should be changed to Colon - Done
    • Honestly, those are my only problems with the prose. If you can fix that, I will support this list's promotion. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 01:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @KingSkyLord: Thanks for the review, I've fixed most of the issues listed above and made alternative changes to some of the proposed fixes as noted above. Kosack (talk) 08:20, 15 August 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)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1986[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologise if people but are getting bored of these lists by now, but here's #31 in my run of "US country number ones by year" to be brought to FLC. All comments as ever welcome....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the Reba image in the lead, I would use a period for the image caption as it is a full sentence.
  • For this sentence ( In the fall, Conway Twitty achieved his fortieth and final Hot Country number one with "Desperado Love"), I would say "40th" instead of "fortieth" as elsewhere in the lead, larger numbers are represented in numerals rather than words, and it would be more consistent to change it here.
  • For this part (Upon its initial release the song had), there should be a comma after "release".
  • For this part (At the time he held the record for the highest number of chart-toppers by a single artist), there should be a comma after "time".

Great work with the list as always. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • That was very quick! Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Looks like you are going to get all the Hot Country Singles numbers one to FL status soon lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I dunno, it's been going for an awfully long time ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Can't see any issue with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: Great list like always. I've a couple of minor comments: I think using {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} will be better than just Ref. Also, shouldn't the alt text be something more than just "A middle aged woman...."? WP:ALT specifically states this in "Importance of context" section.

    Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"

They are famous people, it should be "<name of person> doing <thing>" or "<person> holding <thing>" or something like that. Also, if you reply, please ping me. TryKid (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@TryKid: - all done. It's years since I looked at the alt text guidelines, they must have changed. I'm sure back in the say it used to say that you should simply describe the visual content of the image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Support: Great list. TryKid (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. – zmbro (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support All looks good. But maybe consider: the second sentence in the opening paragraph is quite long and adds more after a semicolon. Splitting it may improve readability (personal preference, up to you). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

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)

Sorry for the reply. 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)

Oppose Clearly a lot of work has gone into this list, but I'm afraid that I don't think it's at FL-level just yet. These are my edits; please feel free to revert if you disagree with them.

  • My biggest problem is the sourcing. Out of 65 references, all but one of them come from the exact same source: Vienna Biennale. This is a problem because it means that almost the entire article is based solely on what the organisation that presents the award has said about it, which in turn raises concerns about bias and neutrality. References to more third-party sources are needed. A Google Books search returns plenty of results – could any of them be included in this article?
  • Like zmbro says, two citations is fewer than I would expect to see in the lead of a featured list. Beefing up the number of citations to third-party sources might also beef up the lead, which, in my opinion, is lacking some information that I would otherwise expect to see. For example, exactly how many times has the award been presented? Is there any reason that it wasn't presented from 1969 to 1982? You might also want to include, say, what the actresses who receive the award think of it. Are there any quotes from any of them on what winning meant to them? At the moment, the lead doesn't really expand on what a reader can already discern from the table itself – is there anything else that you could say?
Expanded. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ALT#Importance of context, most of the alt text for the images probably needs to be rewritten. Alt text such as "A caucasian woman looking to the left" doesn't provide the necessary context for our visually-impaired readers. Something like, for example, "Black-and-white publicity photograph of Katharine Hepburn in 1941" might be more helpful.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd have thought that "first ceremony" would be more appropriate than "1st ceremony", given MOS:ORDINAL – I might bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards, so leave it for now.
  • The final sentence of the lead needs an "As of 2019".
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this article still has some way to go before it's at FL level. I'm happy to help in any way that I can. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the reply. 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)

List of awards and nominations received by Exo[edit]

Nominator(s): NicklausAU 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive and thorough list that I have put an incredibly large amount of time into. I believe I have increased the standards considerably to the point where it may be considered for featured list status. I'm eager for feedback and am more then willing to address any areas that need work. Thank you for your consideration. NicklausAU 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to comments I have been made aware of that were given to previous FL nominations for awards lists, I have proactively begun reformatting this article into a singular table. This reformat is available here and will likely take a couple of days. Comments otherwise are very much appreciated until this reformat is completed. NicklausAU 11:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The reformatting of multiple table into a single table, requested of previous FL nominations, has been completed. I look forward to receiving feedback regarding this nomination. NicklausAU 00:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Support from ChrisTheDude
    • Source for date of formation, members and number of albums/EPs?
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Could do with an explanation of what "Exo-M" and "Exo-K" are/were, either in the lead or as a footnote
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • What the heck is a "listicle"?
A Listicle :) I know, it is a funny sounding word but I think it's the right name for Forbes list type things. If there is a better name for it them or spot they should go please let me know! NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • In note C, I don't think Baidu needs to be in italics
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note f - "the Elle Style Awards is annual awards show" - think there's a word missing there
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note k - "The Korea Best Star Awards is" (and other places) - you are inconsistent in whether you treat anything that ends in the word "Awards" as singular or plural. I can't see both "the XYZ Awards are" and "the XYZ Awards is"
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note l - "The Korea Popular Music Awards are an music awards show" - "an music"?? ;-)
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note t - "Also established in 2013" - why "also"?
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note y - "organised by the Korea Creative Content Agency" - as the article seems to be written in US English (lots of uses of "honor") then I think it should be spelled "organized"
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • THink that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :) and thanks Snowflake91 for resolving these issues! NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Carlobunnie
Support from Carlobunnie
    • Contents box needs to be fixed: C, H, W & Y are missing, F+N are included but there are no awards starting with those letters in the table.
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
This hasn't quite been fixed. I just checked the page and the TOC box above the main table still appears the same way as my orig comment indicated. You added the anchors but you also need to fix the coding for the toc box at the top otherwise the anchors are useless. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry Carlobunnie, I honestly thought I had done it. I've never used TOC boxes like this before now. I think it's fixed now! NicklausAU 04:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note b. could be rephrased to read as "The Asian Idol Awards is an annual music awards show established in 2012 and presented by Anhui Satellite TV in China that honors artists for outstanding performances", short and sweet.
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note f. the Elle Style Awards is AN annual...
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note k. this should be 'Korean Film Actor's Association'
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note l. The KPMAs are A music awards show...and IS sponsored by
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note o. could instead say 'awards show established in 1989 and presented by' for easier reading
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note t. " the areas of as music..." - 'as' is a typo right?
Done. NicklausAU 23:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • References #34, 37, 143 & 148 are all from KpopMap which is an unreliable source as per WP:KO/RS and need to be replaced. Don't have the time to check all 191 references but they seem to be from acceptable sources otherwise.
Done. No reliable sources exist, so awards have been removed. NicklausAU 00:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Chris about the Notes section needing to be consistent with the use of 'awards is/are' sing/plu. My corrections were based on how they're currently worded. And to answer your question ChrisTheDude, Listicle :) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback :) NicklausAU 00:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey Carlobunnie :) is there anything else I should do to the article to get your support for this nomination? NicklausAU 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@NicklausAU:Apologies for the late response. I started reviewing your reference list but paused to work on my BTS list and source hunting for that consumes a lot of time.
  • Refs 1, 2, 3.9, 3.10, 20, 34, 59, 108, 116, 125, have no archived links- necessary for consistency since all other refs have been archived.
Done. I believe all sources that can be are now archived NicklausAU 07:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 4.5 & 8: Metro UK has been deemed an unreliable source as per WP:KO/RS but I'm unsure whether the ref should be replaced as many k-pop related articles cite them often. If it's possible to find a more reliable source that mentions the same information I'd recommend changing it just to be on the safe side.
This decision was made in error by WP:KO/RS members. Metro UK is a common source used by even recently promoted Feature Lists such as Kylie Minogue and Dua Lipa. NicklausAU 07:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider it an error, it was added because they falsely reported BTS' view count for their MV records and claimed to have spoken to a YT rep, which was confirmed to be a lie. They've also written about false relationships between celebrities. I'd advise finding a better source. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 16:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Here, this article from the Manila Bulletin covers the same information, I'd suggest opting to use that. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm more comfortable with this source. And honestly, I'm guilty of having used metro a few times in updating some articles myself but haven't had the time to replace those instances so whenever we can curb the habit now as we see it the better. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable sources: Ref#32 TheAU Review- Hello Asia sister site (Heath Media is a dead link), #102 PopDust- at first glance seems reliable because this but then they also literally have this in their site description "POPDUST brings you entertainment news and reviews, from hot new music to celebrity gossip..." if you do a google search, #108 DramaFever News, #137 Syndicasian- reads like a fan blog.
DramaFever was owned by Warner Bros. and their news section was pretty reliable, but the site is down now, so if it's a deadlink it can't be used. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. #32 and #101 (both AU review) have been changed, but #102 is Yahoo... did you mean #101? Others also changed. NicklausAU 07:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't completed checking but have to go now. I'll make further comments when I have more time tomorrow. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I look forward to any further feedback :) NicklausAU 07:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok continuing:
  • No, I did mean the PopDust reference (#103), which still needs replacing. Perhaps I just got the numbering wrong by mistake or the # changed as refs were removed/replaced.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #11 should read as 'Tenasia' for consistency since other places in the article ref the site by that rather than the Hangul.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #45's parameters need 'work=bnt news' and 'via=Yahoo SG' as the article is simply hosted there. Also 'last=Cho' and 'first=Suyoun' need to filled in because the reporter's name is on the article.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #27, you can wikilink AXS (I believe that's the first use of them as a ref)
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #62, add 'last=Kim, first=Soo-jung, via=Naver'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #64 links to KpopLove, an affiliate site of KoreaDaily whom you've named as the source rather than KpopLove. To me it feels similar to when Soompi posts eng translations of Korean articles and links to said source at the end, which is what KPL did here. If an archive does not exist of the actual Korea Daily article (which is probably what should have been linked) then you'll need a more reliable Eng source or another good Korean source.
Kpop Love is part of Korea Daily (Eng site) which you mentioned before. Korea Daily is very reliable so when I saw this I gave it a pass. "Kpoplove" is a bad name I think it's pretty trustworthy. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@DanielleTH: I had no problem with Korea Daily as I recognized their reliability and did mention their orig link could have been used as the actual cite but w an archived link since the page is dead. However what's used for the ref is KpopLove's translation piece of the dead KD article, much like what Soompi does, and browsing diff sections of their website it strikes me as a cross between Soompi/BuzzFeed. I'm only one person not completely kosher with the site so maybe we can get an additional editor to give a third opinion? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Abdotorg has contributed quite a bit to WP:KO/RS, so I trust their opinion. It might be worth trusting Korea Daily but not this section of their site, much like SBS being allowed but not SBS PopAsia for similar concerns. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 22:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. I've replaced it with a different source either way. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #69, add reporter name 'Kim Chang'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #73, name 'Kim Eun-ae'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #85, name 'Julie Jackson' is provided for the English version of the Korean particle posted right under. You can change the 'title' parameter to the eng title and add her in.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #98, 'work=CJ E&M e-news world, via=Yahoo'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #99 references same article link as above just hosted on a different site, Mwave. If you're leaving this as is then change work parameter to same as above and add 'via=Mwave' or you could just use ref#98 for both.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #101, 'title' parameter is empty/missing
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #102, 'work=Manila Bulletin, via=Yahoo'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #117, I would actually put Qoo10 instead of Mnet.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #119, name 'Alkira Reinfrank'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #122, the name of the Spanish source is actually 'La Nacion' so that's what you should have it as. 'The Nation' is just the translation.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #123, name 'Elizabeth Escobar'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #126, name 'Raquel Rodrigues'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #135, it's 'via=Joins'. Actual source is 'work=Daily Sports'.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #137, name 'Gye Hye-sung, and 'via=Naver'
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm almost done but my battery is dying so I'll be back in a bit once it's charged and finish off. Not a lot left so I should be able to give my support later today :) -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Back now:
  • Ref #138, seems to be credited to JoongAng Ilbo so JTBC is hosting the article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if so then it should be 'work=JoongAng Ilbo' & 'via=JTBC' since the link used is JTBC's.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #145 & #149, add 'via=Naver' or replace Naver link with original article source link
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #151, Syndicasian- unreliable source
Done. Whole awards removed due to lack of reliable sources. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #163-#165: these are primary sources and need to be replaced. @Snowflake91: was very adamant when we were sourcing the VLive awards that we were not to use these same sources so I'm surprised he didn't pick up on their use/mention it to you.
Done. I believe the issue was that "all" the sources were primary sources, meaning there is no evidence of notability at all. Even the source used in the note to source the overall awards themselves was a primary source. There is no issue with using primary sources for the individual awards won (it is used for numerous other awards where voting pages and official award websites are used for results and nominations, such as MAMA, Melon and GDA). I have amended the award note (funnily enough, note v) to include a source verifying the notability of the awards from a reliable source, The Korea Herald. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh no don't get me wrong. My issue wasn't the use of primary sources for awards won, as I use them myself also. I was simply going down the ref list itself doing individual checks and when I saw all of those together for the wins (I didn't have a prob w usage for the noms) I just remembered the discussion I linked above and thought it was the same situation and thus applicable here, forgetting that you had a fn for the VL awards otherwise I would have just said to replace the ref for that as you ended up doing anyways. My brain flubs a bit (sometimes embarrassingly so) when I've been on wikipedia too long, so sorry about that lil mixup. Doing final page check now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #176, minor but 'work=The Chosun Ilbo' not Chosun Media.
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #177: can a diff source other than an SM site be used here? I feel like a news article would be a better choice.
Done. That piece of information was double sourced anyway, so i deleted the SM source. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #179, 'name=Ji Min-kyung', add 'via=Naver' or replace Naver link with original Osen source link
Done. NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NicklausAU: once these have been corrected I'll do one last sweep of the page to double check all the refs for formatting uniformity and that should be it for me. Would it be okay if I edit anything I notice you may have missed as regards the above? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
All done I believe. More than happy for you to edit if there are any errors etc. :) NicklausAU 01:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@NicklausAU: I'm on mobile rn and won't have access to a desktop until morning (it's currently 12:36am here) so please forgive this last delay until a few hours for me to do my final check of the entire page (don't wanna risk that on a palm-sized screen). I'll tag it with 'in use' just to be safe so no conflicts occur. That aside, you put a lot of work into the article and with the various improvements made based on reviewer feedback it's even better. I've shaved a couple years off my life slogging away at the BTS list reformat lol but the feeling when it's all done is totally worth it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

NicklausAU Comments from today (31.07):

  • Ref #4.5 - since the other Metro ref (formerly #8) was replaced ystrdy this one needs to be as well
Done. NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #57 - (did not notice this link ystrdy) is there a news article mentioning the same info that can be used in place of this SM press release?
Done. NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed all the styling issues for the table and coding as you'll see from the edit history. I've completed citation/formatting cleanup up to KBS Song Festival but I have to go for now. Will try to complete the rest of the adjustments by tonight when I get back. There was more fine tuning to do than I anticipated. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Ref #64 is a Chinese source not a korean one. 'language' incorrectly had 'Ko' and 'title' was the translated vers of the article rather than the orig chinese text. I corrected both but be careful with the language codes. Also, if you translate a title for one non-eng source you would have to be consistent with that throughout the entire article.
Done. corrected by yourself NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #66 for KBA fn: BeatusCorner is a fanblog. I removed it and left the empty citation format for you so all you have to do is fill in the parameters w info from a reliable source.
Done. NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref #184: the article quoted information from Allkpop amongst its sources so I removed and replaced it with a 100% reliably sourced reliable source (ah the english language).
Done. corrected by yourself NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
General observations
Many refs were missing info for 'last' and 'first' even though the reporter/writer names were located in the articles, others had the wrong name in the wrong parameter.
Consistency was the biggest issue, from the choice and order of parameters in references to the data entered in them, eg. 'language' varied with 'ko/Ko/ko-KR/Korean', 'work' versus 'website', 'language' being included in Eng refs (only needed for non-eng ones, I've made this mistake before myself simply because I followed what I'd seen other editors do). I looked for the earliest citations in the table and tried to use thier format as the pattern for the rest of the article, the only variations being where certain parameters aren't applicable.
Completed up to Melon awards in main table, V-Y awards done, Other Accolades section fully completed. Will continue tomorrow. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Finished my review last night. Cleanup is done, ref formatting corrected+made uniform, filled in missing info/parameters, replaced some urls+their respective archives+tagged for replacement cite needed where I couldn't get one. From the article's talk page you'll seem an admin gave me some advice but I need to be on desktop to implement it. Other than that, @NicklausAU: all that's left is for you to address my comments above. Once that's done I can support. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the article :) I believe all of the above comments are now completed! NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Support!!! - with the application of that date template I am all done. Sorry again that it took so long NicklausAU, my brain is really picky about details T_T -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DanielleTH
Support from DanielleTH

Incredibly happy to hear that our work on the BTS page was helpful to setting up the version for Exo, you've been great with improving their articles.

  • There are two sources for one statement many times throughout the article, are both sources needed? For the ones that reference wins/noms, is there a way to make it clearer which source references which win/nom?
In cases where double sources are referring to multiple pieces of information, the less useful of the two has been deleted. Both sources were for all awards each time, if they only source some awards, the reference rows are split :) Done. NicklausAU 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason the awards (not the ceremonies, the awards themselves) are organized the way they are? For BTS we've been doing it by wins first then noms, and alphabetically within that.
Not really, there doesn't seem to be any convention such as by win then nom or alphabetical for ordering awards in the recent successful FL nominations (Dua Lipa & Kylie Minogue), so I didn't order them a specific way. NicklausAU 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Minogue's is largely alphabetized but it appears randomly throughout the sections, and it looks like Lipa's does not appear to be at all. The list is long and since it's not super important we can leave it like this. I'd hate for you to waste the time rearranging tables for no good reason. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The other accolades section is a little bare, are there any available photos that can be put there?
Not that is directly related to any of those awards unfortunately. I was going to put another picture in, but not sure if it would seem out of place? NicklausAU 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
You could upload one of suho giving the thank you speech when they received either of their special accolades. I remember seeing it in one of the citations, and I'm sure there are tons available from news media on Naver. Unless photo approval would take longer than you would like? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You could also try this image of the group at MAMA since they hold the record for most MAMA daesangs. I'll hunt around YT for more recent images if you would like me to. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 01:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I have almost zero experience uploading photos, and ran into trouble with copyright stuff the one time I tried it. I didn't know you could use photos from news articles or YT screenshots? NicklausAU 01:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep you can, you just have to double check that whatever image(s) you decide to use meets free/non-free requirements as per wikipedia standards and that the appropriate c.c. license is used. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You can if it's under Creative Commons, like this. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 02:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That's something I'll have to look into, but I just did a quick rearrange with current wiki images for now. Replaced lead image with newer and moved lead image (taken at MAMA) to other accolades section). NicklausAU 02:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks great! I'll run it through a source check as well.DanielleTH (Say hi!) 15:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey DanielleTH (Say hi!) :) Did you have any more feedback for the list? NicklausAU 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Two small things. You need a common right before "including" in paragraph two sentence one. You would use commas, not semicolons, in your list in the lead, as none of your list items have commons within them. Apologies for the wait, the source check took a while since there were so many. Anyhow:
Done. above comments and source check comments done. Thank you for your feedback! NicklausAU 08:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Source check:
  • Refs 1 and 2 use a different date system than the rest of the sources.
Done. NicklausAU 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 3 is just a bulleted list of four sources that appear to source different parts of the sentence (and I'm not sure how the world record pertains to that sentence in particular). Do you think you could break it up and put specific refs closer to what they source?
They all cite the same thing, Daesang = Grand Prize. NicklausAU 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 186 cites Forbes, which should be italicized as it's a magazine.
Done. NicklausAU 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The romanization of the Korean authors' names needs to be uniform unless the actual article specifies how the author prefers to spell it, which takes precedent. (Like this, ref 38. Though the actual article doesn't romanize it like Yoon does, which should be fixed.) If not specified, write authors as "Park Soo-young" as that's the WikiProject Korea standard.
Done. All Authors romanised to naming convention, except where source said otherwise. NicklausAU 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As an extension, all Korean names should be romanized, this being for publications (ex: source 82, 134) and author names (ex: source 107).
Done. NicklausAU 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Naver just hosts articles, for accuracy and copyright's sake cite the actual publication that wrote it using |work=. (You can add |via=Naver if you want to specify it's hosted by Naver, but that's optional.)
Done. All publication names swapped with Naver. NicklausAU 08:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable sources (see WP:KO/RS): Korea Portal (4, 67, 96), Officially KMusic (135), and Kpopmap (142). Syndicasian (137) isn't on the list but it appears to be a blog and hosts a "K-pop member profiles" section with a bunch of rumors on it, so I don't think it can be trusted. Source 108 leads to a dead link. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. Unreliable sources & dead source swapped or deleted. NicklausAU 03:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks great, NicklausAU. Support. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Support from KingSkyLord
  • I have read the introduction and looked throughout the list for any major or insignificant mistakes, and I really couldn't find any! So, I support this article's promotion to a featured list. KingSkyLord (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your support :) NicklausAU 06:21, 6 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 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))

Comment from Teratix[edit]

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)

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.

  • "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,"
  • 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)


  • 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)

Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've not done one before and would be interested to know if this comes anywhere near reaching the criteria. This list combines two of my main interests, architecture and Monmouthshire, and I've been adding to this, and to its Grade II* companion piece, for quite a while. My aim for the II* list is to have an article, and an image, for every entry. Having got there for Grade I, I'm keen to see what else it needs for FL status. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Have just had a thought. Although I’m the main editor by number of edits, I’m not by added text. That honour belongs to User:KTC who created the table. Should I consult with them before nominating? KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude - Really helpful. I shall amend as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think my only comment now would be that you have note (1) and note (a), which looks odd...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude - It does indeed! The issue is that Note 1 is embedded in the template and I just need to work out how to match Note a to it, so that it becomes Note 2. Shall get on to it asap. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Needless to say, I can't work it out quickly, so have moved the content to the main text as a temporary fix. Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Works for me - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Very much appreciated. And thanks for your interest and encouragement. KJP1 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • There are a number of Harv errors in the references and sources. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script which flags these errors.
To do - need to run this.
  • "the authority for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sits with Cadw." "sits with" sounds odd to me. How about "lies with"?
  • "There are 53 Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire.[7] The buildings include twenty-six churches, including a priory and an abbey, eight castles, seven houses, two bridges, a barn, a cross, a farm, a folly, a gatehouse, an hotel, a municipal building, a stables, and two elements of town walls." 1. I do not think you need to repeat "buildings" 2. As you list all the types, "consists of" would be more correct than "include". 3. As priories and abbeys are establishments including a church and other buildings, I do not think it is right to say "churches, including a priory and an abbey". How about "They consist of twenty-four churches, an abbey, a priory,..."
Done, as per suggestions.
  • "The county has a "fine collection" of castles, mostly dating from the Norman invasion of Wales,[8] with Chepstow "the glory of medieval south Wales"" These and other POV comments should be cited inline to named authors.
Done, to Simon Jenkins.
  • What is a "rood arrangement"?
Have bluelinked which I hope will help.
  • "One of the county's two Grade I listed abbeys" You say above that there is only one abbey.
Done - mixing up my abbey (Tintern) with my priory (Llanthony).
  • "hung, drawn and quartered, the last such sentences to be passed in Britain." I think you should say that the sentences were not carried out.
Done, by way of a footnote.
Not sure about this. They'd be pretty vague, e.g. Sedgemoor has a lot of "X century". On top of that, I'm afraid I lack the skill to amend the template.
  • Knowing whether a building is twelfth century or sixteenth century is of great interest whereas whether it was listed in 1952 or 1964 is of little or none. The only change which would be needed to the template is to alter the heading which I can easily do. However, it is not a deal breaker if you prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that I was wrong to say that it is easy to change the template as it is a strange and inflexible one which I am unfamiliar with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether the first word of notes on each site is capitalised.
  • A first rate list, especially as it has photos of every building. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your interest, excellent suggestions and kind comments. Have taken all on board except where noted. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


A splendid effort. Leaning heavily to support, but a couple of points first.

I did some minor tidying up of the sources as a couple of errors (this lot here), so please check I've not erred with the corrections. There is still a problem I cannot sort: FN15 has Hando 1951; FN16 has Hando 1961 and the sources list Hando, Fred (1944), so pick a number, any number! (or is there a missing source?) The second point is that I wonder if there a reason you give English locations for sources as "Woonton Almeley, Herefordshire" and the Welsh equivalents as "Monmouth, Monmouthshire"? I'd pick one format and stick with it (London, England and Cardiff, Wales or just London and Cardiff). That's it. Everything else looks tidy, as my old gran would never have said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - Schro, excellent to see you here and many thanks for taking an interest. Been a bit busy with visitors over the weekend but I shall attend to your very helpful suggestions/corrections/queries asap. While I've got you on, I wonder if you might be able to advise on the other list I'm working on - Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire. This isn't ready for FLC yet as I'm still to write about 8 articles and I don't do the articles until I've got the photos. It's only taken about 5 years of trips to Monmouthshire, but hey ho! The problem I've got is that I've screwed up the table somewhere but I can't see where. You'll see that, at present, neither the refs. nor the sources display. But if you go back to the last version on 20 July, they're fine. I was trying to correct the CADW cites which require "access-date", whereas I'd previously not used a hyphen; the English Heritage template doesn't. But I'm blowed if I can see what I've done wrong. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll drop a note about the Grade II* list on your talk page shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
SchroCat - Hando now sorted, and added to, and consistency achieved with the publisher Locations. Your Source amendments are spot-on. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work, and meats the FL criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Fromm Cass[edit]

I would be happy to support, of course, but can I just say what a waste of a column "function" is. "Abergavenny Castle" is unlikely to be a supermarket, is it? And I would envisage that by the very name, "Church of St Bridget", the building is going to be a church, rather than, say, a nightclub. Also, the column with the listing date in it: is this article about the listing of the buildings or the buildings themselves, that just happen to be listed? If the latter, then the listing date column is, again, a waste of space. I'd rather see that column blitzed which would free up some more room for the "notes" section. And in place of either of these columns, I'd rather see the year or century that the building dates to, as at the moment I am having to click away to find out. I'm sure this is a feature on other FA lists of the same type. CassiantoTalk 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto - Hi Cass, and thanks for taking a look. I appreciate the points, and you'll see above that Dudley Miles was similarly sceptical as to the value of the Listing date column. As to the Function column, it may be thought a bit more useful for Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, where there are lots more "farm buildings" of various types. But the central issue is that I just don't have the skills to change the table. Dudley looked at it, and found it to be a complicated one. Another issue with it can be seen at the Grade II* list, where Tryptofish has explained a problem with over-templating which I'm going to have to address - very laboriously! So, in essence, the table structure is what it is, and I don't have the ability to change it. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Pinging the eminent RexxS who usually sorts all my coding issues out. RexxS, is this a big job to do? CassiantoTalk 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto and KJP1: The table that holds the list is implemented by means of a template that defines the columns, fontsize, etc. That has the benefit of ensuring a standard presentation across all of the articles that use the template, but has the disadvantage that changes to it will be reflected across all 40 articles that use the template. Changing the template itself is not a difficult job; the problem will be getting consensus across all 40 articles that use it. One partial solution to this would be to make the header template use a parameter that altered the display of the columns. It seems that somebody has been looking at that previously because this article has the parameter |subdivision_iso=GB-MON which currently doesn't do anything.
If you get consensus for changes, I'd be more than happy to implement them for you, so don't worry about doing laborious work – I have tools to do those jobs quickly. I would look at the over-templating for you, but I'm rather busy at Wikimania for the next few days. If you ping me next week, I'll do my best to help out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS, KJP1, I think this would be a benefit and will do away with the rather pointless columns that I mention above. Dudley Miles, would you agree with this? I would assume consensus is needed here rather than somewhere more central. CassiantoTalk 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As it stands I agree with deleting, although I think it could be useful with more attention. For example, Great Castle House could be classified as a museum and Mathern Palace as commercial (as Abbey Hotel is). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Cassianto, RexxS, Dudley Miles - I really appreciate the interest, and for RexxS's insights and offer of help. But I am very cautious about changing the table format, given that would require changing the format of 40 other articles. As RexxS notes, this template is used by the lists of Grade I and Grade II* buildings for every other Welsh county. We would therefore first need to get consensus for the changes, and other editors would then need to put in considerable effort to amend the format/content of these tables to bring them in line with the new set-up. I am really not sure either that consensus for this would be forthcoming, or that other editors would have the time/inclination to make the necessary amendments. Although I appreciate that elements of the table, particularly the Function and Date listed columns, don't meet with universal approval, I wonder if these are deal-breakers for Featured Lists? If they aren't, perhaps we could finalise the FLC and I will start a separate discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales to see what appetite there may be for making the suggested amendments across the full set of lists? KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

The online sources, being almost entirely official government sites, are clearly reliable and are consistently formatted. (Ought there to be a vertical line in citation 8, though?) The printed sources cover a wide range of dates from recent to historic, and most are clearly by established authorities and published by mainstream publishing companies. I hesitated over the three Clark books—local historians and historical societies are not automatically to be taken as RS's—but given the large number of university libraries listed by WorldCat that have thought them worth acquiring I think they pass muster. I have complained before about blue links that seem to promise readable text of a source but deliver only bibliographic details (e.g the Hando and Mitchell books) and I still find them mightily irritating, but by no means grounds for the thumbs-down in a source review. I have some other general comments, which I'll add below, separately, but so far as the source review is concerned the article is satisfactory, in my opinion. Tim riley talk 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Amended the error in Cite 8. I take the point re. Arthur Clark. He was not a professional historian, but rather a schoolmaster/local historian in the mode of Keith Kissack. Indeed, he was senior history master at West Monmouth School, founded by my alma mater when they were flush with cash! But I think he is sound and his work was a valuable contribution to the county history of Monmouthshire. In this, he stands with those other notable Monmouthshire authors, Kissack, Lord Raglan and Sir Joseph Bradney, rank amateurs all! KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support General comments from Tim[edit]

  • I'm with Cassianto about the "Function" column. It does no great harm, but is a waste of space, in my view.
  • The image captions seem most peculiar: why have "Upload another image" under each? I don't recall this in analogous articles I've previously reviewed. You might as well say "Add another sentence" after each paragraph in the text.
Yes, this is an issue. However, the "Upload" text is another embedded feature of the table, see centring below. With great assistance from User:Tryptofish, who worked out how to remove them, I'm in the, slow, process of taking them out of the Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire article. I shall see if I can do the same here. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
And presto - carefully following Trypto's guidance, the extraneous wording is gone! KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead
  • "some 60%..." – though it is not mandatory the MoS suggests words, not symbols, for percentages in the text: "some sixty per cent...". I agree (for once) with the MoS: words are easier on the reader's eye.
  • "Once listed, strict limitations are imposed on the modifications" – dangling participle. This should be something like "Once a building is listed strict limitations etc"
  • Bulleted list: I think the % signs and numerals look OK in a list like this, and I wouldn't particularly urge you to change them.
Many thanks.
  • "an hotel" – you dear, old-fashioned thing! Do you actually omit the aspiration when you say "hotel"?
I do not! Changed.
  • "focussing" – yuk! "focusing", I implore you.
  • "William Wordsworth undertook the Wye Tour in 1798 ... while Walter Savage Landor sought..." – According to the WP article on Landor he didn't try to set up at Llanthony until 1811, so "while" is not the word you want. A simple "and" will do the job more accurately and get us out of "Miss X sang Mozart while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory.
  • "hung, drawn and quartered" – "hanged", please.
Done. Don't remember why I did that, given that the Bluelink is Hanged.
  • Main table
  • General: I don't know if the MoS expresses a view on the matter, but to my eye the centred text, particularly in the Notes column, is hard on the eye. Having the text aligned left as here looks pleasanter, I think, and is easier to read.
Take the point, and don't disagree, but I've afraid the centring is embedded in the format of the table and I lack the skill to change it.
  • Notes column: I can't work out why some buildings are "Situated" and others aren't. Compare Abergavenny Castle and Court Farm Barn. Neither needs a "Situated" to my mind, and similarly passim.
Done, in their entirety, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That reads like a litany of disapproval, but in fact I have much enjoyed this article, and expect to be supporting its elevation to FL in due course. Meanwhile, over to you, KJ. Tim riley talk 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley - Tim, greatly appreciate both the Source review and the very helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all, except those which relate to the formatting of the table. This is a bigger, and more complex, issue, partly because of the technical complexities, but more because the table is used in 40 other articles, namely all of those on Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Wales. Thus, any changes made to this one would also affect those, which means such changes would need to get consensus, and would involve other users doing quite a lot of work to bring the format/content in line with the new arrangement. I've discussed this further above. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I say! I had no idea the table would present so many problems to authors who use it. I entirely accept the points you make about having to live with it, and my views on the formatting are not so strong as to prevent my supporting promotion of this excellent article to FL. I have refreshed my memory of the FL criteria, and this page seems to me to meet them. Tim riley talk 10:43, 18 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, [[2]], 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 chief ministers of Chhattisgarh[edit]

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my second FLC nomination, my first, Districts of Bhutan, is at four supports and a source review support. I've made some changes to this list, to be more in line with List of chief ministers of Karnataka, a featured list. I think it meets the criteria. TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment
  • Your link to bifurcated is an WP:EASTEREGG. Not sure if this is the best word anyway.
  • In 2018 the current incumbent... 2018 is not current.
  • No need for sub-sub headings. One subheading for notes and one for references should be enough. Mattximus (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, I've tried to solve the first two issues, let me know what you think about it. I think the sub headings are simply stylistic choice, it's not needed, but looks good, especially on mobile phones, at least to me. If it is causing any problems, let me know. TryKid (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
"bifurcated" can be replaced with "carved out of", if you think that is better.... Thanks for the quick review though. TryKid (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks a bit better. But I'm sure someone can suggest something better. TryKid (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a more encyclopedic word for the creation of the state, it is "partitioned", which is much better than "carved out of". Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus: When I hear the word "partition", it reminds me of India-Pakistan partition, and that wasn't very pleasant. I don't think partition is the right word. I've read a lot of news reports about the creation of states (Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttranchal, etc), none of them use "partition". See this report from The Hindu. The Hindu is very reputable source and it uses "carved out of", "bifurcation" and "separate"; never "partition". I don't think the word "partition" should be used out of the context of Pakistan or sometimes the state of Bengal (in British Raj). Regards, TryKid (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How about split from? "Carved out of" is not encyclopedic and needs to be replaced. Mattximus (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, That's better I think, done. Thank you. TryKid (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mattximus:, If you have time, you can check out the list again. I've made some minor changes and hopefully you'll like the new wording. TryKid (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks good, just a few little things.
  • The wording is a bit strange. Maybe this is a bit better?

"The first chief minister was Ajit Jogi of the Indian National Congress. He was succeeded in 2003 by Raman Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party who served three consecutive five-year terms. His successor, and current incumbent, is the Indian National Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel who was elected chief minister in 2018."

Or something like that? Just to make it a bit easier to read.

  • I still think you should have a subheading for notes and one for references, instead of both of those inside a third subheading (at present there are too many subheadings, and such a small article does not need sub sub headings)
  • I think you should remove the external link subheading since it's just a link to some guy's personal website?

Just those three comments and the rest looks good! Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, I've solved the two comments. I've copy pasted your version with some modification: I removed the two instances "chief minister" for better flow. I've also retained the first sentence of original paragraph, since information about the birth of the state seems important. If that is not okay, you can suggest something. I really appreciate you giving some time to me. TryKid (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks good now, I just reworded the first sentence so it is not passive. Mattximus (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the support. TryKid (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The infobox image needs an alt text.
  • "Following elections to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly." The word 'Chattisgarh' is getting repetitive here. Removing it will create a better flow.
This hasn't been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Chhattisgarh is used three times in the first paragraph of the lead, one time in the second paragraph and two times in the infobox. I don't see where I can replace Chhattisgarh with something else. Maybe replace "Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh" with just "Chief Minister". But the current usage is consistent with two other featured lists — List of chief ministers of West Bengal and List of chief ministers of Karnataka. TryKid (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Yashthepunisher:, forgot to ping. TryKid (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Given that he has the confidence of the assembly". --> Given that they have the confidence of the assembly. It should be gender neutral.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick comment – Regarding note b, is it common in Indian English for the hyphen to be in "MLA's"? I'm not sure it would be in U.S. English, but if it is used there that would be fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    No, that was a mistake! Thank you very much for pointing it out. TryKid (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – The only issue I saw has been fixed. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      Thank you very much for the support. TryKid (talk) 09:47, 8 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)

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)

  • 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. "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 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.[3][4][5] 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 Nashville Sounds owners and executives[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Nashville Sounds minor league baseball team was known in its early years for its ownership by several country musicians. This list is the final piece needed before an attempt at a team featured topic. It follows the same style and formatting in use in other team featured lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • In the table, I think the asterisks to indicate new owners should come before the commas, not after. Putting them after the commas almost makes it look like the asterisk relates to the next person's name.
  • As the key only relates to the first table, put it just above it, within the "owners" section
  • "along with help from" - don't think the word "along" is needed here
  • "Richard Sterban of The Oak Ridge Boys" - maybe clarify here that the Oak Ridge Boys are a country music group
  • Think that's all from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Numbers 0–9 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS (in owners section)
  • Lowercase "the" on "the Oak Ridge Boys" mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC

Great job on this. Should be FL in no time. – zmbro (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Good for me. – zmbro (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment SupportAbout the only thing I can nit-pick is that Schmittou's first name probably doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Otherwise, the list looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources, and the links are all in working order. My only (minor) complaint is a formatting one I should have caught while looking at the article before: the second book reference should have the same 13-digit ISBN formatting as the other one. There are converters available online that can convert the numbers for you, if needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say the source review has been passed, in that case. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 14 August 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.[8]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)

List of ACF Fiorentina seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it matches the Featured List nomination criteria as well as fits with other similar articles on club seasons. —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • The lead image's caption isn't a complete sentence, so it needs no period.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It does need alt text.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The club's fortunes quickly turned in the early 2000s as they entered administration in the wake of the 2001–02 season." - This hardly seems like a quick change (going from a successful 1955–56 season to the misfortunes of 2001–02. Perhaps it would be helpful to add prose covering each promotion and relegation (only some are currently covered) as well as a general overview of successful & less successful periods in the club's history.
 Reworded the introduction to include more detailsChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the count of seasons played in each Serie is correct (or maybe it is). It says 6 seasons were played in Serie B, but I count 5, unless the 1945–46 Serie A-B season is counted. If is counted as a Serie B season, shouldn't it also be counted as a Serie A season? Maybe it's the "or equivalent" part at the end of the sentence. If this is the case, it would probably be best to indicate in parenthesis which former classifications are counted toward each current classification.
 The Serie A-B was the highest level of league football in Italy, equivalent to today's Serie A, so the count has ben added for Serie AChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Several top scorers are still in need of {{sortname}}.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Any links to players on Italian Wikipeida will need to be formatted such as this: {{sort|Casarsa, Gianfranco|[[:it:Gianfranco Casarsa|Gianfranco Casarsa]]}} in order to sort by last names.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In the three instances of shared capocannoniere awards, it might be interesting to know what club the co-winner played for.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a problem with the ISBN on reference 6.
 Not sure if correct ISBN, as the one used is provided by FIGCChrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - My concerns have been met. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Even more comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "After a 55-year spell in the top division, Fiorentina was relegated to Serie B" - you still need to say when this actually was. Readers shouldn't have to look back to an earlier paragraph and then do mentally arithmetic to work out when "55 years later" was
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "saw him finish as the club top-scorer" => "saw him finish as the club's top scorer"
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • " the fourth-level" => " the fourth level"
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Records of competitions such as Mitropa Cup and the Anglo-Italian League Cup are not included." - except they now are :-)
 :)Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, owner family, the Della Valle family," - this is still not correct English grammar. It should be "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, the club's owners, the Della Valle family," (as I believe I said above, in fact)
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Think that's it - we're nearly there now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think that List is well-reasonably good enough to be a Featured List KingSkyLord (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


  • "the 1955–56 season" season should be within the pipe. Many examples of this.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Real Madrid is piped to a redirect.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "(lost 2–0 to ..." losing ... Plus link to the article about the final. Or if not, the specific Champions League (like you do to the Coppa Italia articles linked in the lead).
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Their second league title" Reiterate Fiorentina here, the last club you mention is Rangers.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " near relegation finishes" near-relegation should be hyphenated in this context.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "third Serie A title in the 1981–82 season, however they lost the title " repetitive use of title, needs reworking.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " losing again to Juventus 3–1 on aggregate" they didn't lose 3-1 on aggregate last time.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fiorentina was relegated" previously you've referred to Fiorentina in the plural.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Supercoppa Italiana" specific year article should be linked.
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "played 82 seasons in Serie A, seven in Serie B and one season in Serie D " MOS:NUM cats and dogs (82/7/1) or (eighty-two/seven/one).
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would much rather see the use of the {{ill}} template for those articles which only exist at Italian Wikipedia. That way it encourages someone to create the articles rather than just rely on
 DoneChrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are some top scorers in bold?
Top scorers in bold are those who were also top scorers within Fiorentina's league division that season. This has been added as a note in the introduction. —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chrisportelli: Are you still working on this? --PresN 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@PresN: Apologies, wasn't keeping track of the article. I have completed the necessary changes as suggested —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 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)


  • 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 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)

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)

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)

List of birds of Vieques[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Birds

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list is almost entirely unsourced. There has been a "lack of inline citations" tag for almost 10 years (!!!). The lead is short, and uses outdated terminology such as "This list...". Images don't have alt-text. I haven't seen a featured list this far from our standards, but it was nominated in 2006, so it shows. Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist not up to current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – Unless the nominator's comments are addressed, this should end up delisted for the reasons they mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – per Rambling Man. Honestly wondering how this got promoted in the first place. – zmbro (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist, the list is a mess and hard to use, none of the images have alt text, and the notice at the top of the page is still valid. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 16:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)