Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2014

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

The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 21:51, 26 December 2014 [1].

Nominator(s):AJona1992 (talk · contribs) and Erick (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC), [reply]

This list was created as a result of a collaboration between me and AJona1992. This idea came about we talked wanting to make a large contribution to an article related to Latin music and thus list was created. Erick (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Issues have been resovled or fixed. Great looking article, great job! — DivaKnockouts 17:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:

• I think you could add a reference to the last sentence in the lead (about De Vita), maybe the same one that you used in the table. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaespinoza:  Done Erick (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is ready to go. Good job. Support. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your time Javier. Erick (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the merit of each nominee vis a vis" - "vis a vis" sounds unnecessarily flowery (plus I'm not sure it's spelt like that), how aboue just "with regard to"?
• "Cuban salsa songstress" - "songstress" again seems a bit flowery, how about just "singer"?
• "his career as a professional conga in Latin music" - isn't a conga an instrument? Surely this should be "conga player" or similar.....?

Think that's it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I have addressed all of the above. Erick (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• three months after she was murdered at the age of 23, and was named the Hot Latin Tracks Artist of the Year - So she was named Hot Latin Tracks Artist of the Year when she was murdered, three months before making the hall of fame? That's what it reads like
• The lead bothers me. By all rights it should highlight the key points of the list, not reproduce it in more detail. Otherwise, what's the point of a list? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco1492: On your first point, after looking at it again, I decided to remove since it feels so out of place. On your second point, I need some clarifications. I'm guessing minor points like "Mexican banda group Banda el Recodo became the first musical ensemble to be inducted in the Latin Music Hall of Fame in 2004." doesn't need to be mentioned? I'm basing this list off of Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year which is FL. Erick (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a highlight. In this lead, you mention each and every individual and why they were inducted, which is going to be untenable as the list grows. The lead should be a summary of the list, and not replace it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco1492: Could you please give me any examples or suggestions? I'm still not sure what to do. Erick (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• TRM's comment just about does it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

• It would be better to include a description of the winners and why they won it in the table rather than cram it all into the lead. The lead could then be used to establish what the award is, when/why it's awarded, how the award is perceived globally etc.
• Heavy reliance on the Billboard source, is this award covered by WP:RS other than the people who award it?
• The template calls it "Latin Music of Fame" - missing a word?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wonderful suggestions TRM! I'll go ahead and revamp the prose and list sometime soon. I don't know if it'll be enough to fix those issues for the FLC in time. I'm somewhat considering withdrawing the FLC so that I can do the necessary change to the article. Cheers! Erick (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick, if you could let me know if you decide to withdraw and I'll action it for you. Similarly, if you decide you have time to re-work based on the above suggestions, letme know and we can keep it running for a little longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay after discussing with AJona1992, I think it might be best to withdraw the FLC for now so that we can get extra time to improve on the list per The Rambling Man's suggestions. Erick (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erick: I'll action this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 15:40, 12 December 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after the first failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. Jared Leto is a well known actor who deserves his own filmography page. I think the lead covers the most important information of his films and the tables explain in a good way his several activities. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly two months, I hope it won't happen again. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now

• Rather than the lead, citations for roles should be included in the tables.

• Fixed.

• "Leto landed his first film role"..... doesn't seem very encyclopedic, try something like Leto's first film role was

• Fixed.

• "amongst other notable awards"..... not really a neutral description. I would definitely mention that his role in Dallas Buyers Club won him the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor, possibly MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation as well. Of course, not every award should be mentioned.

• Fixed.

• Since there's lots of mention on movie reception, I'd add some quotes from reviews.

• I've limited movie reception to only his major roles. I'd avoid adding quotes since they're more suitable in the main article.

• FN2: Does not mention anything about a "cult following", so let's find a different source for such a claim

• Done.

• FN10: Movieline should be italicized

• Done.

• FN17: I'd try to find something better than Salon

• Done.

• FN23: Unlink The New York Times and Variety (magazine) per WP:OVERLINK as those were already linked in previous ref's

• Comment: I would advise against this. Overlinking isn't considered applicable outside the article body. Consistency is probably a better rule to go by: link them all, or link none. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed.

• FN24: Unlink The New York Times (again) and only link the first instance of MTV for same reason given in FN23

• See my comment above - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed.

It's not too bad, but needs work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better now. I would also remove the music videos from this and details on Thirty Seconds to Mars- that detail instead belongs in Thirty Seconds to Mars discography as it pertains to the band more than Leto himself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The music videos listed in this article are directed by Leto himself (not the whole band), so they belong to this page.--Earthh (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize he directed them, but they pertain to the band more than him. This is supposed to focus on his solo career, not his band-related work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, the director credits would be incomplete if we remove them.--Earthh (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like we haven't got a consensus here. I have to archive this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 15:40, 12 December 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It covers a topic which has been studied for a least the last 300 years (e.g. Reland in 1714). It was created three years ago, and has proven remarkably stable. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's some poor luck. No reviews in two months. I'm going to have to archive this. Next time, if you're interested in getting eyes on your nomination, it might help to review other nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [4].

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm? The Navy Midshipmen football team is probably the most unique American college football team there is. During their 120-something year history, thirty-seven men have coached the team. They've had one interim coach (the unspeakable 2001 season), and twice went without a coach. Four of those men are in the College Football Hall of Fame for their coaching, and a few more probably should be. I have previously nominated this list twice. The first nomination ended after several good comments, but only a couple of votes, while the second was never even commented on. All previous concerns that had been raised have been addressed. Comments are appreciated (although votes are preferred). Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – In footnote 1, the score range requires an en dash per MoS; otherwise, I don't see too much wrong with this list. Hopefully it will attract more reviewers. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty lame mistake on my part. It's correct now. Thanks for the review. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [5].

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've put forward a FL nom, and certainly this one is unlike any I've ever done - because the sourcing was an absolute pig!! But after digging through archive.org I've managed to put together a fully sourced list. This was originally based off the IMDB list of the awards, but in pulling this together I fixed the mistakes in that table (you'll notice that IMDB gives the film more victories - but I've gone through and checked each individual one to make sure they're all accounted for). Once this gets through then I'll take a long hard look at Star Trek Into Darkness although I'll need a drink first! :) Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All good now. I can now Support this list. Cowlibob (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd disambiguate with (film), as we could theoretically make a list for TOS and/or the franchise as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Oppose..... at least for now:

• I can't find anything in FN5 (Box Office Mojo) which supports the "which placed it as the seventh highest-grossing film for 2009 behind The Hangover" bit

• I've added the relevant source. Sorry about that, completely overlooked the correct cite. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Within the tables, there are instances of WP:OVERLINK for award recipients

• WP:OVERLINK allows for links to be repeated in tables. Also, because it is a sortable table, any one of them potentially could be the first link to appear in the table. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher for The Boston Globe from 2006 to October 2009 was P. Steven Ainsley, so I'd reflect this accordingly

• Thanks, rectified. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized as it is an online-only source

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FN6's publisher should be the same as FN5, which is Amazon.com

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CBS News shouldn't be italicized as it is not a print source, and publisher is CBS Corporation

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher for MTV is Viacom

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indiewire is owned by SnagFilms

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Daily News" should read "New York Daily News"

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confident that better sources can be found than "Zap2It" or "Daily Express".

• I'd argue that both are reliable sources. In particular, the Daily Express is a national British newspaper. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not necessarily saying they're unreliable, just that higher quality ones can be used. For example, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian are among the most reliable UK papers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Express cite is purely used for the date of the ceremony. I'll look for a better quality source for the critic's choice awards and then post back here to confirm. Miyagawa (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not too sure about "Moviefone"

• It's a website owned by AOL and directly linked to from their websites. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is how AOL-affiliated sites tend not to be very reliable Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only other source I can find is a TrekMovie.com article as the SFX website doesn't have the results listed anymore, and archive.org unfortunately didn't capture it while it did. I'm happy to use TrekMovie.com as it's one of only the four fan related websites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website, which I've always taken a sign of reliability. However, it's probably the one I've used the least as the others actually used to have articles directly linked to from the official website in a prior design. But I'm happy to either switch or add as a secondary cite if you think it'd improve the situation. Miyagawa (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's my input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, looks better now. Almost ready to support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2008 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not checked the "Ceremony information" section, but I have checked the awards, presenters and performers table against their sources. Below is my feedback. The article seems very thorough and, following a similar format to other successful lists, it seems that it covers all the main areas. You seem to have been the only contributor since at least July (with one exception) and so it appears stable to me.

• In the introduction, you might want to mention roughly how many people watched the ceremony. Otherwise, the introduction is fine and, being based closely on the others, I see no faults with it.

• The second paragraph in the introduction ends with "The telecast garnered almost 32 million viewers, making it the least watched Oscar broadcast in history."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The viewing figures, director and producer should probably be sourced in the infobox, as they are in the 2007 page.

Fixed: Used extra copy of link in ratings and reception and used it in infobox

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have left the double daggers beside the winners, despite stating that the winners would be in bold face.

• Fixed: Changed sentence to read "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double-dagger".

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources lists "Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird" for Ratatouille in the Best Original Screenplay award. You only list Brad Bird.

• Fixed: Added Capobianco and Pikava. Also credited them as either story and/or screenplay.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Best Foreign Language film section in the source does not list the directors and hence those statements are not sourced in the article.

• According Academy rules (click here) it states: "The Academy statuette (Oscar) will be awarded to the motion picture and accepted by the director on behalf of the picture’s creative talents. For Academy Awards purposes the country will be credited as the nominee. The directors name will be listed on the statuette plaque after country and film title (Rule 13, Part IV, Section B)" In other words, the award itself is credited toward the country of origin AND the director of the film.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine - I am not questioning that at all - it is correct to add the directors names. I am also not saying that the information is wrong. However, I am commenting on the fact that the Oscars source itself doesn't actually give the directors - it only gives the countries - and so the article doesn't include references which support the directors' names. If the article were taken on its own, one couldn't verify the names of the directors. Now, it might just be me being pedantic, and other's might disagree with me - I am just making an observation. --Noswall59 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• The translation of film names is inconsistent. For instance, you write "Even Pigeons Go To Heaven (Même les pigeons vont au paradis)" in Best Short Animation, yet in Best Live Action Short, you give The Substitute without its original Italian name; the same is true for The Mozart of Pickpockets.
• In the Best Song category, you don't differentiate between those who wrote the music and those who wrote the lyrics; the article on the 80th awards does make this distinction. An example would be “Happy Working Song” from Enchanted: the source states "Music by Alan Menken; Lyric by Stephen Schwartz".

Fixed: Added Music and Lyric credentials.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the source you give for the presenters and performers lists. Firstly, it doesn't actually state which award they presented or what they performed. Secondly, Tom Kane, Randy Thomas, John Stewart, Barry B. Benson and Sid Ganis all appear in your list but not in the source. Furthermore, the source states that Queen Latifa was a presenter, but she is not included in your list. Finally, the performers list also capitalises Impact in "IMPACT Repertory Theatre of Harlem" and does not mention Bill Conti, who appears in your list.

Thanks and good luck with your nomination, --Noswall59 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for making the changes you have, --Noswall59 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

NB: I have added citation needed tags to the performers and presenters tables where neither of the sources support the article. --Noswall59 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: I've sorted this on behalf of Birdienest81. Cowlibob (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that fine - thanks Cowlibob, I will mark that as fixed. I am happy to change to support now. Well done! --Noswall59 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Support: Great work once again.--Jagarin 02:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the Coens' picture, shouldn't "winner" be plural in this case?
• Presenters: Keri Russell's note needs "of" after the first word.
• Ceremony information: An en dash is needed in the year range of 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike.
• Don't think the second word of "Oscar Night" should be capitalized.
• Critical reviews: Is "What" or another word missing from the beginning of the "We got instead" quote?
• In "that numerous film montage seemed to diminish Stewart's job as host", "montage" should be made plural.
• "but praised Stewart writing". "Stewart" → "Stewart's".
• First word of the Brian Lowry quote is a typo.
• All caps in ref 38 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Birdienest81, it would be good if you could deal with these. I'm liable to archive within the next three days otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed most of the problems. I'll get an update really REALLY sooon.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants, what do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The second issue is still outstanding, but all the others are fixed and I misread one of the items in question anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed point 2 above. Other minor things to fix.

• For the critical reception section, make language more neutral e.g. not bemoaned, complained, marvelled.
• Ratings section: 31.76 million + 21% decrease year on year figures not supported by ref (32 million in ref). Source for 31.76 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/01/opinion.medved/) Source for 21% fall (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/26/entertainment/et-oscarratings26). 64.19 million cumulative figure not supported by ref. (ref 51 works to support this add in-line cite here.).

@Birdienest81: When you make these fixes, which shouldn't take long, I'd be happy to support. Cowlibob (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by SchroCat 23:23, 1 December 2014 [7].

Nominator(s): Uhooep (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a full and thorough list which is fully referenced and I believe it meets (or is on the cusp of meeting) the criteria to become a featured list. Uhooep (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew UEA had such an illustrious list of alumni. A few comments:

Lead

• Would it be worth saying which country it is in as you mention "foreign nations" later.
• It might also be saying how long UEA has existed (ie cince 1963) to give some context

List

• You use lots of abbreviations in the "Class year" column. I am familiar with BA, MA, BSc, PGCE, PhD but others might not be so a key to these abbreviations or suitable wikilink might help. ARE as a class is beyond me.
• In "sport" you wikilink England for the rugby team but in some sections there are others (eg BBC, Sky Sports) which could be wikilinked but are not - I don't quite understand the rationale.
• You have "&" in a couple of the sub head titles. I thought the MOS encouraged writing "and" in full

Layout

• On my screen the Notability column is very wide (wider than the text) but the name and Class year columns quite narrow which means that they take up more than one line in some cases.
• Some sections have lots of photos others (eg Arts Administrators) don't have any

References

• It is good that there is a reference per line however many of them (eg 27, 28, 29, 30 etc etc) are "bare URLs" it would be better to include the title, name, date accessed etc in each.
• Ref 18 appears to be a web citation but has no URL.
• Ref 27 (mathiascorman) gives a 404 error
• Ref 36 (ethiopianwomen) gives a 404
• Ref 165 (netcomunity) gives a file type error - but I'm not sure why
• The CAPITALISATION of who's who entries makes them stand out from the other entries.

Hope these comments are helpful.— Rod ^talk 15:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more thoughts:

• I note your user page just consists of a link to Tamara Ingram. If you (User:Uhooep) are Tamara Ingram you should be aware of the potential Conflict of interest in editing a page on which you appear. I'm not Tamara Ingram, I just created a red link on by userpage prior to creating a stub about her.
• It also appears you are quite a new editor and have only edited this list in the last couple of weeks. I was wondering whether you had discussed the nomination with other editors of the article in line with the featured list candidate instructions, which say "Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination."?

Perhaps you could clarify.— Rod ^talk 15:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhooep, these comments have been unanswered, and undealt with, for a month. If you do not address them in the next 24 hours, I'll presume the nomination has been withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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