Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2013

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 07:48, 30 January 2013 [1].

Nominator(s): --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FL-criteria. I am nominating this for featured list as I believe, that after quite some work, it's ready for FL Status. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not ready, try a peer review

• Lead is too long, try four paras max.
• Why is the list title used in prose to start the lead?
• Don't bold links in the lead.
• "5 ... 5 ... one" -> WP:MOSNUM says be consistent, either words or numbers in a sentence for comparable items.
• The 5 and 5 and 5 and 1 and 1 and 1 add up to 13, not 12, you need to explain the difference.
• "The club has an excellent European cup record," POV.
• Overlinking, e.g. Baku.
• "In 2012-13, Group stage" as a title, not good and if you use year ranges, comply with WP:DASH.
• Why isn't the list in chronological order?
• " 30-08-2012." isn't a date format you should use in prose, captions or otherwise.
• The right-hand table isn't explained at all.
• Table doesn't comply with WP:ACCESS most notably MOS:DTT.
• Season years were delineated in the lead with an en-dash, in the table with a slash. Be consistent.
• Need to check the "result" graphics are readable by screen readers. Not sure they're necessary, would suggest an aggregate score and an explicit Won/Drawn/Lost result.
• Lots of the Key is irrelevant not used.
• "Participations" not even sure if this is English.
• Refs need consistent formats, access dates, correct publication dates, publishers etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (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 19:16, 28 January 2013 [2].

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed last summer), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because I find this to be an article with a list attached to it, so I would suggest taking this to featured article status rather. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Seasons 1 through 4 of the show have been promoted to featured list. Besides, there is already a precedent for other series' season pages at the main Featured List page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with TB in the sense of I personally feel it should be taken to FA rather than FL (it has quite a lot of prose), but however, there seems to be a precedent style for such types of articles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, normally I'd agree, but I don't want to go against the convention. And considering season 1-4 are FLs, I feel that it would be a tad odd to suddenly have a FA (if it passes, that is).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Although this looks more like an article than a typical list article, I highly doubt that anybody at FAC would vote for a FA with such a large table. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's why I put it up for a vote here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is the first season without Steve Carell as Michael Scott in the lead role." → "This was the first season of the series without..."
• The lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, "The eighth season of the American television comedy The Office...", "The Office is an American adaptation..."

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I cut down on the "this season... this season..." and reduced the references to the show. I also fixed the tense issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:20, 13 January 2013 (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 19:16, 28 January 2013 [3].

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the first premature nomination, I now definitely feel that this discography meets the criteria. Regards. Tomcat (7) 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – an improvement, but there are still some issues.

• Quantity confusion: I counted 35 singles, not 32.
• Needs citation: "Harrison's songwriting skills progressed considerably in the last Beatles years."

• The source at the end of the paragraph supports this sentence.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs citation: "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison was introduced to the sitar, which was used in such songs as 'Within You Without You' and 'The Inner Light'."

• The source at the end of the paragraph supports this sentence.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The source mentions Shankar and the sitar, but does not mention it was used on those two songs. NapHit (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redundancy: "Later he also tested with the slide guitar" – remove "also"; it serves no purpose.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Diction: "His quiet and reserved appearance led Harrison to his nickname of the 'quiet Beatle'." – appearance as in physical appearance?

• Not sure what you mean, but reworded anyway--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Awkward wording: "Harrison's wrote such successful and influential tracks as 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Something'."

• Fixed typo--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The typo was fixed, but the sentence still reads awkwardly, mainly because oif the "such ... as" wording. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, now better?--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Number formatting: Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities are written consistently as words/numerals. For example, this article has "number 49", written as a figure, but "number-one hit", which is written in words. Be consistent.

• Numbers higher than "9" are generally to be written out.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true, but there are exceptions to that rule, and as you said, "generally". But I don't see this as a significant inconsistency in this article particularly, so I've struck my concern. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• POV: "His subsequent albums were moderately successful" – how do you define "moderately successful"? That's quite subjective wording.
• Accessibility: "'—' denotes albums that did not chart or were not released." – why is this in small print?

• Now in normal font size--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusion: If the albums/singles were not released, why did they chart in some countries? In fact, if they weren't released, they shouldn't be here. Do you mean they weren't released in a particular region?

• Clarified--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "a particular region", I'd say "that region" as it sounds better and clearer. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations: Be consistent on whether newspaper references have publisher locations or not.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations: In ref 9, International Business Times should plural, linked and italicized.

• Done--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations: Why do some references have wikilinks but others do not?
• Citations: Check for consistency in italicization of web sites. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Tomcat (7) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations: Allmusic or AllMusic? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Made consistent.--Tomcat (7) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments definitely in better shape than last time, still a few issues

• I also count 35 singles not the stated 32

• I did not count the two B-sides and the 2000 version of My Sweet Lord. Fixed.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "His quiet and reserved character led to Harrison to his nickname of the "quiet Beatle" -> "His quiet and reserved character resulted in his nickname' the "quiet Beatle"

• Reworded, but wrote a comma instead of the apostrophe.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• what makes While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here comes the Sun and Something more influential and successful than his others? You not qualify this in the sentence as its just opinion without a qualifying fact

• Something, for example, was lauded by Sinatra, and all three appear in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Singles of All Time. I will clarify that if needed.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ye I would clarify this, then it's clear why you chose those three as opposed to other songs. NapHit (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "His subsequent albums were moderately successful" How do you define moderately successful? Probably better to say there were not as successful as All Things Must

• Ok, clarified.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• having The Concert of Bangladesh in full twice in one sentence is not ideal, I would rewrite it slightly

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harrison had a run of six singles between 1981 and 1986 that did not chart" needs a reference

• Clarified--Tomcat (7) 19:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• not been clarified at all. This is sentence could be contested, it needs a reference proving the singles were unsuccessful. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables indicates they charted poorly. --Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the bit about the Travelling Wilbury's is relevant, this is about Harrison's career as a solo artist. Obviously his time in the Beatlesneeds to be mentioned, but I think mentioning this band is superfluous

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 9 it's International Business Times

• Fixed--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 11 the hyphen should be an en dash

• I think I have fixed that.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You use ref 23 to reference The Concert for Bangladesh video album, yet I can't see it anywhere in that source

• Yes, done--Tomcat (7) 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, but you need to add the author and publication date. NapHit (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• also those release dates need referencing and need to indicate what territory the release date refers to

• They don't need to be referenced since the footnotes below the country abbreviations include the dates.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the reader is unaware of this. I would reference this to a specific region and provide the actual date as well, this is now standard in discographies and I would expect the same here. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have some regions in small and others in normal font. Per other discography pages they should all be small. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean?--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't start a sentence with "Around this time" without providing a date. You need to reword the start of that sentence, this was mentioned in the previous FLC and should have been fixed.

NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, removed.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Hi Tomcat7, I saw this was up for FL and noticed a few issues that I don't think are pointed out above:

• "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison was introduced to the sitar ..." Harrison first came across the sitar while filming the Beatles movie Help! in early '65 and then used the instrument on "Norwegian Wood" in October that year. He didn't meet Ravi Shankar till June or July 1966, after writing (and recording, probably) "Love You To".

• Reworded--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Later he tested with the slide guitar, which he used on the last three Beatles albums." I'm not sure what "tested" means here(!), but no matter what Bruce Eder of Allmusic says, Harrison did not play slide on the last three Beatles albums. It appears very briefly (and amateurishly) on "Strawberry Fields", perhaps not on the finished version but on one of the takes that was then compiled to form the master; the relevant take was included in full on Anthology 2. And there's an "undercurrent" of bottleneck on his 1969 B-side "Old Brown Shoe" – i.e., the way he moves his left hand on the fretboard makes the riff sound quite like he's playing slide guitar. But otherwise, it's acknowledged (in his autobiography, in many Harrison biographies) that he first played slide on the Delaney & Bonnie tour in December 1969, four months after recording was completed on Abbey Road.

• Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "After the official announcement of the Beatles' break-up on 31 December 1970 in a McCartney press release,[7] all four members remained active, either as solo artists or as members of other bands." Firstly, and I guess these things are subjective, it seems a surprise to read a mention of the other Beatles in this sentence – my suggestion would be something like: "After the official announcement of the Beatles' break-up ... Harrison remained musically active, as a solo artist, a record producer of fellow Apple Records acts, and an in-demand session musician." The other thing about this sentence is the date of the break-up: 31 Dec was when McCartney effectively sued the other three to end the partnership legally, but normally the date given for their break-up is 9 or 10 April. Not only that, but the reference you give includes a source that's dated in April, not December. (This all seems a bit deja vu, but I can't see the message I thought I'd left for you about this, months ago ...)

• I simply removed the date, added what you suggested--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this is just a suggestion, but it seems to me that everything post-All Things Must Pass is dismissed very quickly. Harrison is acknowledged (by Beatles authors NIcholas Schaffner, Robert Rodriguez, Madinger & Easter and others, and GH biographer Simon Leng) as having been the most commercially successful and artistically consistent ex-Beatle until 1974. It was only when Wings' Band on the Run finally took off sales-wise in the US (April '74, thanks to the "Jet" single) that McCartney assumed that mantle, and his impressive run continued until the early '80s. Living in the Material World was seen as a big success (those authors I mentioned use much more colourful adjectives), and the way I understand it – the relevant reference is from a Bill Harry book, quoted in the LITMW article – the album sold 3 million, most of which was in America. (And this was a time, pre-1980s, when artists actually had to request that the RIAA carry out a sales audit, which some of the more competitive types – dare I say it, McCartney and Lennon – were more prone to do than perhaps Harrison was.) It's definitely a surprise not to see Cloud Nine mentioned – a big seller and, finally, full critical rehabilitation for Harrison after 1974–75 – and Brainwashed also, as his final, posthumous album release. And, given that the introductory text is supposed to serve as an overview of sorts (no?), I'd think mention should be made (instead of the current "receiving silver, gold and platinum certifications" etc) that all his albums in the '70s were certified gold by the RIAA. Also, out of a number of Harrison's enduring hit singles, only "My Sweet Lord", "What Is Life" and "All Those Years Ago" get a mention right now. My suggestion would be to name also "Bangla Desh" (rock's first charity single); "Give Me Love (US #1 and, with LITMW simultaneously topping the albums chart, the second time Harrison achieved the so-called Billboard double after My Sweet Lord/ATMP in Jan '71); "Dark Horse" and "Crackerbox Palace" perhaps; "Blow Away"; "Got My Mind Set on You", definitely (especially as you mention what didn't chart in the '80s).

• Doing--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Bangla Desh, Give Me Love + LITMW, Got My Mind Set On You.--Tomcat (7) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Cloud Nine and Brainwashed.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and comment perhaps about moving to his own, Warner-distributed Dark Horse Records in January 1976, following the closing down of Apple (in its initial form)?

I hope this helps, Tomcat7. Don't want to interfere – these are simply things that spring to mind from reading the introductory text. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add that information since you did not state references. Many of the books about Harrison are not available online, so perhaps it is better if you be bold and make changes. If you want you can be the co-nominator. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added missing dates as requested. Happy to help out with the introductory text, Tomcat – but it's okay, you keep the nom. (I can't get too excited about working on lists of numbers!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Sorry, I haven't set the new references in ref template (I can't stand the way they look, personally, with unnecessary full stops and capital letters, but it's your call of course). Also, I wasn't sure how you were handling cases of author names being repeated, eg "Madinger, Chip & Easter, Mark, p. 330" or "Madinger & Easter, p. 330". JG66 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the dates. I will try to put the Allmusic biography aside and search for more reliable sources. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I addressed all issues, and I intended to wait until George Harrison is promoted to FA status. What a shame...--Tomcat (7) 20:14, 28 January 2013 (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 07:45, 28 January 2013 [4].

Nominator(s): -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 16:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because: (self nomination) Many hours of research went into finding notable items for this newly created list, and I humbly think it turned out pretty good. I'd be most interested to hear comments on improving the list to meet all FL criteria. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 16:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • The lead doesn't meet the standard for featured status
  • The items are not properly organized and are very unattractive
  • I see bare links on the references list, as well as a bunch of sources that are surely not high quality ones
  • This list needs a lot of work before being able to become a FL.

I see that you have made great effort into the list, which is good, but it still needs some work before it can be considered for featured status. I'd recommend to read the featured list criteria (in case you haven't) and ask for some feedback before renominating. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The bare links can surely be fixed. As for the rest: please feel free to provide more specifics, so I and other editors can work on improving the list. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. On my first bullet, I was trying to say that the lead doesn't meet the standard expected for a featured list. As it is, it really doesn't look like a lead. You should rewrite it to be more specific, bring a bit more of context to the list, etc. WRT the bare links, they should have been fixed previous to the nomination. Lists brought to FLC are expected to be of a high standard, and I'm afraid this nomination falls short of that classification. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, thanks for the feedback! -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I'm confused, this list seems quite US-centric, am I right? E.g. most of the "Locations" section is based in America. I've seen these sort of t-shirts sold all around the world. E.g Crete. A quick Google news archive reveals a plethora of such t-shirts noted in major press, odd ones like this. Are there any clearly defined inclusion criteria for this list? Clearly you wouldn't currently claim this list to be complete in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not complete, as all can see by the {{Expand list}} template right on top of the page. There's no centric-ism intended, only what was found in various reliable sources. It would be great for more editors to work on the list and add more items. What would you recommend for a clearer inclusion criteria then what is already in the lede? -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have bigger fish to fry than this FLC, since the list has now been nominated for deletion I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I'm going to abstain from the AFD, and let others decide the fate of the list. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (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 Giants2008 00:27, 19 January 2013 [5].

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has received a peer review and I believe it meets all the criteria. Astros4477 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBrandley 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Image licensing all seems OK to me
• Why are Parkz, Experience the Point, Ultimate Roller Coaster and Roller Coaster Database reliable?

—Andrew_stalk 08:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimate Roller Coaster and Rolller Coaster Database have always been considered reliable. I'm not as too familiar with the other two. I'm sure other sources could be found to replace those if needed.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with RCDB (note that it should be in CamelCase—DataBase, not Database), but why has Ultimate Roller Coaster "always been considered reliable"? If more reliable sources are available that can replace dubious ones, then definitely do so. —Andrew_stalk 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Im afraid Ultimate Roller Coaster and RCDB are the most reliable sources there are.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the Experience the Point ref, I'll look into the Parkz ref later.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced the Parkz reference. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the Ultimate Roller Coaster refs where I could.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I still have reservations about the reliability of a few of the sources used (in addition to those listed above), but otherwise the list is in pretty good shape. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say about the sourcing issue. Adabow (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last two Ultimate Roller Coaster refs.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see at least one other occurence. Also, how are [6] and [7] reliable? (The latter lacks publisher info, too). Adabow (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - why are there no refs on rows Griffon and Alpengeist of table Tallest roller coasters inversions? And while I'm fine with RCDB based on it being used as a source in multiple news articles, the reason it raises red flags is that there's nothing about it that contradicts the idea that I could go out and submit data for a missing coaster which would be taken at face value by the admins, without fact checking. --PresN 04:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added references. I'm not familiar with the person that runs the site but I'm sure he only takes information from trusted sources.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only user-contributable part of the website is that of photography. For inclusion, roller coasters have to have been publicly announced by an amusement park or track must be visible onsite for an unknown future roller coaster. See this page for more. The site also has a team of 13 researchers which ensure the information is accurate. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Title is misleading I really thought that the article is about something else. Why isn't the article titled "List of roller coaster records"? Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's not just about records, its about rankings too. If it was titled records, you would just have, "First roller coaster with 5 inversions", "First roller coaster over 300 feet", "First roller coaster over 100 mph" etc. I think the title is suitable for what the article is about.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:25, 26 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 Giants2008 00:27, 19 January 2013 [8].

Nominator(s): Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and is on par with other similar articles—for example List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good to me, Giants and TRM seem to have caught all of the issues! Just a query: is there a reason that lists of this sort don't use sortable tables? Harrias ^talk 16:40, 12 January 2013 (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 19:06, 17 January 2013 [9].

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the people who developed military camouflage in the two world wars were a varied and interesting mixture of artists and scientists, and who contributed in surprising ways to their countries' war efforts. The topic of camouflage is far more than the designs on military uniforms, and the work of the early camoufleurs spans a wide range of deception and disguise including André Mare's observation trees and Norman Wilkinson's dazzle camouflage for ships. Artists showed leadership, too, with both Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola (a pastel painter) in the First World War, and Geoffrey Barkas (a film-maker) in the Second World War, moving from their civilian lives to effective and creative command. The list introduces, organizes and gives access to the biographies of these men, and helps to relate them to other camouflage articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few quick comments

• 5 paragraphs is too many per WP:LEAD, need to trim it down it a bit -- Done.
• I think it the people could be represented in a list as oppose to bullet points, unless there is a specific reason they are in bullets. -- Done.

NapHit (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• We don't have a "camofleur" article, so perhaps this should be it?

Nice of you, but that would be a lot more detailed than 4 paragraphs.

Then I imagine we should. Why have a list of X when we don't have an article about X? Start with linking camoufleur (wartime) and then we can decide if this is a 3b violation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you here? We have a list of Xs, with a bluelinked and reffed article on each X, isn't that right for a list? And there are articles on e.g. Military camouflage already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, an analogy I would find simple. Why have "List of moths" if we don't have an article about Moth? (cf. List of camofleurs vs Camofleur). Particularly when the majority of the content of the list would constitute the bulk of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes, I could work on it. Does that affect us here now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my take is either (a) there's not enough on camofleur to make it a standalone article, so expand this list accordingly or (b) camofleur needs its own article, in which case, if it does, can it genuinely hold this list separately from the main article (under our 3b criterion). So I think yes, it does affect this nomination from the point of view that we don't know what a main "camofleur" article would contain, so we don't know if this is just an easy spin-off list or a viable standalone list..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can put together something on Camoufleur (wartime); it will not consist of anything listlike (any more than Moth is listlike, but will be a cited account of the kind of work they did, how they related to the military and to the art world, and what they achieved. It will certainly mention de Scevola and Barkas, though not all the others, who properly belong in a list. There's no "easy spin-off" about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (last comment before bed), all I'm saying is that it's odd we have "List of X" without an "X article existing. You're now saying there's enough for an "X" article. All I'm now saying is that perhaps this list shouldn't stand alone once you have the "X" article written (i.e. you can merge the list back into the article). But we don't know that until the article exists. I'm not sure how much value there is in pursuing this list of X when X doesn't exist, since you've made it plain it's not the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Good morning.) All this talk of merging back to the future article is hurting my head... I note that lists are deprecated in e.g. 'good articles', so the plan is certainly to have both, one day. Clearly we must stop this FLC now, but the obvious plan is to grow the article into 'Camoufleur' and then hive off the list when ready. It would be helpful, though, to know (my talk page rather than here...) why you're so keen on merging so I can allay those fears in slow time. Sorry to take up your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Good evening)... you wouldn't necessarily need to deprecate a list into a GA as long as the main article could standalone as a GA. But if you could just confirm that you're happy for me archive this nomination for the time being, I'll do so, and if you like, we can continue any discussion relating to this at my or your talk page. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought I'd done that. Yes go ahead. My talk page please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't nip the dates column up so much, makes the list unnecessarily long.
• See WP:YEAR for year ranges which are in the same century.
• Don't overcapitalise, e.g. "First World War Camoufleurs" -> "First World War camoufleurs" in the table caption.
• "... April 1942. Illustration by Brian Robb" in the image caption, needs a full stop.
• Maybe me, but "is used by extension of all" I would expect that to be "is used by extension to all"....
• Have to assume good faith with seemingly OR text such as " may well have chosen"...
• "At least one Air Force officer" make it explicit it's the Royal Air Force.
• Not sure why "Surrealist" needs to be capitalised. Check other "genres".
• Be consistent with page range format, you have e.g., "54–56." but "1337–143, " and then "152–4.".
• Ref 40 has double full stop.
• Ref 42 needs to be correctly formatted.
• Where are the ISBNs for the bibliography?

Have tried to address all these comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (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 19:06, 17 January 2013 [10].

Nominator(s): Plant's Strider (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Plant's Strider (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• One reference for the whole lead is not sufficient. Every sentence that can be contested needs a reference. Right now there are quite a lot of them.
• "nine studio albums, two compilation albums, two video albums, four collaborative albums and 42 singles." When comparing numbers they should all be in the same format. So 42 should be written out not in digits
• "He began his solo career with Pictures at Eleven in 1982, followed by 1983's The Principle of Moments." It needs to be made explicit they are albums it's too ambiguous at the moment and someone could mistake for bands
• " Although Plant avoided performing Led Zeppelin songs through much of this period, his tours in 1983 (with drummer Phil Collins) and 1985 were very successful, often performing to sold-out arena-sized venues." This has got nothing to do with the scope of the list, it's about his releases not his tours
• "Popular tracks from this period" popular according to who?
• "short-lived all-star group" I think supergroup would be better than all-star group, especially as there is an article about the term
• Too many instances of sentences starting with "In..." It's make the prose read like a list of facts, use it sparingly
• Plant has released nine albums, yet only a few are mentioned in the lead, this needs to be rectified
• Tables do not meet MOS:DTT and fail WP:DISCOG guidelines. See recently promoted discographies for how they should be formatted
• Release dates need referencing and the region that is referring to needs to be added
• Hyphens in references should be en dashes
• What makes Chartstats a reliable site?

A lot to be done before it meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• NapHit above really pointed out everything that is wrong. Style and sourcing is not adequate for a featured list.

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (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 Giants2008 21:15, 11 January 2013 [11].

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could go in depth about how the Texans are going to be the best team of the 2010's and such, but all I'll say is that, after what felt like an eternity of adjustments to address points made during the first FLC, I finally think this List meets the FL criteria. But that's your decision. Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are now capped, but I hope others will offer input here to reassure me that this meets FL standards. Oh, and ref 29 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• I don't like the collection of references in the lead for Johnson's appearances: try compressing them into one note, like I did at Herbie Hewett#Notes and references.

  Slightly confused as to how I'd word it, but will do. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The player column should sort by surname, not forename.

  Please help with that, I don't know how to fix that. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why aren't center and cornerback linked in the position column, and the 2011 instance of halfback?
• No explanation of the difference between starter, reserve and alternate is given.
• The second-half first paragraph appears to do little more than list all the players in the list below, which seems redundant. I appreciate the point of mentioning that Johnson has been invited five times, but to list everyone seems like overkill.
• "Foster has since been selected one more time, totaling two selections." This sentence jars a little for me: the reader can work out that one selection, plus one selection, makes two selections.
• In general the prose just doesn't really do much in my opinion. It doesn't really provide much "editorial comment" on the list below, it simply reiterates the information.
• In the table, the statistics list "xx yards", but to a layperson (like me) that means nothing. Some explanation needs to be provided.

  Confused as to what I"d write. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Myers statistics seem very bare: do centers not really do anything? Also, why does this cell use capital letters, unlike the rest of the column?

  Centers (as well as tackles/guards) sometimes have blocking statistics recorded, but that's subject to the statistician's definition of a "block" and weren't used on either ESPN or NFL.com. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the distinction between tackles and solo tackles seems odd to a layperson: is tackling normally done as a group?

  Tackles can be done as a group (two people coming from either side of a player) or by one player (one person charging head on). The same applies to sacks (half a sack is when two people sack the quarterback at the same time).

• I don't really understand what a "sack" is from the article linked to (which isn't your problem) but I'm just wondering how someone can have half a "sack"?

  See the tackles point above. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2006 Jerome Mathis column doesn't have a comma in a four digit number for yards.
• Refs #10, #11, #34, #35 use a different date format to the rest. Harrias ^talk 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Buggie111 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The end of the sentence regarding Foster was suggested by TBrandley in their sixth comment, so some consensus regarding that should be reached here (I'm in favor of removing). The lede length was a main concern at the previous FLC, where, despite having information from both the Houston Texans and Pro Bowl article (which I rather foolishly simply duplicated onto the list disregarding copyvio rules), both reviewers opposed based on length. I received some help about the lede from Giants2008 in October (see this), so it's probably goign to be discussed here. I'd also like some help regarding the surname sorting. Buggie111 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged for a return visit on my talk page, but it is unclear why. If the reason was the surname sorting, I suggest taking a look at current candidate Euroscar, which has proper sorting, and seeing how that list formats things. It's not that hard to fix once you know what to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lead, my friend. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm not sure how much help I can be. I do see Harrias' point about the lead being a little plain. Is there anything that could be added saying why the players were selected, or any unique aspects about their Pro Bowl performances? There's a place for first/most recent/most frequent selections, but perhaps some details on those aspects would help to address Harrias' concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, not really. Just the amounts of yards/TDs/FF's/INT's they recorded for the most part, except Leach and Myers. Buggie111 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in sortname, but can't seem to get Smith to link to the DE or for the sort options to appear in the table header. Buggie111 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the first issue, pipe the full name of the article after the first and last names. It will look like this: Antonio|Smith|Antonio Smith (defensive end). Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be out of town during the announcement of the 2013 Pro Bowlers, which means I'll only be able to add in info come the 1st. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, over a month after my initial comments, and the prose section is still very bland. Criteria 2 requires: "Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." Harrias ^talk 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Brain Hoyer's sake, there's nothing much to add to it. Dpo you have any ideas? All the football related FL's (see List of Baltimore Ravens first-round picks) have about as detailed of a lead as this one, some focusing even more on the draft than the team. Buggie111 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any major suggestions for what to add to it, no. But just as some articles don't have enough content to ever reach Featured article status, there are lists in the same situation. Not everything can be a Featured list, and if there isn't information that provides an engaging lead, then perhaps this is such a case. Harrias ^talk 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (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 11:52, 7 January 2013 [12].

Nominator(s): Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am Re-nominating the article for FLC because it now meets Featured list criteria Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and speedy close: "For the award ceremony for the Bhaskar Bollywood Awards, which is yet to be held, Balan has received one nomination" and the extremely formulaic prose in the lead suggest that the grammar still needs extensive work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid. At a quick glance:

• Still mixed dates in refs.
  • Done.
• Still grammar issues in the lead.
  • Done
• Overlinking issues and grammar issues in the second image caption.
  • Done.
• Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).
  • If i am not wrong, Neither "row" nor "col scopes" are used in article.
• Still WP:DASH issues in some of the ref titles.
  • Removed Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 12:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a PR is used to iron out all the outstanding problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (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 18:21, 4 January 2013 [13].

Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because since its last FLC nomination, article has gone thru lot of changes, including copy-edit by GoCE member which was a major point in last FLC. I hope to get it done this time. - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose without citations. (You k"now my detail views from my comments elsewhere and you also know that my alone's opinion doesn't count. Good luck with FLC. ) §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By citations, you mean "official citations for the awards", right? (to clarify that lack of verifiability is not the reason for your oppose).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course, right! My mistake. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing I can do for the citation with a possible copy-vio suspect . For other articles, those are taken from various sources so we can deal with them. Here, per copyright experts, lot of stuff is taken from a single source so its a pretty difficult situation to deal with. Besides citations, you may want to put comments on other stuff. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No other comments. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still weak on prose, review the lead alone....

• Note, I've reviewed the lead alone thus far and on a re-review can still find a handful of issues. I don't have the energy to review this list in depth, so I'll leave it to our other very able reviewers to iron out some of the major outstanding issues before I re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 31 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 12:03, 3 January 2013 [14].

Nominator(s): A Great User ✉ ✉ 09:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the article for FLC because i think it meets Featured list criteria A Great User ✉ ✉ 09:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping in - I have joined this FLC as a co-nominator to help the main nom in removing the concerns about the list. I shall be re-checking all the concerns by the reviewer. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose

• We don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source. Y
• Don't mix date formats in the refs, so, all access dates should be in the same format, all publication dates should be in the same format. Y
  • • Not done, see ref 31 for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y[reply]

Now done. A Great User ✉ ✉

• Don't end the lead with the bold "this is a list of...".Y

Clarification - Only the bold portion to be removed, or the entire sentence? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:HEAD for avoiding links in section headings, especially when you link only some of the heading. Y
  • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Y[reply]

• Grammar:
  • " 2012, Where she " don't capitalise the W of where. Y
  • " for Bhool Bhulaiyaa, Finally in " full stop, not a comma. Y
• " agencies - since " check WP:DASH for correct use of en-dash instead of spaced hyphen.Y

• Avoid bold links in the lead (see WP:CONTEXTLINK). Y, but confirm
• Images could use alt text. Y (I Fixed)

• • Check thoroughly throughout for such clumsy errors.

• Infobox box, how can 1 win come from - nominations?
  • • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is, for the "National Film Awards", you have one win from "–" nominations... what does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Fixed)[reply]

I believe there are no formal nominations declared for the award. The award ceremony simply announces the winners, and no nominees are announced. Not completely sure though. GreatUser, mind confirming this? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "1 award out of 2 nominations" etc check WP:MOSNUM for writing numbers below ten in prose as text.
  • Not done, check lead (e.g. 1st...) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Fixed by TheOriginalSoni)[reply]
    • Check WP:NUMERAL]. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some dates in the references in italics?
  • all dates are listed in italic font when you use {{Cite web}} A Great User ✉ ✉ 12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is incorrect, e.g. "Wikipedia". 31 December 2012. Retrieved 1 January 2013. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Corrected)[reply]

For some reason thats happening automatically. If you figure it out, do tell. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you have code like work=31 December 2012? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Now i have edited like this date=31 December 2012 A Great User ✉ ✉ 06:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency with publications, e.g. you have "Times of India" quickly followed by "The Times of India". Consistency is required throughout. Y

• Avoid SHOUTING in refs.Y

• Ref 44 appears to be incorrectly formatted.
  • Not done, now ref 43. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done All corrected A Great User ✉ ✉

• Check for violations of WP:DASH in reference titles.Y

• Ref 19, e.g., these refs need publishers, accessdates if appropriate, author names, publication dates etc if appropriate... not just a linked title.

•  All corrected

That's a quick five-minute run through. A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you take my comments more seriously and actually address them rather than just ignoring most of them and capping them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lead is full of issues, you need to get it copyedited by a native English speaker:

• Don't put spaces between punctuation and references.Y
• "nominations, She Debuted" - full stop required, and no capital in Debut. Perhaps, "nominations. She made her debut..." Y

• You link Hindi, Bengali and Malayalam to the various cinema industries but your use of the links is in the context of the languages.Y
• "she was honored Filmfare Award for Best " -> "she received the Filmfare Award..."Y
• "of the year, [2] also nominated" not a good "run-on" sentence.Y
• "in the film, In 53rd Filmfare Awards" should be a full stop, and should have the word "the" before 53rd.Y
• "her 1st Filmfare" -> "her first Filmfare..."Y
• "Finally in 2010" but then you go on to talk about 2011 awards..
  •  fixed A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "went to give her " no idea what this means.Y
• "Category, While For her performance" - if you want that to be a comma, then "While For" should be uncapitalised...Y
• "and even she was" no idea what you're trying to say here, do you mean she was also nominated for that award?
  •  fixed A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lead alone. I haven't even dared read the rest of the article apart from the look at the refs..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose the prose in the article is very poor. There are missing image alt texts, but when there is the alt text, it goes entirely against WP:ALT. For all of the individual sections, you have copied the majority of the text from the main article without attribution. See WP:PLAG. I could go on about missing full stops and punctuation, but I see no need to. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Y (Fixed by Greatuser)[reply]

•  Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Now Fixed The list satisfy with WP:ALT and i have removed all edits from other internal links and I have also corrected the grammaratical mistakes. A Great User ✉ ✉ 13:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What issue is now on the page which you have still opposed i fixed all issues, WP:ALT edited, you said see WP:PLAG it now even does not have connection with Award page you said missing full stop and punctuation i also fixed what now do you find on the page please indicate it here A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Before I offer a full review, I can clearly say that this list is not yet FLC ready. The peer review has not yet received enough comments and the nominator hasn't enclosed it. "A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and peer review at the same time", and "this process is not a substitute for peer review". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Fixed Yeah you are right but i forgot to close the pr discussion but now pr has been closed., Thank You A Great User ✉ ✉ 08:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The PR hasn't got enough comments from reviewers. So far just one reviewer had visited and pointed out a couple of minor issues. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not receiving any response from user(s) except a user. and I needed suggestion but now in FLC i made too many correction to let it meet FL criteria, so i closed the discussion A Great User ✉ ✉ 13:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that there was also an unclosed PR by the nom, which needed to be handled first. I therefore withdraw this nomination in favour of having a PR first before going across to FLC. If any of the reviewers here can do it, it would be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the PR has been closed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed almost all of the specific problems raised by The Rambling Man. A copyedit shall follow soon. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All problems have been almost addresed but i need other user's support A Great User ✉ ✉ 14:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose this list is nowhere near featured standard. Going through the prose there are basic issues such as "She debuted in 2005 film..." That's not grammatically correct. The majority of that second paragraph is the same. The tables don't meet MOS:DTT, references should be placed after punctuation not straight after a word. Even the alt text doesn't make sense: "An Indian actress wearing a black Saaree with trophy holding in her hand." This needs a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker, as the prose is simply not good enough now. I suggest withdrawing this list as there is no way this list can be promoted within the timescale of this nom. NapHit (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Almost Fixed NapHit Thank You for your great suggestion helpful comment, I have corrected almost all mistakes I think now it meets criteria. again i am checking mistakesA Great User ✉ ✉ 16:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please ask someone to copyedit this for you. In one second I spotted "Actress.[4][5] (2011) went to give her fifth " in the lead prose... what?! I'm also seeing WP:DASH violations in some reference titles, some badly and/or inconsistently formatted dates in the references.... honestly, withdraw the list, get it looked at properly, and bring it back in a month or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I won't be commenting any more. This recent edit has introduced no fewer than five new errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now a perfect list grammatical and other basic mistakes has been fixed and now i am damb absolutely sure it meets the criteria A Great User ✉ ✉ 04:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Greatuser may be "damb" sure about the list; however, I can't stress enough on the large number of grammatical errors in the lead alone. The first paragraph has been completely lifted from Vidya Balan's article. Moreover, several of the sources are unreliable (Pinkvilla, OneIndia, Indicine, Glamsham...to name a few); also, the references haven't been formatted properly. In short, the list has a long, long, long way to go before it meets the featured criteria. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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