Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2023

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) 00:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for featured list because I've improved the article with all required information, citations and structure. Improved according to the requirements of WP:FL. From previous experiences of nominations I believe it meets all of the FL criteria and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Drat8sub (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to inform that, I nominated this list previously in September 2020, but since then I was inactive here on Wikipedia. I have noticed several well experienced editors suggested and commented which I was unable to address, my apologies since it seems to me I've wasted their energy to some extent, since it's very tough here to manage FA, FL and GA noms log. But it's also nice to see that the editors themselves took up the task and improved it on each others suggestions. Good for the spirit of the community. So thanks to all of you. Drat8sub (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Sunil Chhetri has won the award a record seven times, more than any other player" - well, if it's a record then obviously it's more than any other player, so you don't need to say both.........

 Done

• "Bembem Devi retained it in 2013, after the 2002–2012 halt ended" - "halt" isn't really the right word here. I would say "It was not award again until 2013, when Bembem Devi retained it"

 Done

• I don't think the multiple winners tables need to be sortable

Yes, I too think so. removed sorting, only linked.

They are still sortable....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, @ChrisTheDude: my bad, did not remove the wikitable sorting then. :) Drat8sub (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:, addressed all above. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• The lead has at least one inaccuracy that I can find. It says Bala Devi won the award twice when the table says she has won three times. Also, the years listed in the lead seem off.
• In references from The Hindu, whether Sportstar or The Hindu is italicized are inconsistent. One style should be chosen for these sources and used throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Hello @Giants2008:, the above mentioned concerns are dealt with. Drat8sub (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @Giants2008:, it has been more than 2 months since the nom. and few weeks since you have done the source review. I don't think that there much remained to rectify (let me know if any), if you think all is ok, will you kindly proceed with the needed process since I'm thinking of nominating other articles this month. Pinging @PresN: in case Giants is busy. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Drat8sub, unfortunately this nomination has only received a single full review, and we usually prefer to see more than that before we promote a list. I know its frustrating, especially since it's been waiting for a while; I'd recommend reaching out to any relevant wikiprojects, or reviewing other nominations with a link back to here to encourage reviews. Otherwise, you just have to wait for more reviewers to check out the nomination. --PresN 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

Naming - I see the lengthened version ("All India Football Federation's Player of the Year") appearing in some sources. WP:CONCISE is absolutely fine, but if it's in official use it should appear in the article.

Official name is AIFF Player of the Year, and per Common name.

Lead - no information about the current winners appear in the lead section.

Infoxbox gives you information about present winners. Lead..not necessarily need to include current winners, which is subjected to change every year. For stability of lede I prefer not to include.

Lead #2 - "presented to the best footballers in India" - are these awards considerate of all footballers playing in India, or are they exclusively for Indian nationals?

Obviously, this will be awarded to the best player in India, it's a award by a federation of a country not a regional federation or confederation, like SAFF, AFC or FIFA that foreign players will be included. And AIFF did not publish otherwise.

Comprehensiveness - Should the list be expanded to display the clubs these players were playing for during the designated periods? Should positions be listed?

No, as explained above, since country federation's award, showing club will give the perception that it was awarded for the club performance. National team weightage counts in it and along with NT club performance too. Secondly, since AIFF don't display club of the players who are awarded. Thus, which is not published there is no need to add such or we need not to speculate. Finally, earlier award was for year, now award is for season, so one cannot put club, it can be multiple club for players in a year.

Comprehensiveness #2 - information about the awards' calendar(s) or more specifically when are they being given out is not provided anywhere; there is also absence of any explanation given for the reasons behind the shifts in periods around 2018.

Which is not explained by AIFF or published and no sources has discussed, we no need to discuss the same here. The article is fine without this. (In my opinion, may be due to above reason of including club performace, we don't know, only AIFF knows.)

Overlinking - the All India Football Federation does not necessitate another inclusion in the see also section.

 Done

Structure - only two categories are present and this could be expanded. Respublik (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added more suitable related categories.

@Respublik:, I appreciate you time and effort, addressed all your comments and worked accordingly wherever possible. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2023 (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) 21:31, 27 August 2023 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkovsky is a director quite unlike any other. His fellow countrymen—the Soviets—denounced his works as too "Western", which is far from accurate. You could argue that Tarkovsky is quintessentially Russian, from the same philosophical stock as Fyodor Dostoevsky, but in the end, I think, Tarkovsky and his stunning works are sui generis. ~ HAL333 21:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "In his thirty-year career, Tarkovsky directed several student films, seven feature films" => "In his thirty-year career, Tarkovsky directed several student films and seven feature films" (as you use a fresh verb after the next comma)
• "His first feature film was 1961's Ivan's Childhood," - the table says 1962
• "His final film produced in the Soviet Union, Stalker (1979) garnered" => "His final film produced in the Soviet Union, Stalker (1979), garnered"
• "His final film The Sacrifice (1986) was" => "His final film, The Sacrifice (1986), was"
• "The ruins of the 13-century Abbey of San Galgano were used in the filming of Nostalghia (1983)." - source?
• "Mug shot of Tarkovsky at the Latina Refugee Camp, Italy 1985" - I realise the subject of this article is his works, not his life story, but to drop a bombshell like the fact that in 1985 he was in a refugee camp into an image caption without context is a little jarring. Could you just add a few words to explain why he was there?
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  'Preciate the comments. All addressed. ~ HAL333 15:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --金色黎明 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

Thanks for your review on Stravinsky, happy to review this!

• Template:Use dmy dates should be added to the top, so the ISO dates in some refs are converted to the proper formatting like the rest. Also suggest adding Template:Use American English, or whichever is appropriate.
• Ref 5's publication is currently the name of the article; it should be "Open Culture". Also, the date should be in DMY format to match the rest of the refs.
• Ref 7's publisher should be placed under "Name of publication" so it's italicized; also, it should not be linked because the publishers of other refs are unlinked.
• Ref 10 is missing name of publication.

Very good work on this article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for @HAL333. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All fixed. ~ HAL333 15:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Letterboxd a suitable source? Based on a quick review it appears to be a mirror of sorts of IMDB, which hosts user-generated content.
• Open Culture is a fairly borderline source. Maybe consider whether a better one than it can be found.
• I'm hazy on Rotten Tomatoes as a source for this information, but the RT page for the film Mirror has high-quality sources listed as reviewing it so it might be better to rely on them?
• Other than the above points, looks good. In as much as I can check the licensing info on the photos they are OK. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General question

• Why was the scope of this list extended to all of Tarkovsky's works and not only his films? If it deals with everything that AT has done, why is it needed and what does it bring that the main article does not have? (It's a real question, not a judgement).

Missing

• His Polaroids (some having been published in a book with a text by Guerra) are not mentioned (Other section or Bibliography)
• Nor are his Diaries (Bibliography)

Lead Section

• His films are considered Romanticist: this statement, if it stays, calls for some serious further qualification.
• He also directed a stage play and wrote a book. sounds a bit simple in its phrasing and might even sound inaccurate. He wrote more than one book (see above). Maybe explain why he worked so little in the field of dramatic art. And see above for the published books (posthumously, maybe explain why). Tarkovsky’s body of work should have been much more substantial if he had been able to produce what he really wanted to. This should be mentioned, I think, at least briefly.

Illustration

• I am also, I confess, not totally convinced by the images chosen. Some are already on the main article and do not seem very necessary here. They are relatively numerous compared to the volume of the text and not exactly what one would expect in a list of works. I personally would prefer no image at all and rather more detail of the works than images developing an aspect of the said works than is not mentioned in the text.

Sources

• FOARP mentions Rotten Tomatoes, LetterBoxd and Open Culture above. I think they might be an issue, specially when so many high-quality sources about Tarkovsky exist.

Titles

• Original titles (and their transliterations) should, in my view, appear, as they used to. In many ways, the page looked more comprehensive in 2008 than it does now. Why? I'm asking this because stability is one of the 6 criteria for feature content.

-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 21:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC) (edited July, 3; July, 12) P.S.- Not that this affects directly my assessment of the nomination but I'm sorry, I cannot understand why 2 YouTube videos that are very likely copyright violations appear in the presentation nomination. I, for one, would be grateful if those 2 links could be removed as soon as possible.. Thank you! (July, 2)[reply]

Comments

• "Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) was a Soviet filmmaker who is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time." ---> "Andrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) was a Soviet filmmaker widely regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time."
• "Viewing Tarkovsky as a dissident, Soviet authorities shut down the production after only a few performances." ---> "Viewing Tarkovsky as a dissident, Soviet authorities shut down the production after a few performances."

Otherwise, great stuff. I disagree, however, that he is one of the best filmmakers of all time, despite the greatness of Solaris. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• The open culture ref appears to be written by Mike Springer (scroll to the bottom)
• Otherwise looks good

Reliability

• I'm not sure about the reliability of Letterboxd for WP purposes. Is there perhaps a better source(s) available?

Verifiability

• Is there a link of anykind to Time and the Film Aesthetics of Andrei Tarkovsky?
• One spotcheck issue.
  • ref 17 doesn't say give 1985 as the publication year
  • Other spotchecks revealed no issues. Aza24 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to @HAL333 Aza24 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have these, but: the column sub-headers, like Director, are messed up. Instead of ! |Director!! | Writer, it should be !scope=col | Director and !scope=col | Writer, on two lines. Also, if the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• You're good on row scopes, but consider if maybe the "primary" column for each row (as noted by the row scope) should be the first column rather than the second.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the images used appear to have appropriate free licenses. While this may not be strictly required, it would be nice to see alt text with the images, as that would help accessibility along with Pres' comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Are you still pursuing this nomination? It appears no comments since June have been addressed. --PresN 15:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN, I apologize but I woulc like to withdraw this nomination. Time has got the best of me — I'll work on it and renominate it in the near future. ~ HAL333 17:41, 22 August 2023 (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) 00:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for a featured list because I feel that National Geographic is an important culturally significant magazine that deserves to have its cover stories recognized. Most reference sources require a subscription to National Geographic, however if clicked on, you will be taken to the cover photo of that issue (Very slow website), you just won't be able to go into the magazine. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The lack of any meaningful non-Nat Geo sources makes me wonder if this meets NLIST. Not really a FLC problem, but I strongly suggest that you flesh out the lead to establish this --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 10:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will work on this and have it updated within 24hrs, I appreciate the feedback. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 11:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a bunch of new non nat-geo references for the lead section. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 07:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Shouldn't the article title say "(1959 and 1960s)" per MOS:AMPERSAND.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can move the article, I was just trying to shorten up the title as it's a bit long. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 08:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would move it. Using the ampersand only saves two characters and the title isn't excessively long -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved the page with a redirect from the "&" version Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved this nomination page to match, since the bot gets confused sometimes otherwise. @Jake-jakubowski: since I'm not sure if the move messes up page watching. --PresN 15:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• I would add an opening sentence saying something like "National Geographic magazine is noted for its cover photography" (but probably better worded) sourced to something like this. This will help to make clear that this is a notable topic in its own right.
• "The cover story titled, "New...." - no need for that comma
• I have to say I don't think it looks right to have the titles of stories/articles both in quote marks and italicised. I don't know if the MOS says anything about this but I personally would go for just the quote marks.
• "by President Eisenhower" - give his full name, people outside the US will not necessarily know it
• "Cover stories published saw articles" => "Cover stories included articles"
• No need to link Eisenhower a second time, especially if you add his full name in para 1
• "Human-interest stories such" - not the start of a new sentence so no need for capital letter
• "And geographical locations" - same again
• That sentence is unbelievably long, taking up the entire second paragraph - can you break it up at all?
• "wrote the cover story titled, "First Explorers on the Moon", writing in detail, their account" - none of those commas are needed
• "Photos could also be a painting or a drawing" - a photo can't be a drawing. If not all the images are photos, I suggest changing the column header to "image"
• Notes c, d and f do not need full stops
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: All above are completed. Excellent suggestions, thank you :-) Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 05:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 16

25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• @In actu: Added a second reference on the first sentence from The Boston Globe for more notability.
• Added scope to the tables for better accessibility.

Oppose: While National Geographic is a notable magazine, its cover stories are themselves usually not notable. Thus having an article list out the titles of these non-notable items is inappropriate, given that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Indeed, over 95 percent of the references here are to National Geographic itself—i.e. self-references that do not establish independent notability of the topic at hand. Lastly, the first sentence states the magazine "is noted for its cover stories and accompanying photography", but one of the two sources backing this claim is a self-published blog.—indopug (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug I added better references to opening sentence. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug, this is not really the form for such a complaint. If you have a notability issue like this it should be brought to AFD, otherwise the article is certainly valid for consideration at FLC. Aza24 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among the featured list criteria, it fails to meet the content requirements listed in the opening paragraph (including, say, WP:RS, seeing as how 90 percent of the citations in the article are from a primary source). It also fails to meet WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.—indopug (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | New Stars for Old Glory becomes !scope=row | New Stars for Old Glory. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Completed Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 04:23, 14 May 2023 (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) 21:23, 13 August 2023 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): RoboCric (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article deserves to be a featured list. Made the list in accordance with the FL criteria. So, I am glad to present it for review and looking forward to your feedback. RoboCric (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " In a T20I, each team plays single innings," => " In a T20I, each team plays a single innings,"
• "The first five-wicket haul in an ICC Men's T20 World Cup match as well as any T20I match was" => "The first five-wicket haul in an ICC Men's T20 World Cup match, as well as in any T20I match, was"
• "who picked up 6 wickets for 8 runs recording the best bowling figures in the T20 World Cup till date" => "who picked up 6 wickets for 8 runs, recording the best bowling figures in the T20 World Cup to date" ("till date" is not an expression in English)
• "He set the remarkable record" - calling it remarkable is not WP:NPOV
• "Rangana Herath's fifer against New Zealand on 31 March 2014, is" - no reason for that comma to be there
• "Mujeeb Ur Rahman of Afghanistan is the first player" => "Mujeeb Ur Rahman of Afghanistan was the first player"
• "on T20 World Cup debut" => "on his T20 World Cup debut"
• Image caption: "Mujeeb Ur Rahman is the first player to pick up a five-wicket haul on ICC Men's T20 World Cup debut" => "Mujeeb Ur Rahman was the first player to pick up a five-wicket haul on his ICC Men's T20 World Cup debut." (note the full stop at the end) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all the issues you raised. Waiting for your further review or opinion. RoboCric (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "..with bowling figures of 5 wickets for 6 runs.." Explain what this means, and consider linking to Bowling analysis.
• "..the first player from associate nations to.." This would seem better as "..the first player from an associate nation to.."
• "Rangana Herath's fifer against.." "fifer" isn't encyclopaedic language.
• "He grabbed five wickets conceding.." Similarly, in this context, "grabbed" isn't encyclopaedic language.
• "He averaged 0.60 in that match, which is also the best average for.." Provide the wikilink on the first, not second, use of "average" here.
• Be consistent throughout the article whether to use numbers or words for the number of wickets.
• In the table, large and well-known cities such as London, Perth, Chittagong, Kolkata etc shouldn't be linked, per the MOS.
• The "Season overview" table needs row scopes.
• Both images need appropriate and descriptive alt text.

That's it from me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – no response from the nominator in four weeks, and concerns remain unresolved. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Harrias Done, I have fixed all the issues. I am really really sorry that I was very late. Actually I was completely out of online for 60 days due to my training purposes. I admit that it was my fault. I should have given a pre-notice here about my unavailability/wiki-break. I would be careful about this from the next time. Now I hope that you would reconsider about your opinion regarding this list. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Harrias: Do you still oppose this nomination? --PresN 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Dating missing for SportsAustralia ref 1
• Page number missing for ref 5
• Date missing in ref 7
• Author & date missing in ref 8
• Date missing in ref 9
• Date missing ref 10
• Author & date missing in ref 11
• Author & date missing ref 13
• Date missing ref 15
• Date missing in ref 20, Daily sun
• Date (& editor?) missing in ref 23, India Today (scroll to bottom of the page)

Reliability

• ref 17, Sportskeeda, is not a reliable source. Should be switched
• Looks okay otherwise

Verifiability

• Spotchecked a few. Found no issues – Aza24 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, again I am coming very late online. Sorry to say I won't be able to fix it for next 1 month. I will try if i get onlin. Pls wait for some time with patience. Robo^Cric Let's chat 04:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but your nomination has been here for 4 months with one support and one oppose. I would recommend you consider asking it is archived if you don't have to time to pursue it at the moment. You can always renominate it. Aza24 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2023 (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) 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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