Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2015

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:59, 23 April 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An order of battle for an obscure naval campaign in 1795 in which a French admiral lost his nerve and failed to destroy a smaller British force and was subsequently defeated by a different larger British force, the admiral of which also lost his nerve at the last moment, failing to turn a minor victory into an annihilation. Its been several years since I nominated anything here and I've forgotten all of the niggling requirements for FL I learned back then, so just let me know what I've missed and I'll fix it. Best Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Most of the notes and sources in the tables ends with full stops, but not all. I suggest choosing a consistent approach. Either end all notes with full stops or only those that are sentences (please see: MOS:FULLSTOP and MOS:LISTBULLET). –P. S. Burton (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call! Done!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "during the second year of the French Revolutionary Wars". They started in 1792 so 1795 is not the second year.

• The war between Britain and France didn't begin until 1793, but this was still incorrect, so I've simplified.

• "protecting an expeditionary force carrying a French Royalist army intended to invade Quiberon under the command of Commodore Sir John Borlase Warren." This is confusing. I took it to mean that Warren was in command of the invasion, but I see on checking that he commanded the convoy.

• Clarified.

• "Villaret attempted to effect a fighting withdrawal, but several of his captains ignored his orders." Presumably ignored his orders to fight, but this should be made clear.

• They failed to support the rearguard - I've tried to clarify.

• "Although an attack might have destroyed the entire French fleet" This is unclear. 3 French ships were captured even though Bridport did not attack?

• Renewed attack - clarified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Battle of Groix, as the second action is known" I was not clear at first that you were referring to the action in the previous paragraph, particularly as you have just said that Bridport did not attack. I think it would be clearer to give the name of the battle at the end of the para describing it, as with Cornwallis's Retreat.

• Good call.

• "Bridport remained cruising with his fleet off the Breton Coast until September, before handing over control to Rear-Admiral Henry Harvey." This is not in the source cited about Hood.

• That is a strange error - I got it completely wrong. I've supplemented the correct source and checked the others. Apologies.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would give the dates in the table headings - e.g. "Cornwallis's Retreat 17 June 1795"

• I've renamed those sections after the forces they refer to rather than the battles.

• This seems a good list, but I am concerned that the one source I have checked is wrong. Have you checked the other sources retrieved on the same date? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackyd101: Are you still wishing to continue with this nomination? Harrias ^talk 19:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: @Harrias: Apologies - I have been traveling recently and completely missed these comments. I apologise and have now addressed them .--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sadly, there wasn't much interest in this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 13:17, 17 April 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I really think that this list satisfies the FL criteria, cause it's simple, easy to navigate and well organised. This is its second nomination because the first one failed as a result of no activity. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great comprehensive list!  — ₳aron 10:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per my comments on the previous one. Plus, if you could look at my one. -- FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not loving the lead image for her, just based off the face she's making, is there another picture that can be used? But passed that, I support, good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow guys! Thank you, sincerely. Those were 3 fast supports, in comparison with the previous FLC that was closed because of no activity. @Calvin999: and @FrB.TG: I will comment on both of your lists, very soon. And @Lady Lotus: I changed the picture, hope you like it now. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect, that's actually the one I was thinking of :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Why have you hidden the writers' names in the list? Readers should be able to scan a table readily without having to click on each individual entry. I suggest you remove the hidden status of entries in this column. BTW I would also consider left-justifying the text in columns with words rather than numbers. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis is not on the writers solely. This isn't a list of songs written by or for Jessie J. It also makes the table unnecessarily longer to display all of the writers.  — ₳aron 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have used fixed-width columns, that is not a good idea because different users have different screen sizes and so the narrowest possible table width is usually the best. Regarding the writers' names, you could just use the surnames, with links where appropriate, and a master link in the column header giving their names in full. Alternatively, if most of the songs were written by the same people, you could just use a code, A, B, C etc for this or that group of songwriters. They are just a couple of suggestions. Hiding the songwriters' names is just going to make users interested in the songwriters work very hard to get their information. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who has used fixed-width columns. No, just using surnames and a master key is a ridiculous proposal, it's creating too much unnecessary work and navigation. Not all of the songs are written by the same people either. Using an A, B, C system is just confusing. It's not difficult to click on "Show" is not very difficult. I think you are over thinking it a bit.  — ₳aron 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Gato, I don't like your idea(s). I think this is how they will get more interested and want to see who the writers are by clicking show. And I wouldn't say one click is a "hard work" to get the information who the writer of a specific song is. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, one click is not much work. But what about those who are interested in seeing who is doing all the writing for this artist, or who wants to see at a glance who wrote what? They are going to be seriously inconvenienced. Hiding the fields defeats the whole purpose of a table IMO, which is to provide quick and handy access to a large amount of information. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The you just click "show." It doesn't defeat the point at all, because this isn't a list of songs written by Jessie J or for Jessie J. It's for songs she has recorded, so the emphasis is actually on the first column, the list of songs.  — ₳aron 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your own way. But if I was going to vote on this nomination, which I'm not, I couldn't vote for a table with hidden fields like that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, that's your opinion. No one is asking you to change your mind.  — ₳aron 17:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comment: the caption to the picture of David Guetta refers to him as a disc jokey -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude I changed it to DJ. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A whole month has gone and everything else seems to have been addressed. Erick (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've read this through and can't find any issues with it Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you guys! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please check that hiding the writers as you have done complies with WP:ACCESS, i.e. that screen-reader software is able to correctly parse the information in the table. Articles must comply with this to be considered suitable to be featured.
• Image captions that are complete sentences need a full stop.
• First sentence is a little clunky with "and she has", perhaps just ", and has ..."
• "Who You Are (2011).[2]" would be better as "'Who You Are in 2011."
• "She co-wrote every ..." count the number of "and"'s in that sentence... reorganisation needed.
• Disc jockey isn't hyphenated.
• Morrison can easily be regarded as a singer-songwriter.
• " song penned by the songwriter Diane Warren" I would add "American" here.
• " an "accomplished pop record", as described by Lewis Corner, a Digital Spy critic." would be better as "described by Digital Spy critic Lewis Corner as "an accomplished pop record".
• "She has also collaborated with Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins that resulted with co-writing..." this is missing something.
• In the Other performers column, what does N/A mean? None?
• L.O.V.E. is in the wrong initial order (it moves on the first sort which it shouldn't).
• You're using two types of N/A in the table, one with grey text and a grey background for the Other performers, one with a plain background and plain text for Originating album.
• Note a: what does "contains an interpolation" mean? Is there a suitable wikilink for "interpolation" in this context?
• Check reference titles for en-dash violation, e.g. ref 18 needs to use spaced en-dashes, not hyphens.

So, plenty to fix, and an oppose until we sort out the accessibility concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now). I am inclined to agree with The Rambling Man that this article is not quite yet up to FL standard.

• The main problem for me is the prose; a lot of it just says the same thing many, many times. It feels like almost every sentence is about a particular song, who wrote it, and for which record ("She worked with this artist on this song, then she worked with this artist on this song, then she worked with this artist on this song, etc.). Surely there must be more to say about the sum total of Jessie J's output? Right at the very end, you mention how she sings about "self-empowerment" on one song. That's kind of interesting – what other themes does she discuss in her lyrics? Have those themes changed over the course of three albums? What about musical genres? What sort of genres does she explore? Is it all pop-soul and R&B? What have the critics had to say about her songs? According to Metacritic, it would seem that they didn't think much of Who You Are. What about, say, where the songs were recorded, and when? Were any songs recorded for one album but then included in a later one? This is all stuff that it could be worth exploring and explaining in the lead.
• Some of the prose is a little unclear. For example, "She co-wrote every song on the album in addition to her work with other songwriters and producers" doesn't seem like the most intuitive way to get this point across. If she co-wrote every song, then obviously she would've had to have worked with some other songwriters, otherwise you'd be saying that she wrote every song on her own.
• I do think this article could benefit from a thorough copy-edit. I'm seeing comma and quotation marks where they shouldn't be (e.g. "well as, "Abracadabra".") and not seeing them where they should be (e.g. "You Are, in 2011" and "pop record".[7]").
• As I understand it, citation markers (e.g. ^[1], ^[3], ^[10]) need to be moved to after the next comma or full stop.
• Every image caption (except the one of Jessie J) needs a terminating full stop.
• Some of the artists in the "Other performer(s)" column need to sort under their surnames.
• The J and O links in the Contents box don't lead anywhere.
• Jessie J discography is already linked in the navbox at the bottom, so doesn't need to be included in the See Also section.
• Spaced em dash ( — ) needs to be a spaced en dash ( – ).

I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomica, will you be addressing any of the comments? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No I won't. I lost interest in this list, especially after those comments above. I don't even agree with most of them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 13:20, 17 April 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about the discography of American hip hop artist Azealia Banks. A concise and well-sourced list, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. HĐ (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Broke with Expensive Taste, which attained moderate success". Needs a source even if it is available in the section(s) as it's not mentioned elsewhere other than lead.

• Fixed. HĐ (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "yield" does not sound encyclopedic. How about "spawn"? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thank you for your review! HĐ (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good so far, here are my comments:

• I think simply "American rapper" can be used rather than "American rapper and singer"

• Done. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing on the worldwide sales for Broke with Expensive Taste?

• I have found nothing on it. Sorry. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Guest appearances", remove the period following "II. Earth: The Oldest Computer (The Last Night)"

• Done. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a fine list. Well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and I can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Banks officially adopts the present-day" not grammatically correct, maybe "Banks officially adopted her present stage name..."

• done. HĐ (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, the lead is a little weak.

• To what extend? I don't get this much. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead does not adequately summarise the whole article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How does it look now? HĐ (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. I don't think it covers the 19 music videos at all (other than to say she has 19 music videos) and I don't think it covers the ten singles adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Which country is each release date relevant to?

• done. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing the 1,751 sales for her album in the UK in that reference, could you advise?

• It clearly reads "subscription required". HĐ (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "including four as a featured artist" in lead, three in the table.

• done. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ten singles in total in the tables, nine in the lead and infobox.

• done. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of the "other charted songs" in the lead.
• And that song "Ice Princess" isn't referenced anywhere.

• I don't get this. HĐ (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid the SHOUTING in the reference titles.

• done. HĐ (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully oppose until the quality of the prose and the content is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all of your concerns. HĐ (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not as bad as it was, but the prose is still clunky, repetitive and weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Then what should I do to strengthen the lead? Could you suggest some? HĐ (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just contains a lot of repetition of terms, and odd statements like suggesting her real name is now her stage name. But as you already have support from others, I'm sure it won't be long before it's promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended it a bit. Is it better now? HĐ (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man, are you neutral in this, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sticking at neutral. I still don't really like the lead, but I can't really get my head into fixing it myself I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archive, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Unfortunately, not enough of a consensus has been developed to promote this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: How come? This nomination has got two supports and one neutral. HĐ (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, a minimum of three support !votes is expected by the delegates to judge a list ready for promotion. This has already been open for 2 months and 10 days, with no comments except for TRM's in 2 months and 8 days. This nomination will likely have a better chance if you renominate in a week and start anew. You may find it helpful to review other people's nominations as well, to get interest in your own work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: I understand. However, the FLC for Christina Aguilera discography (nominated by me) also attracted two supports and it's promoted. HĐ (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't speak for the delegate who closed that nomination, but perhaps he considered Rufus' comments to be akin to a support !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by SchroCat 09:11, 14 April 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive filmography of J. Gordon Edwards, a once-lauded but now nearly entirely forgotten director of the American silent film era. Although he's been compared to Alfred Hitchcock and D.W. Griffith, the bulk of his work (like most silent films) simply no longer exists. But that doesn't stand in the way of preserving information about his oeuvre, and presenting it to our readers. I'm no stranger to Featured Content, but this is my first trip to FLC; hopefully everything is in order. Disclosure: This is a WikiCup nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support − Looks much nicer now. Sources look good, too. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "scenerist" I've never heard of this phrase but our own article suggests it should be "scenarist"...
• I would consider linking the word oeuvre, since you have opted to link (in my opinion) far more common words like Montreal.
• "for William Fox" I would like a touch of context, maybe "American motion picture executive"?
• The widths of the cols in the first table are slightly different from the second and third tables, any reason why?
• Shouldn't "1915–1924" be "1915–24"?
• Sortable table, mostly that means every item that's linked should be linked each time, e.g. Leo Tolstoy, Mary Murillo etc, since there's no guarantee which item will appear first.
• Victor Hugo apparently hyphenated his work The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks like a strong article overall, only one or two minor concerns:

• Many sources, including the American Film Institute, credit this film as Edwards's directorial debut. except the American Film Institute states Bracken as the director...?
• The Celebrated Scandal [5] and Redemption (perhaps another name for Her Greatest Love [6][7]) are two other film titles I saw claimed to be directed by this fellow.
• Why are original stories that don't match the name of the titled movie put in quotes and not italics? Such as seen in Her Double Life?
• Under A Daughter of the Gods, you have Reissued 2 December 1917 (as Daughter of the Gods), August 1918, 15 February 1920. Is there a date for August and shouldn't it be ...August 1918 and 15 February 1920.?

Most of these are just questions of curiosity. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just querying a couple of suspect spellings:

• Bindness of Devotion (Blindness?)
• The New Magdelen (Magdalen?)

No other points. – Tim riley talk 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 07:20, 12 April 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it's worth FL-status. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not a requirement)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Image is PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Caption looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • I did a copy-edit, added some categories and made a few MOS tweaks pls see my edits here [9]. Pls amend if I got anything wrong or mis-interpreted your intended meaning. Anotherclown (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Anotherclown, for your work and vote on this list too. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The instructions on this are quite clear: "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". Please wait until your first nominated list reaches that point before re-nominating this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 14:42, 4 April 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): Anton^Talk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list received peer review and archived. Also, it is a well-written and well-sourced. I see it as an interesting list since it gives a nutshell view about a country. The feedback that it is going to receive, would help to work on more lists, and these might help to start new lists of National symbols. Anton^Talk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments two months without a single review? Wow, what's happening around here...?

• Lead is a bit weak, the first two sentences starting with exactly the same phrasing. I would decapitalise the first National as well.
• When listing the national symbols in the lead, you probably don't need to keep repeating "national", and it's probably worth just focusing on the important ones and discuss them a little rather than just list everything that's in the table.
• I don't understand the two notes in the lead image.
• "They were picked up and officially announced at various times." very poor English.
• The second para of the lead starts "the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka sets out" but the first para just referred to Sri Lanka as simply Sri Lanka. This para then goes on to state where four of the symbols were agreed upon and ratified, what about all the others?
• "National anthem of Sri Lanka.." -> "The national anthem of..."
• "and tuned by" what?
• "tuned by Rabindranath Tagore.[5] and it was later composed by" grammar error and how could it be later composed by someone else?
• "First performance of the anthem" this should all be written in prose, not bullet point note form.
• "the independence from British" British what?
• "First performance of the anthem was held in" performances are normally held on dates, not in them.
• "The national emblem of Sri Lanka uses by Sri Lankan government" "used by the".....

There's far too much to deal with here. I'm surprised that this has been peer reviewed. In summary, I oppose the list in its current form. In general, this needs a serious copy edit by a native English speaker as the prose is not up to scratch at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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