Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2016

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While not the kind of list I feel is typically here, I think it merits inclusion as a featured list. In its 90+ years of existance, the Linguistic Society of America has had a number of presidents who are and were some of the foremost linguists in the field. While a rather humble list-lacking in tables, sorting, and much more than a picture, it is comprehensive of all presidents, is structured reasonably, stable, and is up to my taste for style. I think it falls well within the FL criteria and hope you agree. Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Quite a plane list of people with years. Isn't there anything at all to write about the topic? Like maybe some controversial selections of presidents, controversies created while in chair (if related to the chair), someone opting out of presidency, their duties, eligibility criteria and maybe more. Also, if its just a plane list with no other information, why is it a standalone list and not merged into Linguistic Society of America? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I know it's a rather unassuming list. The reason it is standalone is because of the size of it, which is why it was spun out in the first place. Because of the length (and that it will grow annually), it would dominate the article. I have not come across any sources on controversies. I did add in more information on succession. While I recognize it's not as interesting as many other lists here, I still believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Do you have further thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A ~4kB list in ~30kB article isn't really that big. Plus the readable prose on main article is only ~13kB. WP:SIZERULE does not justify this split. If you are saying the list would look very long in the main article, there is always an option to collapse in table format. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open over 2 months without a lot of support, so I'm going to have to close it. I'm also not very convinced that it is not a WP:CFORK, especially with no other information than a bare list of names. --PresN 03:06, 28 April 2016 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had put a lot of hard work to write this article, specially on research. Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "due its location..." -> due to its location
• "Sohag Gazi is the only bowler to achieve this record here on Test debut," be explicit that it was a five wicket haul he achieved, it's not too clear at the moment
• "Rabada would pick up..." -> Rabada picked up
• "Along with this, Rabada would pick up a hat-trick,[17] becoming the first debutant bowler to do so in the process and also his figures of six wickets for 16 runs remains the best by a bowler on debut." This sentence reads awkwardly, I would consider re-wording it.
• "Stuart Binny holds the best ODI bowling figures of 6 wickets four runs." missing a word before four

NapHit (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit corrected your comments. Had a hard time with the third one though. Feel free to check them. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support happy that this meets the criteria now. NapHit (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over 2 months and hasn't gotten a lot of support. I'm going to have to close it to keep the nomination queue moving. --PresN 03:01, 28 April 2016 (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.

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Inside the Valley (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a comprehensive list of films, theatre, songs, and other credits of Indian actor Mohanlal, a matinee idol and one of the finest actors in Indian cinema. The list is copy edited, reviewed, and reference checked by experienced editors. Looking forward to all helpful comments for improving it. Inside the Valley (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld A bit sad that the nominator couldn't wait even a week for me to attend to this. Me not reviewing it within three days was dismissed by Inside the Valley as "not interested". Anyway..

"In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in Malayalam cinema.[6][7] " -seems a very sweeping statement to make, so you're saying that comedy films in malayalam cinema only began in the mid 80s? Don't believe it.

• "a landmark film which starred almost all actors in Malayalam cinema." -all actors??

It looks OK, I guess you'd expect some detail given over 300 films. The prose is a little plodding though and could use sharpening up a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry Dr. Blofeld, I was stupid to do that. And sorry to all other editors who felt bad about my act. A couple of hours ago, I actually came here to withdraw my nomination for starting a second review. But after seeing the comments of both you and Kailash, I changed my decision. I had made some changes.

• "In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in Malayalam cinema." - Actually this is true, full fledged comedy films came only in 1980s. It's director Priyadarshan ( of Poochakkoru Mookkuthi), who is known as the pioneer of comedy films in Malayalam. Did you know that the period 1980-1995 is commonly referred as the "Golden period" of Malayalam cinema for kick starting a variety of genres. I had made a minor change which now reads as "In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in 1980s.". If you feel it's still not acceptable, please tell what should I change, I will do that.
• "a landmark film which starred almost all actors in Malayalam cinema." -all actors?? - Actually not. It's "almost all". All actors (except 2 or 3) in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) acted in the film (without payment). Almost every actor in Malayalam cinema is a member of the association. I have changed it that way. "a landmark film which starred almost all actors in the guild of Malayalam film actors - AMMA".
• This is actually a cut-short version to maintain the word count in the lead. Only mentioned about the major of the major events in his career. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected "Poochakkoru Mookkuthi..", "landmark film" and the prose also, I believe. --Inside the Valley (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• "the romantic drama Manjil Virinja Pookkal" - But its article defines it as romantic thriller.
• Relink anti-hero as antihero.
• "Mohanlal is said to have got the nickname "Lalettan" after the character name in the 1987 romantic comedy Sarvakalashala" - By whom? Or is it a rumour?
• "comical tragedy" - tragicomedy?
• Delink "motion picture" as it is a common term.
• I still find many uses of Filmibeat as a source. It fails WP:RS, so please replace or remove them.
• Daily Mail (unfortunately) and IndiaGlitz too fail WP:RS, and I know they can be replaced.

More comments will follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done all the corrections you said.--Inside the Valley (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no other major issue with the article. Just re-add the films you removed with more reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added one film of the 3 removed from "producer" credits. I tried my best, but there are no reliable sources for Kanmadam and Olympian Anthony Adam (produced by Pranavam). It will surely get some sources in future, which I will add. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About OAA, I'm not sure about the credibility of this source, but it looks like an equivalent to Ilankai Tamil Sangam. Then there's this that can be used for Kanmadam. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. But unfortunately, these sources does not cite that Mohanlal is the producer. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added and sourced. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jimknut

• It looks like the sorting needs some attention since names of characters and directors do not sort by last names. Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I had fixed the sorting for the names of characters and directors. --Inside the Valley (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ojorojo, that was helpful. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support There have been many improvements. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

1. Bit problematic writing style and overly long sentences.
2. Lots of awkward wording throughout, could use significant copy edit.
3. http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Mohanlal_filmography = is pretty good actually, shows a "google cache" for one link, better to use Internet Archive or Web Citation tools.
4. Over usage of run-on-sentences and lots of over comma usage.

— Cirt (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Made some changes.
2. User:Ojorojo is currently helping with copy editing suggestions.
3. Fixed.
4. Made some changes.

Don't know whether it resolved all the grammatical problems you find out. I wish you had specified the sentences. I could do better if you do so. --Inside the Valley (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo I'll look this over tomorrow when I get the chance, but just doing a quick look over now. One thing that caught my eye was the singer section. Why is that in this list, when the list is about cinema, theatrical, and radio performances? Any song related stuff should go in a discography list, like Madonna albums discography and Madonna filmography. Also, why seperate sections for acting and producing? Most of the films he's produced, he's also acted in, so why not do something along the lines of Natalie Portman filmography, where the producer roles are listed in the notes section. The latter of my two comments is just a thought, though I would like to see the singer section removed. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the singer section. But the seperate table for "producer" make sense here. Mohanlal owns 3 production companies. Two co-owned and one his own company. Independent section for that gives better understanding for the readers. Also limiting it to the "notes" will make it random on the long list (above 300 films), making it difficult to the readers searching for his producer credits. --Inside the Valley (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Can you please move your comments, below mine, so they don't break apart my numbered list of comments? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk page spamming: FLC nominator has been User talk page spamming to numerous users about this Featured content discussion. That is inappropriate behavior. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Significant serious concerns about user talk page spamming in an attempt to impact the outcome of this Featured content discussion. Poor writing quality. Run-on sentences. Overusage of commas. Failure to use article words such as "a" and "the". Not featured quality at this time. FLC nominator should be sanctioned or at the very least warned against spamming user talk pages in the future. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful Oppose – FOA, thanks to the nominator for working with the article. To begin with, the article (table) has some serious sourcing issues. I checked the refs. for a lot many films in the 80s. They clearly fail WP:V as they don't even confirm the actor's presence in the film; the roles aren't covered by the sources either. Considering that these films belonged to the pre-internet era, it's almost impossible to source them through online refs. The prose looks confusing, and the lead reads much like a fan page. Unless we have a biography (book) on the actor (which at least lists down the films), the article is incapable of ever becoming an FL. On a related note, the article has changed (still changing) a lot during the review. These improvements should've really been made outside the FLC. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: If you can specify the sentences and point out the problems, I can fix it. Every user may not feel the same way you think about the grammatical errors and the spamming issue. Spamming is subjective, hence spam messages are different for each user. If my message regarding the FLC was an unwanted subject. Then it is definitely a spam. You can always ignore or delete it and warn me. But I don't think I have "spammed" every user talk pages I messaged. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is WP:VOTESTACK. You could've notified the relevant wikiprojects and invited (active) participants for the peer review. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: There is a source from Malayala Manorama which list the films acted by Mohanlal. It was published in 2011, so films upto that point is listed (here). Can this be included in the "external links" or anything like that. I agree that the article changed a lot, but all improvements was as per the reviews here. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:MIRROR for sure. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so "sure" ?. Malayala Manorama is a highly reputed news agency, they don't have to mirror Wikipedia. It's reliable. --Inside the Valley (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have clearly taken this from our article. A lot many reliable sources (including India's leading daily) sometimes copy stuff from WP. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so clear ? India's leading daily may have, but MM has no history of copying stuff from Wiki. Words like "sure" and "clearly" sounds like you have found something. Can you prove it ? --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because, the page (much like 'Rediff specials') resembles a fan portal. They have clearly lifted it from WP; you may check with the page history if you want. Besides, there's no indication that they've done any research on their side. I wouldn't consider MM as a reliable source in FA/FL level articles. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use this as a 'general' ref. you still need separate sources (for all films) which WP:V the role and director parameters. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, spamming is not subjective. It is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, specifically, WP:VOTESTACK. — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vensatry, and the fact this has been at FLC for a month and the prose is still terrible (i.e. the three obvious errors in "In 1978, he started acting at age 18 with a minor comedic role in the unreleased film Thiranottam, before making screen debut in 1980 as antagonist in the romance film Manjil Virinja Pookkal.") Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments after revisit

I checked the lead. There are incredible claims that are either misattributed or fail WP:V:

• The very first line: "who has starred in both blockbuster and art house films for independent filmmakers" is one such example.
• "His portrayal of Narendran, a sadistic husband, received recognition and the film developed a cult status in Indian cinema". This is quite a claim; the source says Malayalam cinema (I'd corrected this one though).
• "The Indian media named Mohanlal a "superstar" after the success of the crime drama Rajavinte Makan (1986). Again, not clear whether the 'Superstar' tag is confined to Malayalam cinema. But when you say 'Indian media' it sounds like he was referred to as the 'Indian Superstar'.
• "In Irupatham Noottandu (1987), he portrayed mobster Sagar Alias Jacky — which became a cult figure in crime dramas ever since its release" Again, Malayalam cinema or Indian cinema?
• Ditto with "His tragicomedy Chithram (1988) ran continuously for 58 weeks in one theatre, a record still unbroken"
• "In 2000, Mohanlal's action drama, Narasimham, became the highest-grossing Malayalam film at the time. His character Induchoodan has since attracted a cult following" The source (metromatinee.com) isn't reliable. Besides, it doesn't say the film was the highest'-grossing Malayalam film'. Also, it tells nothing about the character attaining cult status.
  

—Vensatry _(Talk) 08:13, 5 April 2016 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Arbero (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is my first featured list candidate about an actor and I would like to see it added amongst other filmographies featured lists. Arbero (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cowlibob

Firstly great effort in populating this list, must have taken ages.

• "Waterston has appeared in numerous films, television projects as well as on stage during his career – one of his early" I think you should split these into two sentences before and after the hyphen.

 Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ", which gave him a 1974 Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series." how about "for which he received a Primetime Emmy nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series".

 Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " for which he garnered two Golden Globe nominations the year after – Best Supporting Actor and New Star of the Year." how about "which earned him Golden Globe nominations for Best Supporting Actor, and New Star of the Year.

 Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The stage section seems out of a place how about move it down to their own last paragraph.

 Done I have moved and rewritten it. What do you think? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "saw him win another Golden Globe nomination" I think receive would be a better word.

Suggestion Are there any other words (synonyms) we can substitute for receive? Not trying to be rude, but I don't want to use it multiple times because it will become very annoying and I prefer to use different words. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " – the performance meant Waterston received his first Academy Award" odd phrasing here. How about " for his performance Waterston received his first Academy Award..."

 Done Sure. As for the sentence, I was just trying to use another sentence to make it more unique and different. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other notable credits from the 1980s.." what makes these notable?

 Remark: Those characters he played were notable figures in real life. I have removed Hopscotch and Warning Sign though. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " for which he gained" I think "won the" would be better phrasing.

 Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Waterston more notability as a professional actor" how did the role make him notable?

 Remark: I don't know to be honest, so I have decided to remove the sentence and also some unrelated references. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Hollywood.com and tribute.ca reliable sources?

 Remark: If I'm not mistaken, Hollywood.com is a news website like other film websites (Flixster and Yahoo! Movies) and most news there are reliable. As for Tribute, it's a showbiz magazine similar to Empire and Entertainment Weekly and even has its' own Wikipedia article, so shouldn't magazines be counted automatically as reliable sources? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally but these two sources I've found, have copied content from Wikipedia in the past. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'm fine with that. Arbero (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some of Waterston's most notable 1990s films" what makes these films notable in his career?

 Remark: – You probably have a point here. I can't really explain how these films are notable, so I have removed the whole sentence. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "currently appears" can't use words like currently in an encyclopaedia.

Suggestion – How about "As of 2015?" Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find that it's better to use sentences that can stand the test of time. You don't need to mention his most recent appearance just because its his most recent appearance. Has the role garnered him accolades or critical acclaim? Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, not from what I have heard of, no. I'm not sure how to rewrite the sentence, so I have decided to delete it. Arbero (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "husband, father and divorce lawyer of two children" Very unclear what this sentence means.

 Remark: It means that the role character he plays is a divorce lawyer, married husband and father who has two adopted children. I have shortened the sentence to "divorce lawyer" now. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table, titles which begin with A or The should be sorted by the second word. Roles should also be sorted by last names as should director's names.

 Question: Not sure what you are trying to justify here? Could you be more specific by using another actors' filmography list as an example? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC) That's it for a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some lead changes. There's still more I could do. For the sorting in tables, please see the following FLs: Julianne Moore filmography, John Gielgud, roles and awards, Robert Downey Jr. filmography etc. Sorry for the delay, I'm in quite a busy time at work. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No worries. I have added the sort keys. Hopefully I got it right. Arbero (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (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) 06:52, 11 April 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Senna doesn't have the most Grand Prix wins; that accolade goes to Michael Schumacher. But Senna, perhaps due to the manner and timing of his death, is revered as one of the best Formula One drivers of all time. Each time a driver passes his wins total, as Vettel and Hamilton have done recently, it is considered a significant milestone. I put off nominating this list for a while, as I had concerns about stability, as I knew that the WikiProject weren't widely in favour. However, it has since survived an AfD, and so I am happy to now list it here. As always, all comments, thoughts and suggestions welcome. Harrias ^talk 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe mention the rivalry with Prost? Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have no problem with this list meeting 3b or being notable, as Harrias states, when Vettel and Hamilton passed Senna's total is widely covered in the mainstream media.

• "He entered Formula One in 1984 with the Toleman team, but after one season, he bought out his contract and moved to Lotus." ref?

It's there in Ref 1. "Feeling Toleman couldn't match his ambitions though; Senna bought out his contract and moved to Lotus in 1985" Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "McLaren. With McLaren..." not great having McLaren twice in quick succession. Perhaps Senna would win all three of his world championships...with the team?
• "He wanted to move to Williams after 1992, but was prevented from doing so by a clause in Alain Prost's contract." ref?
• "He did make the move for 1994,..." -> He moved to Williams in 1994,..."
• You need to add a symbol to go with the colour in the table for accessibility purposes
• Maybe the Race column should be Grand Prix, seeing as that is what they — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs)

• Key needs to explain why 1988, 1990 & 1991 are in yellow. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cowlibob

• "is considered by many" perhaps "some" would be a more neutral word here
• "21 April 1985" no need to the repeat the year as we already know it was in 1985.
• "In 1988, " reword needed to avoid saying 1988 twice in short succession.
• For the references, is it possible to have more a diverse set of sources as the vast majority are cited to ESPN F1?
• Less shouting in the references. AUTOSPORT should be Autosport, F1PULSE should be F1 Pulse
• What makes F1 Pulse, speedcafe, Formula One Art & Genius, StatsF1 reliable sources?
• Need info in the key that 1988, 1990, 1991 are highlighted in yellow because those were seasons he was world champion.

That's a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: The list nominator has indicated that currently they are not able to continue the nomination. It's been nearly a month since last comments. Perhaps it's time to put this one on ice for now. [[6]] Cowlibob (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, feel free. I'm not going to get to this now unfortunately. Harrias ^talk 07:57, 10 April 2016 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2016 (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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol is a 2015 British-American romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes. The screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, is based on Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt. Carol is Metacritic's best reviewed film of 2015. Over 130 critics and publications have included the film in their Top Ten Best of 2015 lists. The film has received over 170 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It has been nominated for six Academy Awards. Nominating this list (my first) as I believe it's notable, comprehensive enough and well-sourced. Suggestions and comments on improvements are appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think this nomination is premature and the subject is too recent, in fact it is too current. There are still so many pending templates throughout the list, and it will be liable to change in the not too distant future. I would prefer to see this nominated when the list is complete; either wins or nominations, no pending's, because then we know that the content is not likely to change too much if this list is successful (in fact, it shouldn't have to change at all). If Carol wins a lot of the awards it is still pending confirmation for, this will have to be altered in the lead within the next couple of weeks (really not long to have waited, considering the remaining ceremonies will take place in the next two weeks or so anyway).  — Calvin999 09:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there 8 awards pending (all major, e.g., BAFTA, two guilds, Independent Spirit Awards, Academy Awards). I nominated it now since this process tends to take a while. I wouldn't have nominated it if the pending awards where the regional critics (of which there are a lot) as there's usually a lot of traffic when those are announced. IMO, the pending awards are few and it's just a matter of changing {{nom}} to {{won}} and adding any wins to the lead (e.g., "nominated for __BAFTA, and won ___). But if this is considered too recent/current then let me know if I should withdraw the nomination or just wait it out. Lapadite (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree. As this film was popular with critics, it is likely that it will receive more nominations which means that the content is to change too much, therefore threatening the stability criterion. I also wanted to work on and submit the Revenant list but not until the award season is over. I hate to say this but I think you should wait for some more months and then renominate it. -- Frankie _talk 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You won't really have to wait that long. The film was only released in December and virtually all of the award ceremonies have taken place already, and some will take place this month. So it's not really a long process. I'd wait a couple of months. I originally was going to oppose but didn't end up saving it, because as such I think the list is good, but it's too premature and it's still a current topic.  — Calvin999 10:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fine, it can wait. In the meantime, I'd welcome comments on improvements to the article. (Edit:) Frankie, critics have already announced their awards so no updates will be needed there. Lapadite (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's good, but the lead I think is at least one paragraph too long. I stick to facts which can't be included in the table, as well as high profile wins. We can gather most of what you've written by looking at the table. The lead shouldn't be a prose version of the table, it's duplicating info.  — Calvin999 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Calvin999, which award(s) in the lead aren't high profile? I removed Boston Society of Film Critics from the lead. Lapadite (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only 4 awards are left (Oscars, Costume Designers Guild, Independent Spirit Awards, Satellite Awards). Did a modest rewrite. Are there any more suggestions for lead? Lapadite (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

Good effort but there is still much to do to improve the list.

• The table does not follow the format of the recent FLs. Here is an example of the table format: List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film). This format records the date of the ceremony as well as including rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility.
• The recipient(s) column should be recipient(s) and nominee(s) and entries in this column should be wikilinked wherever possible as it is a sortable column. They should also be sorted using the sortname or sort template by last name.
• The lead needs a rework. The first paragraph is okay but the Cannes premiere should be moved into the second paragraph. Essentially, first para: what the film is about, who's in it. second para: when it premiered, how much it made at the box office on what production budget, what was its critical reception, third para: major awards first then other awards, fourth para if needed minor important awards.
• The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences need to be reworded. They are way too detailed. A suggested format for Rotten Tomatoes is "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed x reviews and judged x% to be positive."
• The sentence on it being on >130 critics' top ten lists does not need 11 references.
• None of the images have alttext per WP:ALT.
• "Carol received critical acclaim, with particular praise", I would change this to Carol received many awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.....", to focus it on this list of accolades. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Thanks for the comments. Added a dates column. On that topic, why are ceremony dates necessary?

A separate column is useful in having links to a general awards article and the particular ceremony where the film was nominated. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why "Recipients and nominees"? It's redundant; an individual/film is a recipient of a nomination or a win. I'd like input from others on this. Entries are wikilinked once (first appearance) in the table, per WP:OVERLINK. When the table is sorted the first appearance of the name is linked. Why does every repeated entry need to be linked?

It's not overlinking as it helps as a reader can look through list, want to know about a specific person. If only the first is linked, they have scroll back up to the top and click sort, then scroll back to the person they were looking for. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Another question; how is a film's budget, gross, or release date, unless notable, relevant to an accolades article? Readers can click on the film's article to get that information. I reworked the lead per your other suggestions.

This info allows the reader to know what kind of film it is. Is it a blockbuster, is it as small indie film? We can't be sure that they got to the list from the parent article or that they are going to so a brief overview helps. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Trimmed RT and MC sentences.
  • Removed 4 references already linked in the Metacritic ref. The remaining refs all needed to support the "over 130" top 10 lists.
  • Added an alt parameter for each image.
  • "with particular praise for" should follow a critical reception statement not an awards and nominations statement. I think noting critical acclaim is important.

perhaps recognition would be better, it's useful to describe what parts of a film received the most recognition from awards ceremonies.Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: working on the table. Lapadite (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: finished table format, and rewrote and rearranged the lead a bit, adding gross, budget and release information. Lapadite (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without a lot of support, I'm going to need to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Feel free to renominate once you think all of the reviewer concerns are addressed. --PresN 00:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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