Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2012

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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 31 December 2012 [1].

---

Nominator(s): pbp 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article to meet the FLC. The list is generally sourced to 2008, and specifically sourced for 2009, 2010, and 2011 (2012 will be announced in a couple months). It is formatted similarly to IBM Award and other basketball award-related lists. pbp 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose - a really quick once-over, there may be many more issues than just these.... "known as European basketball's Oscar award," inline reference required. I just removed the clause pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop.  Fixed pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Six paras in the lead is too much per WP:LEAD. I deleted a few sentences to I was able to cut it to five pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] References need, as a minimum, URL, publisher, accessdate. Ideally they also have, where possible, author name, publication date, page number etc. I'm pretty sure it's URL title, accessdate, but I added the publisher anyway pbp 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tables fail WP:ACCESS per MOS:DTT. Add row and col scopes for screen readers please.  Fixed pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The Euroscar European Player of the Year Award known as European basketball's Oscar award, is an annual basketball award that started in 1979." why not just introduce the award and tell us what it's for, rather than what it's known by and when it started? Note above where I dropped a clause pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] No need to link common geographical terms like Europe. Links to Europe, sports club, and national team have been eliminated pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Don't use NBA etc without explaining what it means beforehand. I spelled out NBA the first time; FIBA I have not because it's very rarely spelled out (and it isn't in English) pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "it is award for," grammar fail.  Fixed pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Newspapers, magazines etc should be presented in italics.  Fixed pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] " The former distinction has become less important in recent years." your opinion. Actually some other dude's opinion that was there when I started getting this up to FL. Either way, I removed it pbp 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like some objective evidence that "interbasket.com" is a reliable source per our policies.
• Similarly for "ballineurope.com".

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also, five paras is still too many for an article of this size, I would suggest three max... (see WP:LEAD). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so two questions:

1. What should I cut from the lead?
2. How should I reorganize it? Should I cram the existing information into three paragraphs, or spin some of the existing information off into another section? pbp 19:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead has a lot of references to Halls of Fame and other awards for instance which aren't directly related to this list but are still mentioned below in table, consider making the lead focus more on the award than on the peripheral awards won by these guys? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I drop all that info, or move it somewhere else? In many of the other NBA awards articles, it appears they crammed all that stuff into two or three very long paragraphs pbp 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, since this is the article, we should expand the lead and add something like a History section to it, explaining how the award came into existence, the sponsors, the prize, any controversies etc. A good example of an "awards" list is Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning), which covers all the bases. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination now a month old, with no clear direction as to the resolution of open issues.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nowitzki is also the only player to win the Euroscar Award and the NBA Most Valuable Player Award, however, he did not win both in the same season." Would read cleaner if the part after the first comma was replaced with "but did not win...".

Done pbp 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference just says that Nowitzki won the NBA MVP; it doesn't say that he is the only Euroscar winner to do so. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can reference a list of MVP winners if you want pbp 01:21, 19 December 2012 (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 NapHit 06:01, 30 December 2012 [2].

---

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls (abbreviated as TES) is an action role-playing open world video game series developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. The Elder Scrolls games take place on the fictional world of Nirn, on the continent of Tamriel, a large landmass divided into nine provinces. The actual Elder Scrolls play a very limited role in the storyline of the series, serving only as framing plot device, and are rarely referred to in-game, or even in the in-game literature. The first game, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, was released in 1994. It was intended for players to assume the role of an arena combatant, but development shifted the game into a role-playing game (RPG), a tradition that persists throug the series' history. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sorry, but it is a content fork of Development history of The Elder Scrolls series. We simply don't need this list if we have such an excellent one. And again, dates are not precise. For example, in Development history of The Elder Scrolls series we see that the first game was released in March 1994. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, Didn't know that article exists, and it is not a content fork. Cheking that article, it misses the Elder Scrolls online, several mobile games released in 2003 and 2004, all information about Skyrim's expansions (and Oblivion's expansions too) as well as other things. I will double check the dates. And I don't find the reference for March 1994, so I assume that it was original research. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding a bit, 3(b) states: "...does not violate the content-forking guideline...". That guideline says: "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" and "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." As far as I can see, an article about the development of a video game series may share some information with a list about all the entries in the series; although, they have distinct topics. Also, you say that "we simply don't need this list if we have such an excellent one", which is false because Development history of The Elder Scrolls series is not a list. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 12:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Tomcat. Six games plus expansions really is a content fork. Any information not present in The Elder Scrolls and/or Development history of The Elder Scrolls series should be quite straightforward to merge. —Andrew_stalk 07:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please elaborate how this generic comment, "six games plus expansions really is a content fork" can be applied in any way to this list, and also, how can it be really related to the content forking guideline? I am not challenging your oppose, but the rationale you give for content forking is really misleading, useless and completely not valid. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Splitting the information off here, rather than being in The Elder Scrolls makes this list redundant. Adabow (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well, that's a better rationale. Thanks and excuse me if my first comment sounded a bit hostile, I didn't meant it to be :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially I din't think it is a content fork, but I agree that putting the tables at the bottom of that article would be fine. Plus, even without the forking issue, the table formatting is essentially useless. If Nintendo and Sega columns are removed, then it becomes obvious that the release notes column needs splitting. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting the tables at the bottom of the development article I think it would not affect that article in any negative way. Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't share your opinion, but that's obvious. I think this table, as well as the list, is designed to be a standalone list, and not a part of any other article. I don't see why we are discussing about a no-no merge in a featured list candidacy. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please go ahead and remove the Sega and Nintendo columns (which are not used therefore they are empty space)? Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. Let me tweak the template code to hide the columns if unused. Gimme some time and it'll be done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay. It's done :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To delegates: This FLC has caused me a considerable amount of stress. I have RL issues causing me stress either. So, I withdraw this nomination. I may bring it again in the future, but not now. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:50, 30 December 2012 (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 NapHit 05:49, 30 December 2012 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the list for featured list candidate because Priyanka Chopra has won Several awards for her universally applauded performances. Chopra is one of the Best actresses of Indian cinema and a superstar too. There are very rare stars who can really act and she is undoubtedly one of them. Chopra's Awards and nominations list meets Wikipedia:Featured list candidates criteria and after the peer review, It only got Better. I had worked hard on the list and It deserves to be a FLC.Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment: Names of awards ceremonies with the name of the magazines in them should have the magazine title italicized. For example, "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" should be "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" and "GQ Men of The Year Awards" should be "GQ Men of The Year Awards". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in the section headers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Pks1142 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on lead alone.

• Don't link common terms like "India" or "United States".

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "film debut with The Hero " -> "in The Hero"

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Andaaz" what's this? Mentioned in the lead but not linked or explained.

Linked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "several awards for" repeated, boring prose I'm afraid.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "a Filmfare Award in "Best Villain" category. She also became second and last woman to win Filmfare Best Villain Award. " you link the award the second time, which is odd.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And you say "last" so you mean the category is now defunct? Or do you mean "most recent"?
• "Chopra starred in commercially successful films like" -> Chopras has featured in commercially successful films such as...

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to avoid things like "several" and "a few" as this is an encyclopaedia.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "she won every "Best Actress" award in India" some claim, are you sure you can reference this?

refrenced. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "From 2010-2012" see WP:YEAR and WP:DASH.

Fixed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "for her blazing trails in " not encyclopedic writing.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " 56 awards from 65 nominations." does not match the infobox.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "recognize" vs "organisation" please select a consistent WP:ENGVAR and stick with it throughout.

Adopted. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source.

Removed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mention publications like The Telegraph, you should have location and/or publisher information so we don't confuse it with The Daily Telegraph for example.

Given. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check all references have publisher information.

Checked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Miss World and Stardust Awards linked twice in the lead.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• July 18, 1982->18 July 1982 to maintain consistency.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox image requires "alt text".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Awards won" in the infobox and listed ones doesn't match.

Corrected—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which made her second and last woman to win in this category (the category has been retired since 2008)" needs a source.

Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "commercially successful films such as Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), Krrish (2006) and Don (2006)" ditto.

Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• India[3]: refs should come after a punctuation.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "BIG Star Entertainment Awards" should come before "Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox listing also needs to be sorted alphabetically.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nominated work" -> Priyanka Chopra wrong.

Corrected.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No source for Fashion Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes sources like "Indiaglitz", "desihits.com", "indya.com", "pinkvilla.com", etc., reliable?

Explanation: DesiHits is a very reliable source, indya.com is an archive of Screen award nomination, Indiaglitz source is presented by a very well known author Subhash K. Jha and Pinkvilla is just showing the exact nominations list.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Five refs missing publisher information in Screen Awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanations for "World Music Awards" is unsourced.

Explanation is taken from its wikipedia article.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "The Times of India" linked in ref #13 and not in others or ref #3. EIther link all or the first occurrence alone.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are "bollywood hungama", "bbc.uk." "rediff.com" italicised in refs.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)v[reply]

• Overlinking in the prose part of certain awards.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Superstar of Tomorrow – Female" for Mujhse Shaadi Karogi is not verified by the BBC source. It shows only a picture of chopra receiving the award.

replaced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First two refs in "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards" are improperly formatted.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Honours section is completely unsourced.

refrenced.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why no tables for "Recognitions"? This being a list everything should be presented in tabular form.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason for emboldening text inside "Recognitions"?

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other Awards" count in the infobox and table doesn't tally.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First Indian Actress to cast her foot impression in Salvatore Ferragamo Museum. This neither looks like an award nor a recognition to me.

removed.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My biggest concern with this article is the quality of sources being used; a few sources doesn't seem like verifying the facts. Besides this there are a lot of formatting errors in refs and MOS issues. I did not go fully through the prose, table and check all the references. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose the list at the moment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat Disagree with you regarding Its reliability, as I have used the most reliable sources found on the web. Yes, some sources are not that reliable But they are reliable enough to prove everything correctly.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Baffle gab1978 (talk):

I'm not a reviewer but have been asked to comment upon this list. It's looking a lot better since I first saw it, but could benefit from further improvement. These are my suggestions for changes to improve/expand the prose, which do not represent an endorsement for or against its listing as a featured list:

• Header prose
  • General
• Numbers smaller than ten should be written out in words, so use 'four' instead of '4' per WP:MOSNUM (but see 'exceptions'). I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier!

• done by me Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1st para

• "Born in Jamshedpur India," - needs a comma between city and country; doesn't need a comma after 'India'.

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "After spending years in United States" - how many years? --> "After spending x years in the United States..."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chopra returned to India, she participated in" --> "Chopra returned to India where she participated in...".

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chopra received a number of nominations for her part in Andaaz," - how many nominations? What was her role in it?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2004, Chopra won many awards for her performance in Aitraaz" - needs a comma after Aitraaz. How many nominations? What was her role in it?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "(the category has been retired since 2008)" --> "..., which was retired in 2008" or "which has not been awarded since 2008" - avoid using bracketted statements where possible.

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chopra has featured in commercially successful films such as Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), Krrish (2006) and Don (2006) which won her a number of awards and nominations." - needs a comma between the film and "which". Why isn't "Don (2006)" listed in the tables?

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • 2nd para

• "From 2010-12, Chopra received many nominations and won a few including a consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress for Kaminey (2009) and another Filmfare Award in Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)." --> "From 2010-2012, Chopra received x nominations and won several, including two consecutive Apsara Awards for Best Actress for Fashion (2008) and Kaminey (2009), and another Filmfare Award for Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2012, Chopra's first single In My City..." - needs quotemarks around "In My City" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • 3rd para

• "...for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm." --> "for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm, a luxury holiday resort in Dubai." or "for the inauguration function of a luxury holiday resort in Dubai called Atlantis, The Palm."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eastern Eye ranked her at the top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women" twice." --> "Eastern Eye twice ranked her at the top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women."

Done. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• List

• • Bhaskar Bollywood Awards

• "The Bhaskar Bollywood Awards are presented by Dainik Bhaskarfor excellence in Hindi Film Industry." --> "The Bhaskar Bollywood Awards are presented by Dainik Bhaskar for excellence in the Hindi film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards

• "Chopra has won two awards, both in Best Actress Category in two consecutive years.year." --> "Chopra has won the award in the Best Actress Category in two consecutive years."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmfare Awards

• • "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Hindi language film industry of India." --> "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Indian Hindi language film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian Telly Awards

• • "The Indian Telly Awards are presented annually to honour excellence of professionals in Television Industry." --> "The Indian Telly Awards are presented annually to honour excellence of professionals in the television Industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lions Gold Awards

• • "The Lions Gold Awards is an annual accolade presented to Indian Film Industry." --> "The Lions Gold Awards is an annual accolade presented to the Indian film industry."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• National Film Awards

• • "The awards are presented by President of India." --> "The awards are presented by the President of India."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• People's Choice Awards India

• • "recognising Indian Film, Television, Music and Sports." --> "recognising Indian film, television, music and sports."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Global Indian Film and TV Honours

• • "Hindi film & Television industry." --> "Hindi film and television industries."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recognitions

• • "In addition to achieving merit honours, Chopra has been recognised for her contributions and is the recipient of several achievement honours by various organisations." --> "In addition to the industry awards, Chopra has been recognised for her contributions to Indian cinema and is the recipient of several achievement honours by various organisations."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• General comments - I think this list has improved a lot since I first reviewed it, and I'm glad to see that the suggested changes from reviewing editors have been implemented. Cheers, and good luck with the nomination, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your suggestions.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pks, you missed a few points in my checklist, which I've now fixed; please don't mark points as done when you haven't done them. I've also taken care of the WP:MOSNUM error in the header ('4' and '8' instead of 'four' and 'eight') which I added late, so please accept my apology for not noticing it earlier. Anyway my checklist is resolved. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a general comment about the article as I'm not generally a FLC reviewer...I don't see any issues currently as far as with MOS or prose. List has adequate lead and details in tabular format. I'll watchlist this page and see if any other outstanding issues are mentioned by more seasoned reviewers, but I currently Support this for Featured List.--MONGO 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that I have retracted the support until further improvements are made.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: this level of comment on a list usually indicates that the list is not ready for nomination, so we should consider a withdrawal until the list is ready for review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, your queries has been resolved. So, pls don't point fingers towards its nomination. I know it was a bit unready but know, its completely ready for passing FL.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what The Rambling Man is indicating is that there were numerous issues (meaning more than usual) that they and others had with the list...but I concur that those issues seemed to have been addressed. If The Rambling Man has further issues it is probably because he is a well seasoned reviewer (which he is). So, is the suggestion to withdraw based on other things that need correction, or just that there were so many to begin with?--MONGO 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect nor want candidates here which attract ten times as many comments as I see at a peer review. That's what WP:PR is all about. Before lists are nominated here, they are supposed to be of a minimum quality such that we're not picking up silly things like poor English, poor punctuation, poor MOS compliance. If I can spend the time, I'll give the list one more look, but if I find too many more issues, I'll archive this nomination and recommend you take it for some peer review, and quality control elsewhere, before returning to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous issues haven't all been addressed, as is evidenced below. The award counts in the lead and infobox aren't even correct, and aren't that close to being correct. How two supporters can miss that, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to say that we will have discount a number of supports from reviewers who clearly are not even capable of seeing the basic failings. This extends beyond just this nomination. For some time I've been worried about "friendly supports" going on here at FLC. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Clearly a number of our reviewers are not able to review lists against the criteria adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stated above that I was watching this, but based my support on the then current issues that had apparently been addressed. But I've retracted that support since it is now more apparent to me that more issues need to be addressed. I am actually a well seasoned FAC reviewer and have been the primary author of 8 FAs, but far less well versed in examining FLCs. In the past month I have been involved in 3 FAC's reviews, one other FLC review and am assisting another get an article through GAN and one more ready for PR. It would be nice if I could contribute to FLC's in the future but if I'm going to be insulted by more seasoned FLC reviewers, then there isn't any reason to bother with it. I had no qualms about changing my support to an oppose if there was further explanations.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This list meets the criteria for FL. It is Well-crafted and I don't see any issues with its prose or lead . Good work.Green Parakeet (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I do see issues with the prose in the lead. To respond to one of TRM's points above, the list did have a peer review that was closed awfully early, before I had an opportunity to respond to a talk page request. Had I been able to review earlier, some of the basic glitches that prevent this article from meeting FL standards could have been weeded out before this FLC.

• The following part is awkwardly written: "with the nominations categories mainly ranging from Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her critically acclaimed performances." I've never been a fan of the "with + -ing" type of sentence structure, and the "ranging from Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress" doesn't make much sense. This could use a re-write.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Chopra won four awards from eight nominations for her performance in Aitraaz including the Filmfare Best Villain Award which made her second and last woman to win in this category". Needs more punctuation (at least one more comma) and a "the" before "second".
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "which won her a number of awards and nominations." A more precise number would be welcome here.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "by the trade journal, The Hollywood Reporter". Remove the comma and italicize the journal name.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "at Shanghai International Film Festival for her contribution to cinema." Needs "the" before the festival's name.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• En dash needed in "From 2009-2012".
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "including two consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress...". The award needs to be made plural here.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "and another Filmfare Award for Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)." The word "category" doesn't need to be here and should be taken out.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of December 2012, Chopra has received 56 awards from 61 nominations." I count 50 awards and 73 nominations from the individual listings in the infobox. We can't be promoting lists that are giving an incorrect award count, in the lead and infobox.
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second word of the Other Awards heading should be decapitalized in the article body and infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree to your allegations over no. of nominations and awards. 73?? Are you, counting the CRITIC'S or JURY award as nominations. They are not nominations. They were directly given. I had not included the pending nominations. Pls, don't confuse with those at all. I do confess that this has many comments which is unusual for this kind of page. Sorry for that but I don't see further problems with prose and lead.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I tend to agree with Giants2008. The PR was closed too early and I too didn't got any chance to review the list. Numerous issues have been pointed out and most of them are addressed. But I feel that other issues do exist and a second PR is what I advise to start. For now, I don't see this FLC passing so I'd suggest withdrawal. Go for another PR and ask for more input and then go for the second nom. Since many editors above have not changed their stand in oppose and the feel that I get about issues with the prose and list, I'd oppose this. It is also tagged for being an "incomplete list" which is enough to strongly oppose but I believe that it isn't that far away from FL status like most of incomplete lists. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal Thank you and sorry. I withdraw the list from FLC. A PR would be conducted as soon as I can. Please, Help me on the PR and thanks to all you amazing people.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 18:29, 27 December 2012 [4].

---

Nominator(s): HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I am interested in making lists better on Wikipedia and would like feedback on this one. I feel this list is clear, concise, and gives potential readers what they are looking for.

Thanks! HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose list is nowhere near featured standard, suggest you withdraw and look at other featured lists, specifically those based n the Tony Awards to get an idea of what we ask for. Some problems are:

• Lead is far too short, would expect at least two decent sized paragraphs
• no references, so information is completely unsourced
• table does not meet MOS:DTT and is not accessible

NapHit (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albacore/Tony should be of note here. Albacore (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially this much better version — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this, the nominator appears to have ownership issues with these pages. Also I think it is reprehensible to blank a page that is in an editors own page. Suggest this is withdrawn immediately and the user takes on board the fact that Albacore's version meets our criteria, whereas this does not. NapHit (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that you mentioned this is a better version , when it doesn't even have a lead, and has less information (no character names/no win/nomination totals. I can add more of a lead to it, because I know about theatre, unlike Albacore, who has explained they have no interest in the material beyond adding it to their many FL lists. Compared to how it was before this I started editing the list, which took several days. I have asked Albacore to leave this list alone as there are many others that are worse that need to be re-done. HesioneHushabye (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell anyone not to edit a page. Albacore is free to edit whatever page he likes, this is also another example of ownership issues on your part. This is not the place to discuss this, take it to the talk page. The list is nowhere near featured standard, a lot of work needs to be done and I'm not sure you comprehend just how much. NapHit (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose

The list is nowhere near FL standards. To start off there are two tags at the top of the page which needs addressing. There are multiple issues with the table as pointed out by other reviewers. I'd suggest the nominator to withdraw the nom as a lot of work is required to bring this list to FL standards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:33, 27 December 2012 (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 NapHit 02:39, 25 December 2012 [5].

---

Nominator(s): TheSpecialUser ^TSU and Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria. Previously, it was not promoted as the team got defunct and the article wasn't updated. However, the issues raised previously are now addressed (sorry if I missed anything). TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments Significantly improved since the last time, but there are still some issues. The biggest issue - I thought a lot about this, and I really think that this is an issue - the list is about the players, but the whole second paragraph is about the team. Such stats can be useful for something like List of Deccan Chargers seasons, but certainly not for this list. Done Another update required - the Hyderabad franchise was sold to Sun TV, and it retained 20 of DC's players The franchise >> The Hyderabad franchise ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Done[reply] Done The first ref itself is unreliable. Done Its not ESPN cricinfo or ESPN Cricinfo. Its ESPNcricinfo Done Link ESPNcricinfo at first usage Done Link The Guardian Done It not Cricket archive. Its CricketArchive. Done Link CricketArchive Done Not sure if this is an issue, but how does the list comes under WP Delhi?? Done Find a better place to add the note. Done WP Cricket suggests to use Wet Indies, and not Barbados. Done Kumar Sangakkar??? Done The DC was a part of the 20122009 CLT20. Add something about that. Done

• Align the countries column to the left.

Not sure how to do that.

Refer to List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I think it makes the article look much worse. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all for now. and..... Happy Diwali! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and same to you TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A look at the lead reveals numerous grammar and prose issues that keep the list from meeting criterion 1 of WP:WIAFL. I urge that a copy-edit be performed by an independent party.

• In the hatnote on top, "the" before Deccan Chargers should be removed, and I don't see why the category title as a whole couldn't be presented. Also, why are we linking to the current squad here when the team is now defunct?
• In "for the first season of IPL", add "the" before IPL, perhaps?
• "in the second season, where the team won the league." "where" should be "when" here.
• Also add "the" before 2009 CLT20, and spell out the competition's name.
• "Their last coach, of the team...". "The last coach of the team". In particular, the comma is undesirable.
• "as the organisers of the league were concerned about player payments; overdue player payments had not been paid." The repetitive use of "player payments" is not effective prose; how about "were concerned about overdue player payments that had not been paid."
• "in a bid who retained 20 players; they bought is by paying 85.05 crores per year." Poorly written and needs revamping.
• "Adam Gilchrist was the team's leading run scorer with 1289 runs throughout 48 matches, who now plays for Kings XI Punjab as their captain." The part after the comma should be moved to directly after Gilchrist's name, since it has no relation to the rest of the sentence as it is written now.
• "by scoring 117 runs of 53 balls." "of" → "on"?
• "who had played the most number of matches as a player of the team". Would be easier to read as "who had played the most matches for the team".
• I see another "most number of" that could be written better as just "most" near the end of this paragraph.
• Why does the third paragraph have multiple instances of "have played"/"have captained" when the team is no longer operating? I'd get rid of "have" in both cases for past tense. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been two weeks now, and the issues I pointed out remain in the article. If there's no work in the next couple days, I recommend that one of my fellow directors archive this nom. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm extremely sorry for the delay. I was on a vacation but I'm back now. The issues will be fixed by today evening. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done all TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for coming back and taking care of these comments, but I won't feel comfortable enough to drop my oppose until Harrias' comments are looked at. He seems to share my opinion that more copy-editing is needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• The link to "squad and administration" links to a section that doesn't exist within the article.
• The hatnote is pretty confusing: "and for the retained Deccan Chargers first-team players, see squad and administration." Would make little sense to people not intricately knowledgeable about the IPL. I think it might be worth removing it altogether.
• Given that "Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited" is a company name, and not specifically a reference to the newspaper, I don't think "Deccan Chronicle" should be in italics, but I could be corrected on this point.
• Does million really need to be linked? Seems like overlinking to me.
• "..they got disqualified at the group stage." The source doesn't support that they were disqualified: eliminated yes, but not disqualified.
• "Their last coach of the team.." This doesn't sound right: I think "of the team" is redundant.
• "..about overdue player payments that had not been paid." Again, this seems to use more words than it needs.
• What is a crore? In contrast to earlier, I think this does need linking.
• The second paragraph just reads as a series of bullet points strung together, I think it needs significant work to improve the language to a professional standard, as should be expected in featured material.
• I don't understand the need for the KXIP abbreviation in the lead: it isn't used again (legitimately) in the article.
• However, it is incorrectly used in the key: this list has been nominated for a second time without the nominator paying due attention to the article. A heavy copy-edit is still required in my opinion. The key states "Member of the current squad", but there isn't really a current squad as the team has been terminated. On my screen the images are not beside the table, but above because of the widths, creating undue whitespace, the table uses hyphens where it should use endashes, high score is for some reason not sortable, the batting and bowling averages appear under the wrong headings. All in all, this is a long way from being a featured list.
• Oppose based on the points raised above, and the likelihood that there is more beyond that. Harrias ^talk 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. Most of the issues are fixed by my friend. I'll fix the remaining 2 issues ASAP. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where are we with all this? Have the nominators asked the reviewers to come back to check their concerns have been addressed? I'll review the list once I get a response here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my own perspective my comments stand. Some issues have been resolved, but far too many are left outstanding, including some specifically mentioned. Harrias ^talk 23:47, 15 December 2012 (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 NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): xanchester (t) 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for FL because I believe the list is detailed, comprehensive and meets the featured list criteria. xanchester (t) 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Add alt text to images per MOS:IMAGES Done.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "is defined" change "is" to "are" Heritage is singular in this sentence, so the "is" is appropriate. I've placed a "the" before "intangible" to reduce the ambiguity. The cited UNESCO text refers to it as such: "The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains."--xanchester (t) 17:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "all of five criteria" the is missing after "of" and before "five" Done, see below, removed entirely.--xanchester (t) 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Speaking of that, what is the "criteria" anyway, it is not explained. Done, removed entirely. It's a minute detail that should belong in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists article instead.--xanchester (t) 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "an organisation established by the convention," was there going to be more writing there, or not, it should be a period probably Done. Inserted the period.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "This list" don't use words like that per WP:MOS, remove and rearranging the sentence would be good. Done.--xanchester (t) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unlink countries per WP:OVERLINK The countries in the lead or the table? The countries in the lead are only linked once, and the countries in the table are linked via the flag icon template.--xanchester (t) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] In the image, "Mohács" should be linked, per WP:MOS, see WP:REPEATLINK Done.--xanchester (t) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The table lists information about each International Cultural Heritage element:", personally, I don't think any of that or below text there is needed, it is very redundant and unnecessary A table legend is needed to explain the terms and how they are applied by UNESCO. It's also a convention for World Heritage Sites lists, including those that have already been featured.--xanchester (t) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does Done. Scope col headers have been applied. Scope rows is unwieldy because of the length of the official titles in the first column.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] And, the text size may be a bit too small, per WP:ACCESS also Done. I've increased the size to 100%.--xanchester (t) 17:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Done.--xanchester (t) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just a suggestion, but I would align references in the tables to the center Done.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Ref" missing a dot period at end in every it is occurring Done, but looks visually distracting. Might be better without the period. That gallery should be under a separate section, entitled perhaps "Gallery", but I don't even feel there should be a gallery, per WP:IUP Done. Changed from gallery to captioned imaged.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "COM" should be "com" per MOS:CAPS 4.COM is the official abbreviation of Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Committee. Should be capitalised per WP:CAPSACRS. Why is "UNESCO" listed as a work in some references, and as a publisher in others? Done. Has been fixed, some of the {{cite news}} templates should have been {{cite web}}.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "UNESCO" should be spelled out fully in references for MOS:ACRO UNESCO is one of the exceptions listed on MOS:ACRO.--xanchester (t) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why are some reference publishers or works linked and others (that could be) aren't? Be consistent. Done, no longer linked.--xanchester (t) 19:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] A number of references violate WP:DASH, hypten should be en-dash Done, replaced with en-dash.--xanchester (t) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any external links? Done. Two more external links.--xanchester (t) 18:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any further categories? Done. Three more categories.--xanchester (t) 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] TBrandley 14:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the review. I have addressed most of your concerns, although I have questions about a few of the remaining ones.--xanchester (t) 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBrandley 22:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick early comments Lead image should not have a full stop in the caption. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Same for other captions which aren't complete sentences. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "cultural" is mentioned three times in the opening sentence, "cultural heritage" twice... dull prose. Done. Good point, but the article lead needs to link to the following three articles: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, intangible cultural heritage and cultural heritage. To address the issue, I've moved the cultural heritage link into the second sentence.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "drafted in 2003[2] and taking effect in 2006.[3] " maybe "which was drafted in 2003, and took effect in 2006". Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Inscription of new heritage elements on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists are determined.." Inscription is singular so shouldn't that be "is determined"? Done. Nice catch, has been fixed.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Organization and organisation in the same article... pick the most appropriate and stick with it. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Put USND in parentheses after the expanded version. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I wouldn't bother listing the countries in "Eastern Europe" only to list pretty much all of them again. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note on the UNESCO session doesn't go on to include the numbers after COM. Done.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] A LOT of images of the masks in Hungary, try to vary the images. Done. Replaced the mask images with an image of a recruit dance, or Verbuňk.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Don't think there's any need for the "Total heritage elements by country" table at all. Done. I've removed it.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sorry to be so late with this, but I've just noticed that the table appears very odd because the description column is so narrow. On my set up, each row fills around half my (high-res) screen, with most of it blank, and the description strung out at one to four words per line. Can this be improved?

• Image placement at the top is very busy. Could the column of smaller images start lower down?
• I also have some issues with the lead. The 'elements' phrasing it uses is hard to understand. Does this originate in this list, or is it a technical term used in the treaty?
• In general I felt the lead seems very full of long boilerplate sentences and lacking much insight. Can you at least give more context on how the Eastern European items compare with other areas, at least in proportion of the total? I found myself going straight to the complete list for information. Also can you make generalisations about what kinds of things are listed for Eastern Europe? Does this differ from other areas?
• 'The "intangible cultural heritage" is defined by the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, drafted in 2003 and took effect in 2006.' seems to have grammatical problems.
• I'd suggest splitting the final sentence to make it clearer which countries lack these items. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (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 NapHit 02:39, 25 December 2012 [7].

---

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Done Don't overlink Vietnamese, as seen in the lede, after its first mention, it shouldn't be linked again, other than little exceptions, per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK Done Unlink Socialist Republic of Vietnam as it is just a redirect to the main country article, which has already been linked, another WP:OVERLINK issue Done "the regular and coordinated operation and stability" to main "and"'s in there, which leads to me not understanding that sentence due to this, so perhaps "and" could be replaced with "as well as", or something Done Don't use words like "current", as per WP:RELTIME, it should be replaced with with "As of ..., the president is", or something more, or different Done "only been" remove only, as it doesn't represent a neutral point of view Done "been 14 presidents of Vietnam if the presidents of South Vietnam are counted" to "been 14 presidents if the ones of South Vietnam are counted", or something Done "-" should be a period as "." Done Add alt text to the portrait images per MOS:IMAGES TBrandley 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now on images and referencing

• File:Picture of Nguyen Huu Tho.jpeg is Fair Use and fails the NFCC
• File:Picture of Vo Chi Cong.jpeg is fair use and fails the NFCC.
• Done File:Ho Chi Minh 1946 cropped.jpg - Needs proof of publication in or before 1947, otherwise it would have fallen afoul of the URAA (per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights)
• Done File:TonDucThang1948.jpg - No proof of 1948 publication, and this would have fallen afoul of the URAA
• File:Truong Chinh.png - If its an official portrait, it's not copyrighted by the Romanian National Archives. The Vietnamese photographer or publisher would hold the rights.
• File:Nguyen Minh Triet.jpg needs a date.
• The Van and Cooper short footnote goes nowhere. The other ones are not used for footnotes (if they are general resources, I think six books is a bit of overkill for this list) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the Van & Cooper note and the point with the fair use images, you are completely wrong with everything you just wrote here... All of these pictures have a date (with the exception of one, which I fixed), and all of these pictures are in the public domain in Vietnam.. Stupid.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A date they were taken, not when they were published. The copyright in Vietnam is based on publication date. They may be (probably are) PD in Vietnam, but not in the US as they would have been extended by the URAA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit my comments. If I am satisfied, I will strike them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please redact your personal attack. Calling me stupid will not change the fact that several of these images are possibly not PD in the US.

Regarding the bibliography, what is the reason for having six books listed? You say its not overkill, why? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Done for a reason, I've fixed it (the books and ther eferences that is). --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can write underneath if need be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Vietnam/archive1, an active FLC by the same nominator, has not received substantial support yet (I'd hardly consider one support substantial). With that in mind, I think this should be withdrawn until that FLC closes. On a separate note, there's no justification for calling a reviewer stupid for telling you something you don't like, especially somebody like Crisco who is a dedicated reviewer at FAC and FLC. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a tendency to use aggressive wording, doesn't really mean anything... Me calling someone stupid is, well, a very common occurrence. --TIAYN (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment I would advocate merging all these minimalist tables into one larger one, with an additional column for the title of the "president". Right now it's a bit messy. Once that's done, I'm happy to review the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I was told that such structuring was breach of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. --TIAYN (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Well it depends entirely on how you restructure it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "supervises the work as well as preserving the stability of the national governmental system" - perhaps "as well as preserving"→'and preserves'?
• "Officially there have been 9 presidents of Vietnam, but there have, in total, been 14 presidents if the ones of South Vietnam are counted." - per WP:ORDINAL write these numbers out in full
• The rank is confusing. Upon navigating to the linked article, I now assume that it means rank in the party (it seems odd that the president isn't always top dog). The note to the table is long and confusing to me. Can this idea be clarified in the text or table better please?
• File:Ho Chi Minh 1946 cropped.jpg and File:TonDucThang1948.jpg are up for deletion. I siggest finding alternative images
• File:Picture of Nguyen Huu Tho.jpeg and File:Picture of Vo Chi Cong.jpeg are non-free have no FUR for this list; I removed them

—Andrew_stalk 09:51, 22 December 2012 (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 NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012 [8].

---

Nominator(s): KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this newly created list for featured list because I believe it fulfils all of the featured list criteria. The entries are complete in that all female fellows and members are listed, and as far as I can tell all Royal Society prizes & awards have also been listed in the Notes & Awards column. KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a useful follow on from the recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon and similar initiatives to create and expand articles about women in science, and I'd support featuring this list. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Any reason why this is split from the gender-neutral article, List of Fellows of the Royal Society? Possible gender-POV? Also table does not meet the accessiblity criteria, lead is too short, among other issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that having a separate sublist is valid - as long as we don't arbitrarily break it into a male list and a female list, having one comprehensive list plus one for definable subsets is fine. Compare, for example, the (featured) list of female Nobel laureates. The RS themselves treat the distinction as meaningful enough to provide a female-only list (although not a very helpful one, as it's current-only) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There's also a newly augmented Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society and female entries have been removed from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. There are plenty of uncontested examples of categories like Women biologists; etc. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The category's been around some time, FWIW; created in 2008. It was only partially populated until a few weeks ago, though; my understanding is that articles should be in one only? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Fellows of the Royal Society is a subjective list of notable fellows. The comprehensive list of all fellows are the sublists List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C, D,E,F etc. Gender sublist like this one and List of female Nobel laureates are notable precisely because of the great difference in number between male and female fellows. Out of ~8,000 fellows in history, only 120 have been women. See all the recent news coverage related to the Ada Lovelace Day events, and women in science and technology in general. With regards to the accessibility criteria, can you be more specific on what you mean so I can see about possibly fixing it? The current format is based on the existing featured List of female Nobel laureates among others. Lastly, what other issues? I can't go about improving the article if I don't know what's wrong with it. Regards. KTC (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tom. TBrandley 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the lead have been expanded. KTC (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 13:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I do not think that this is a 3(b) violation ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") because the suggested target, List of Fellows of the Royal Society, would be unwieldly if all the notable names (by which I mean all the names with articles) were included - just compare how many blue-linked names are in List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C compared to the "List of Fellows" that cherry-picks a few on an apparently arbitrary basis. I think that having a distinct list of women is justifiable given the history of women in science and the numbers for this list compared to the numbers of men in the RS's history. I think that the list needs some polishing, but I would not boot it out at this stage for being an unjustified split. In terms of things to improve, I would suggest the following: Changes "Notes & Awards" to "Notes" Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Remove ampersands from headings Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Notes that aren't full sentences shouldn't have a full stop e.g. "Princess Royal." I've removed all the full stops in the tables. I'm not sure whether I should have left a couple of them in like after Lubchenco's note. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Do we have the year for Victoria becoming Patron? I've clarified in the note that Victoria was never elected as a Royal Fellow, so the year 1838 was when she became Patron. KTC (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Because the tables are sortable, we need to relink each occurrence of a term because the tables won't always be in the same order. I would also relink the Nobel Prizes in the foreign fellows section. Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Some lectures are redlinked, others not - any particular reason for the distinction? All of the awards, prize lectures and medals were wikilinked (once) except the Wellcome Foundation's which I left out by mistake. What's left that's not linked are Officers position within the Royal Society. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Chemical Engineering, Computer Science - lower case for second word for consistency Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] I see the point of linking scientific disciplines, but don't see the point of linking common terms like "politics" and "philosophy" for the honorary fellows, or "United States" (in the foreign fellows) or "United Kingdom" (in the lead) For politics and philosophy, I believe linking it would be more consistent given all the other fields entries are linked, but I don't mind either way. I have unlinked United States, but unsure about United Kingdom in the first sentence. What about Commonwealth of Nations? Is that consider a common enough term? KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Actually, what is the difference between an honorary fellow and a section 12 fellow? The lead could be clarified on this. I've added an explanation to the relevant section rather than the lead. It should clear it up. KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is the 117 figure sourced directly (if so, cite it), or just a count-up of the total below? If the latter, how do we know this is a complete list? Honestly? Because I asked for and received a list from the Royal Society which I worked off. However, a list is provided in ref 2 up to 1994 inclusive, and numerical count of each year is available in ref 4 up to 2009 inclusive, though it appears to have missed one from 1948 in its figure. Royal Society's website have a list of new Fellows for 2010, 2011 and 2012. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] As for accessibility issues, you need things like scope="col" and scope="row" in the tables - see Wikipedia:ACCESS#Tables or, probably easier, see how it's been done at one of the newest FLs like Grade I listed buildings in Coventry I think that's all of it, so done. KTC (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 11:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick note I see no violation of 3b here at all. As long as this list is comprehensive (i.e. it contains all female fellows) then it's a perfectly legitimate standalone list, the objections above have no merit. I will review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note As well as encouraging the creation and expansion of articles about women, this is also associated with efforts to bring in women editors and engage them in Wikipedia. So the subject is very 'current'. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 17:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe that the list being gender-specific does not violate the criteria, 3b in particular, as it does not violate any of the four points. The only issue would be if we saw that it could clearly be deleted at an AfD. As the matter of female membership in the society has been the subject of significant coverage, that is highly unlikely. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agree with assessment in the above comment by Arsenikk (talk · contribs). This list is incredibly well sourced, it's surely very encyclopedic and educational, and has high value for readers, students, and academics alike. Great job! — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments firstly, my apologies for taking so long to getting back to this review, I've had a number of troubling RL issues, but hopefully back on track now. Secondly, I'd like to reiterate if this list is complete, then there's no issue with our 3b criterion. So, to the detail... "While there were no formal prohibition of..." my ignorance perhaps, but why isn't that "While there was no prohibition..."? That's merely my choice of wording. I chose "formal prohibition" rather than "prohibition" because women were prevented from joining despite nothing explicitly saying so, as explained in that and the following paragraph. Maybe "explicit prohibition" would be better? I also wouldn't object if someone were to change it to just "prohibition". KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Second para, first sentence has "Society" three times, rather repetitive and a little dull. Modified sentence. How's that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would consider merging opening paras of lead, the first para is a single sentence. Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "starting in the 19th century, with the founding of the Zoological Society of London in 1829 and Royal Entomological Society" could you explain that just a touch more? Did those two societies openly admit/encourage female membership? Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "when Marian Farquharson sent " could qualify who Farquharson was? Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is Year the Year of inclusion as a fellow? You have one of those floaty-over things for the Ref. col, why not one here? I have expanded the column header instead. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "1991–1996" see WP:YEAR. Done. KTC (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Are the names per the Royal Society or something else? Only our article on Sylvia Tait calls her Sylvia Agnes Sophia Tait while our article on Eleanor Margaret Burbidge simply refers to her as Eleanor Burbidge... "First Last" unless the person is known better by her middle name then "First Better-Known-Middle Last". Our article on Burbidge is actually titled at Margaret Burbidge as she's better known by her middle name. KTC (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Foreign Secretary and Vice-President 2001–2006;" of what? Expanded. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] "UK-Canada Rutherford Lecture 2010" shouldn't that be an en-dash between UK and Canada per WP:DASH? Linguistically, probably. However Royal Society's own website uses hypen throughout. I assuming we should do the same because of that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Fields should be Field(s) since most winners have only one field of interest. Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be seriously tempted to merge all the tables into one, and add the extra info where required in the notes column.
  • Personally, I think separate tables in this case convey the information better, but if other interested editors were to argue for one big table, then I wouldn't put up a fight. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments. I really like this list; it's an atypical subject matter for FLC and it goes some way towards addressing issues with unbalanced coverage of female subjects. It would make a nice TFL for the closest Monday to Ada Lovelace Day next year. Is there a reason you're forcing the table width at 95%? Other than because I copied the format from an existing list? No. I think for one of the table at least, 95% looks better, but I've forced all of them to 100% now. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't table captions redundant when the table is directly under a section heading? I agree with TRM on the "year" col Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] An the "fields" col Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The notes would be better as sentences or at least sentence fragments (eg awarded the Davy Medal in 1957) Done. KTC (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'd really like a brief bit of prose that explains why being an FRS is so highly coveted and what role the fellows play within the society, and how that differs (if it does) for foreign/royal/honorary fellows What proportion of all FRSs are female? I'm afraid I can't find any citable information on that. The closest I've come is List of Fellows of the Royal Society where it state there have be approximately 8,000 Fellows in history. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Do we know why they amended the rules to explicitly allow female fellows? Or why they decided to admit female FRSs at all (was it because they were legally obliged to or did they decide they wanted to)? First question, no. Second question, they were legally obliged to due to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. I have expanded a little to make it clear (I hope). KTC (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Revisiting this. I'm happy with all the responses to my comments so far. It would be unreasonable to oppose over the non-inclusion of information that's simply not available. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed (Katie, please correct me if I've missed it) is my request for a sentence or two on the prestige of being an FRS. If that could be added, I'll gladly support (but I won't oppose, and may support anyway, if it isn't added). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Added. Also added a sentence detailing percentage of women Fellows out of all living Fellows. -- KTC (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm happy that all my comments have been addressed and I see no significant issues that would bar promotion to FL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - While I'm working on the above points, I just want to highlight that this is the intended appearance of the tables with rowspan on years with multiple Fellows elected. The current explosion of all rows are due to bugzilla:41886. KTC (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that bugzilla:41889. KTC (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose until at least the red-linked entries get a blurb in the notes section. It is not clear to me why don't all entries have a small sentence about the fellow's achievements. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fellows and Foreign Members were all elected on the basis of excellence in their respective fields, which is already one of the columns. Further blurb is, in my opinion, unlikely to add much that wouldn't be better served with a reader clicking through to the individual articles if they want more information. As to the red links, they shouldn't be treated differently to the blue ones so it should be either or for all of them. While I definitely intends to create all the missing articles if other don't beat me to it, I'm not incline to write a bunch of stubs just so this list doesn't have any red links. -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a few redlinks is not a valid criterion for opposition at FLC. Therefore this opposition can and should be legitimately disregarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. An interesting list, well presented. Much debate has surrounded the issue of the low numbers of women who have been elected FRS, and I see no reason why this should not be a separate list. As others have pointed out, the complete list of fellows would be extremely unwieldy. My only comment is that the royal fellows/patrons do not have references, and the living ones do not seem to appear in the external list of "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society". Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Royal Fellows and Patrons doesn't have inline references mainly because they're not elected the usual way, so there's no election citation and any material talking about them will generally covers other aspect of their life rather than the fact they were Royal Fellows of the Royal Society. All four are covered in the general reference "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007" (pp. 12, 110 & 365). Which of the living ones did you test? That particular list covers those elected up to and including 2011, so anyone that were elected this year wouldn't be on there. -- KTC (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The list I checked (for royal fellows/patrons), as I wrote, is the one you link to as "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society" [9]. If they are covered under "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007", then I suggest that you place citations to specific page numbers in a reference column for ease of reference, and also clarify for each whether they are royal fellows and/or patrons, which appears unclear in 3 of the 4 cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done re. references. Re. Royal Fellows vs. Patrons, I thought it was fairly clear that only Queen Vic & QE2 were patrons and hence Queen Mum & Anne has only ever been Royal Fellows, but obviously not. I have added a few sentences before the table that should hopefully help explain things? -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I fear you might now need a reference for the introductory text in this section. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Section rewrote with added references. KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done some copy edits, but the last sentence of this section is rather jumbled; suggest simplifying. Otherwise happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made some minor tweaks as follows: (1) prizes are awarded to someone, lectures are delivered/presented by someone, so I've changed the formula to "Delivered the X Lecture in YYYY". I know that it might be prestigious to be asked to deliver the X lecture, but that's implicit. (2) Notes that are not full sentences should not end with a "." I have explained above in my now-hatted comments why this is not a 3(b) violation. I am also not worried that some of the lectures don't have articles yet, although it would be good if they did or if they could be redirected to a mention of them in another Royal Society article. However, I'd like this bit tidied up:

Throughout its history, the Royal Society has elected a number of individuals to its Fellowship by virtue of their royal blood or marriage. By the time women were admitted to its Fellowships, eligibility of such elections has been limited to members of the British Royal Family. The reigning monarch of England, and since the Act of Union 1707, that of Great Britain has always served as patron of the Society.

• "eligibility of such elections" doesn't make sense to me
• Great Britain became the United Kingdom in 1801
• Source for these three sentences?

Fix these and I'll be supporting. Bencherlite^Talk 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrote that bit with added references. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If the gender, race, religion, disability, or nationality of the fellow is felt to be of interest to readers, can this not be achieved through adding an additional field to the main list? I question the value of this list as a standalone list, so would not be comfortable in supporting as a featured list. Perhaps merge back into the main list? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merging it back would be political. This is a complete list of female members; being a female member is a notable occurrence in its own right due to the very late acceptance of members, and the currently low number of fellows. I hope that in 20 years such a list would be so long as to make it useless, but until then I feel it holds notability. It seems a shame to put such pointless criticism onto such a lot of determined effort. I do have a suggestion though; get the male fellows in the other list up to featured status (indeed, it probably needs expansion) and then a merge would certainly be worth considering. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A complete list of List of male Fellows would have around 8,000 entries... KTC (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry SilkTork, but with sadness on my part, your logic, following many of our other lists, is deeply flawed. As KTC notes, the main list would have 8,000+ entries, so creating sublists seems perfectly acceptable to me. We often split per gender (e.g. South Africa women Test cricketers) or by religion (e.g. List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients) etc. I'm not keen on this oppose being mixed in with the ongoing WP:RFA nonsense. I would hope we could take these perceived editorial problems separately from any kind of administrative issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I don't mind red links at all. But I do think a small blurb would help, for all of them. Clicking to the article is ok, but some info should be on the list as well. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fair point, that all entries perhaps should have some explanatory notes, to make this list standalone from the rest of Wikipedia, regardless of whether the subject is redlinked or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked some other related featured lists and they all seem to have some more info. See List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford and List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. That makes them, to me, better lists. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agreed with your original comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That last comment was not really meant for you :) Just for nominator so she can see some examples. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, indentation can sometimes confuse me... :) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 11:58, 24 December 2012 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short article about a short story prize. Regards. Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The prose in the lead was a concern at the last FLC and there are still issues. Here are a few examples:

• "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language" doesn't really explain what constitutes winning the award

• Please clarify--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Canadian writer Danuta Gleed, whose favourite literary genre was short fiction" that needs referencing

• It is--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's a widely known fact. You've been on wikipedia long enough to know these kind of statements need referencing. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The incomes of his wife" incomes should be income, but even then its still not a professional standard of writing

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "A similar award is the Journey Prize, which is given to a short story collection generally and is independent to any publisher." This sentence has no relevance to this list, we are talking about the Danuta Gleed Literary award, no need to mention any others

• It has since both are similar.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't its irrelevant to this article

• "The year's shortlist is chosen in May by the Union and is presented by the press,[3] while the prize is awarded in the early June." reads poorly

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its the wording. You see this is the issue, because you're not a native English speaker you're struggling to see what is wrong. That's why it needs copyediting by a native speaker. I'm not going to provide you with a solution, when it was suggested last time you get the article copyedited, yet you either couldn't be bothered or ignored the advice. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The varying jury"

• Not done, since it should be stated that the jury frequently changes--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first winning work" again poor prose

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "From 1999 to 2002, there were additionally two runners-up until the following years, when five people were nominated for the award, while the remaining three were not included as runners-up." again reads poorly and a little explanation about why some are runners-up and some are not would be helpful

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "only five were qualified for the prize with two being the runners-up"

• Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "From 2009 to 2011, there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees." comma needed after runners-up

• I think it is not needed--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the comma after 2011 sohuld be removed and placed after runners-up another example of why it needs a copyedit.

• "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format, selecting two runners-up among five short-listed works." when? useless statement without a date

• In the following years of course, and I know that this paragraph is pretty useless since it repeates what is already clarified in the table, but this process is not unusual.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Entire last paragraph is unreferenced and there is a lot of info that could be challenged in that para

• What exactly, since it repeats what is already noted in the table.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You would be better off using green to indicate runners-up instead of th other writers as there is it will be clear that they were neither runners-up or winners anyway

• Not done, your opinion.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid using semi-colon for bolding, as done in the key, use a table caption instead

• Ok done.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear what is referencing the table

• Not needed if there is a general reference. Totally redundant.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the general reference? There is isn't one. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this list is nowhere near featured standard. There are too many issues with the prose, which was the main sticking point at the last FLC. Since the closure of the FLC, there have been four edits to the article, so evidently the issues from that FLC have not been fixed. This begs the question, why are you nominating this list when it is clearly not at featured standard? It really should be withdrawn and receive a copyedit from a native English speaker, something which was suggested at the last FLC! NapHit (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add to this that this list really should be removed. At the last FLC, theditor was requested to get a copyedit he has not done so and the issues still remain. This is wasting reviewer time and affecting other nominations as efforts should be directed their instead of here. FLC is not a peer review process, which is something, the issues here are too many too fix in the time frame of the nom. It should be withdrawn copyedited and then resubmitted. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, since the list is pretty small and seems to be copyedited thanks to TRM comments below. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRM's comments are not a copy edit, they are identifying errors in the prose. This list needs to be copy edited by an uninvolved native Engkish speaker. That was made clear at the last FLC, so why you didn't follow up on this I don't know. He also mentioned issues about sourcing which have still not been addressed. I stand by my view this list should be withdrawn and copy edited. I'm also concerned that you continually puts lists like this up for nomination. You've been around the process long enough to know what our standards are, the lists you've no mimed recently have been short of that, mainly to prose issues. This should be indication in itself, you need to get these lists copy edited before you bring them here. This is not a peer review process, lists should come here close to featured standard not riddled with prose and source issues. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too many flaws right now...

• "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language." missing word here, the "best" debut short fiction collection perhaps?

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The incomes... funds..." (a) not sure why incomes is plural, but (b) if you insist, then it should be fund.

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Journey prize is irrelevant and not referenced by [1] in any case.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides, "is independent to any " you are normally independent of not independent to.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the prize money referenced in [2]?

• Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "is presented by the press" do you just mean the shortlist is published in newspapers? Ref [3] says the nominations "were announced by the Writers’ Union of Canada".

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2 says award is going to be presented late May/early June. There's nothing to say when the previous prizes were awarded.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "is awarded in the early June" no need for "the".

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 does not cite the jury figures you've presented.

• Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "there were additionally two runners-up until the following years" -> "there were two runners-up. From 2003..."

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "only five were qualified for the prize" do you mean "five writers were nominated for the prize"?

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees" I think the second half of this is obvious if there were no runners-up.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format" the award is not a group of people, so you can't say "[an inanimate object] revived their traditional format"...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it short list or shortlist?
• "That year, only two books were put in the short list, the lowest result since the first ceremony." -> That year, only two books were shortlisted, the fewest in the history of the award.

• Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Publisher or publication" I don't see any publications in this list. If so, I would expect them to be italicised.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was Overqualified disqualified, withdrawn or removed? Be consistent.

• Made consistent.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be logical to identify runners up in green with the cross symbol, rather than the "other shortlisters", as the runners up are more notable.

• On the other side, shortlisted works appear non-notable if not marked by color or symbol. However, will do as three people have suggested this.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the winners referenced? Ref 1 doesn't mention them, you need to link directly to the relevant winners page. Also ref 1 links to pages that go back to 2003, what about the previous winners? Oh and we don't use "external links" for this purpose...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you need to add publishers and access dates to those general refs. Also what makes Canadian authors.net a reliable source? You also to add a col scope to the publisher and after telling you not to use semi colons for bolding, you've done just that for the general and specific refs . They need to be removed. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the 2012 nominees listed? I see no reference with Skibsrud mentioned for example...

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that just re-using ref 1 dozens of times is not acceptable. Link the relevant year to the relevant page please. E.g. show me where in your URL for ref 1 I can find Skibsrud mentioned please? You also still have a number of rows which have blank ref cells..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I am working on this list. Also note that you don't need to repeat the same arguments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I suggest you withdraw this until you're ready to renominate once you've addressed all the changes required. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need to force me into doing something.--Tomcat (7) 12:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No but I can fail premature nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find Skibsrud listed either, it does not go to 2012. According to the page the latest is 2011. This matter of references containing the material is a repeated problem with these submissions. Tomcat7 added false citations to Friedrich Eckenfelder and has admitted to not have the material for the GA he nominated. More recently, I pointed it out to be corrected at Abel Prize. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems like you have difficulties comparing what the source states and what the article claims. Reference 21, for example, clearly mentions his name and the date. And what happened on other pages is irrelevant. I suggest you eradicate the false accusations.--Tomcat (7) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your above disagreements aside, why then are you using reference 1 to cite Skibsrud, if his nomination is referenced in ref 21? Therein lies confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please archive this? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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