Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2015

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The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 11:33, 29 June 2015 [1].

List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was nominated and then quickly withdrawn as I was not aware you are not allowed to have several FL-nominations running at the same time. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People present at the 20 July plot
Outcome   Victims
Slightly injured
8
Injured
10
Seriously injured
2
Killed
4
  • "Outcome" would be better.
  • Also, what is the difference between "injured" and "slightly injured" and "seriously injured"? I think these categories need defining. How did you come to these terms in the first place? Maybe we can just cite that source?
  • I guess what I'm getting at is, who decided that one is "injured" and the other "slightly injured"? How did you distinguish between the two?
  • What is meant by "In the end, faith had been merciful to Stauffenberg"? I don't understand that sentence.
I understand what you wrote, but that sentence I quoted does not make any sense in the English language. Faith isn't a thing that can be merciful. Faith means a reasoning for the proof of something without using evidence. I'm still not sure what you mean by "faith had been merciful".
Mattximus, please considered throwing in either a Support vote as I've responded to all your points. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still count 3 critical changes that need to be made. I also should review carefully for grammar, I can find at least one issue on a quick look "General Günther Korten, General Rudolf Schmundt, Heinz Brandt and stenographer Heinz Berger were given a state funeral". Mattximus (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, Jonathan Martin (writer) Tim Newark (historical advisor) (2009). Attempts to Kill Hitler at the Wolf's Lair (television documentary). World Media Rights states specifically who were killed, seriously injured and slightly injured. The rest are regarded as being simply injured. I've corrected several grammar edits and curbed the whole "faith had been merciful" sentence. Also, I've changed "Notes" to "Outcome". Please consider throwing in a vote now. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support it but Jonas consider using the word, "casualties" instead of "outcome" and is there anyway to improve that info box as far as presentation? Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean improve the infobox? This list has no infobox, just a lede image and the sum-up bar! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the "People present at the 20 July plot" - "Outcome" box (which is an info. box for the reader). Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly do you want me to improve it? It's a pretty simply box if you ask me! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per my previous review. I have now done a minor c/e and made a MOS edit also [2]. Anotherclown (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is a little out of place now. I believe the article is much better now, but there are still a few issues. The outcome column must be sortable, and if you got "injured, slightly injured" from the video, that reference should be cited at the column heading. There is also prose that needs to be cleaned up, with a good copyedit. The text is largely passive, which makes for challenging reading, and there are many redundancies that could be cut for clearer prose. For example "As Stauffenberg had seen the huge explosion with his own eyes", "with his own eyes" is redundant. "which formed what was known as Army Group Centre", is it not known as that anymore? When did it change names? Lines like " Pure chance had come to Hitler's rescue" is not encyclopedic and needs to be more clearly stated. I will support once the change is made, and the prose tightened up. Good work on the article! Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough people have already given a support vote so there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment, but thanks anyway! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked the prose. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cheers Kierzek, reads better now. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure if your last comment "Enough people have already given a support vote so there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment" is very wise Jonas. There are never "enough supporters"! In order for the article to progress you need the general consensus of those willing to review an article/list. It can take only one oppose among many supporting for the article/list to fail here. Please take every comment seriously and try to address them adequately. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • MisterBee1966, this list will be promoted to FL-status if enough is in favor of that, exactly the same as move request and RfD discussions are being decided - by consensus. Mattximus has only commented and not yet decided to either support or oppose this nomination, but even if he or she did choose to oppose, that would be one not in favor and three in favor, meaning the list would still be promoted. Also, as this nomination was opened on 19 June, I assume people who are interested in commenting or voting has done so by now. In fact, I've already asked SchroCat to promote it! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Very well, I oppose on grounds stated above. Nominator's statement "there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment" means they are not taking this process seriously, and this article is not ready for promotion. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your choice, although it would be worth noticing Kierzek already acted upon your comment and tweaked the prose! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately not, several of my key recommendations have not been implemented. Especially the prose ("with his own eyes") and referencing (source for "slightly injured" vs just "injured") that must be made explicit are critical before this is passed. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Mattximus, Kierzek have tweaked the prose according all your comments now and I've sorted out the "slightly injured" vs just "injured" problem by adding the AV media cite to all "killed", "seriously injured" and "slightly injured" people. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The outcomes column should still be sortable. I can't see the citation for that column either, where did you put it? This is vital, you can't have unreferenced material in a featured list. And also the prose is not changed, but is getting much better. It remains oddly passive. Just look at the opening sentence for the first three paragraphs, every sentence in the first paragraph, second, third and fourth sentence of the next paragraph. A copyedit needs to be made to bring the prose to featured level. These three major concerns remain. Mattximus (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 09:39, 7 June 2015 [3].

List of Miami-Dade Transit metro stations

[edit]
Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria at WP:FLCR, and is on par with similar lists at WP:FL#Transport. I previously created the FL-class page List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations, and I feel that this list is equal to that one in quality and criteria. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments not quite sure why you've had to wait nearly a month for a single review, so here's one from me.
  • No need to link common geographical entities, such as United States.
  • It's not essential, but most of the links to the various stations are redirects. If you're editing, could you fix these? It's particularly vexing when you have something like Health District displayed, pipelinked to Civic Center (Miami) which redirects to Health District (Miami)...
  • "Miami-Dade Transit operates 42 metro stations, with 23 stations in the Metrorail system and 21 stations in the Metromover system" bit repetitive, probably don't need to repeat stations the second and third time.
  • Not sure about linking "transfers" to "interchange stations", it would probably be better just to say that those two are "interchange stations".
  • "Metrorail service began..." Shouldn't that be "The Metrorail service..."?
  • "Since 1985, the Metrorail system was expanded" "system has been expanded, including the ..."? Or just drop "Since 1985" altogether.
  • "On May 26, 1994, the 1.4-mile (2.3 km) Omni Loop and 1.1-mile (1.8 km) Brickell Loop lines as branches to the north and south of the Downtown area, respectively" I've read this a couple of times, is there something missing?
  • In the key, "Transfer to Metromover at station" this really means "Interchange station with Metromover" doesn't it?
  • "Brickell station is the second-busiest Metrorail station," it's fourth in the table, so something's missing here.
  • "Miami International Airport station, which opened in 2003, is the newest station in the Metrorail system." table says it opened in 2012.
  • "Adrienne Arsht Center station on the Omni Loop is one of three stations in the Omni neighborhood of Miami." only two are listed against Omni.
  • Check links, e.g. ref 18 doesn't work for me. Also add page numbers for PDFs if appropriate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the page. Most of the issues have been addressed. The term "transfer station" is used as opposed to "interchange station" is because the former term is used in America, while the latter is used in other English speaking countries. I did not fix the station redirects because all those pages were moved without a consensus after I created this nomination. A similar propoal for moving Metromover pages was proposed at Talk:Adrienne Arsht Center (Metromover station) but failed to reach a consensus, which is why the pages have a different name format. The format of US station article names is currently an long ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations), and so those pages moved without a consensus will likely get reverted. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • and the Historic Overtown/Lyric Theatre station MOS:SLASH recommends to avoid slashes
The slash is in Historic Overtown/Lyric Theatre station is part of the station name and article title so MOS:SLASH doesn't apply. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • connecting Metrorail with the Tri-Rail commuter train, and a 1.4-mile (2.3 km) extension of the northern terminus to Palmetto in 2003 This is a bit awkward; can you rework? I'm not sure what the piece after "and" means.
I re-read it a few times and it makes sense to me. The sentence refers to two new extensions of the system, anad the second part of the sentence is the second extention. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a new Ridership Technical Report out; can you update to March in the lead and table? I don't know the release schedule, but you might want to wait until the next technical report is released; I don't know the release schedule, but I assume it should be out soon.
See paragraph below. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3: Currently closed for construction until mid-2015 do you have a citation for this, and can you be more specific? It's mid-2015 now.
  • Do you have a reference for note 4?
 Resolved Reference added. Station is closed until "summer 2015" but as per WP:SUMMER, I said "mid-2015" instead. There is no re-opening date available yet, so I instead changed it to read when it first closed. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link South Florida Business Journal in reference 15 but not in reference 9.
 Resolved –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 18 has an interesting page number. Is this proper?
Yes, this is because it is page 1 of the Broward section of the paper (referring to Broward County, as opposed to Miami-Dade County in which Miami is located) –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'm concerned about using ridership figures from just one month. For example, the College stops are less busy during holidays, and presumably there will be some spots which will be more popular during vacations. The use of exclusively "weekday" figures, not including any weekend figures can be misleading too: Miami International Airport is almost as busy at the weekends as weekdays, but this isn't the case for most other stations, so the use of these limited figures can be misleading. Unless you can expand them to properly represent the overall use of the stations, I'd recommend getting rid of them completely. Otherwise, a good looking list. Harrias talk 08:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MDT releases ridership figures on a monthly basis, but I couldn't find any reports that note ridership averages throughout a year. I could update it for the most recent month, but it would have to again be updated the following month. I can also remove the column entirely if other editors feel that would be appropriate. Other FL-class station lists only use weekday ridership data, which is why that column is included and does not feature weekend ridership. (e.g. BART, MetroLink) –Dream out loud (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archived already? Did it pass? Fail? Any notes other than just "archived"? All the issues raised were addressed. I don't see why this shouldn't have passed. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by Crisco 1492 02:33, 3 June 2015 [4].

Anurag Kashyap filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the filmography list of one of the most influential directors of indian cinema, Anurag Kashyap. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL standards. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

This looks pretty good as of now but a lot of work still needs to be done

  • Titles with "The" need to be sorted according to the words after it.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Notes column doesn't need sorting.
Can't understand.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Newspaper and magazine titles need to be italicized.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

These are some issues I found in 5 mins. More on this later. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are free to use as this source.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Times Of India" and "TThe Times of India" need correction.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 3:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A better image can be used.
The image is good.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 3:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Bollywood Life can be replaced with a better source.
Replaced.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 6:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • "censor boards". Wikilink it and provide its official term.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 8:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In 2013, he made a short film on Eve teasing entitled That Day After Everyday, which was released online — here, please replace "entitled" with "titled". The usage of entitled is debatable in such issues.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 8:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kashyap subsequent production ventures were Shaitan and Michael Winterbottom's British drama Trishna (2011). — write something about Shaitan too.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 9:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • He further co-produced a string of commercially unsuccessful films including the comedy drama Aiyyaa (2012), Chittagong (2012), Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana (2012) and Shorts (2013) — Can you please rephrase it as He further co-produced Aiyyaa (2012), Chittagong (2012), Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana (2012) and Shorts (2013); all of them being commercial failures.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 9:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please mention the publishing channels of the videos from YouTube in the references.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink sources in the references. Of course not everyone, but the first citation featuring such source. For example, reference number 1 for TOI, 4 for Rediff, 14 for YouTube etc.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 9:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Make sure there are no dead urls. If there are, replace them with an archived url from the past.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference number 109, the title should have been 'Hunterrr' review: It's promising but ultimately disappointing but is just Hunterrr movie review. Any explanation regarding this?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping me once after you resolve these. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this candidate has my Support. All the best! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.:) --Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Bollyjeff

The very first source, used for Kabhie Kabhie, does not say that he was the screen writer, as claimed in the table. In addition, it does say that he was the writer-producer for Yudh, which does not match what you have later on in the table (director for Yudh) or the other source for that. If even the first source is not correct, I cannot continue.

Replaced it with another source which cites that "he wrote Kabhie Kabhie, a serial for the Indian television".--Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
How do you explain that ToI was wrong on both shows? Daily Mail is often considered unreliable. The article for Yudh shows Ribhu Dasgupta as the director, and Kashyap as creator, so I think 'director' is misleading here. BollyJeff | talk 17:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yudh article clearly mentions him as the creative director and Ribhu as the director. Many sources have called him the creative director including the one in the table. We are nobody to call Daily Mail a unreliable source. Please suggest me the corrections that I should do.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not use Daily Mail in an FA level article. It has been questioned and reject over and over; see here. Look at the definition of Creative director and see if you still think the director column in the table should say Yes for Yudh. BollyJeff | talk 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the credits of yudh mentions him only as the creative director and not as the producer-director. Yashthepunisher (talk) 7:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • Why is the 'c' in Hindi cinema in caps?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kabhi Kabhi needs to be in italics.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kabhi Kabhi needs to be accompanied by it's year of release.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Return of Hanuman, an animated film was his final release of the year. ". As a director or producer or writer? Unclear.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " came up with Dev.D" Not encyclopedic.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, Kashyap came up with Dev.D, a modern-day take on Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's Bengali novel Devdas; along with Gulaal" The usage of the semicolon is improper.
  • "His first release of 2010 was Mumbai Cutting, an anthology film consisting of eleven stories by eleven directors" Was he one of the directors?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "It met with positive response and landed him the Filmfare Award for Best Dialogue" You mention two films and yet use the singular "it" to describe them.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the 'e' in eve teasing in caps?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Followed by Bombay Talkies (2013), an anthology film made for celebrating the centenary year of Indian Cinema" You start the sentence with "followed" with no link to the previous sentence.
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "His next release Ugly (2014), was put on a hold after Kashyap declined the anti smoking sign in the film,[22] but was released in 2014 with the sign" To someone who doesn't understand the working of the Indian censor board, this statement will make no sense.
Rephrased.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • When did he launch his production company?
  • "He then went on to produce The Last Act, India's first collaborative feature film chosen from 12 directors to make 10 minute short films. Each film being a part of a larger story written by Kashyap". Similar to a previous problem; an erroneous use of the full-stop.
  • " his company co-produced". So Kashyap wasn't credited? Unclear.
Rephrased.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " Other was the biographical drama Shahid" Again, the full-stop is wrongly used.
  • "The very year, his another production company Phantom Films,.." I think you mean that very year, and when did he find another production company? No prior information on that one.
Rephrased.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How is Ranaut's best actress award important in Kashyap's filmography?
Removed.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Following year, " > "The following year..."
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 1:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the d in documentary in caps?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes column in the table, the premiere information on his films is redundant.
Removed premiere info from Katiyabaaz. The rest are Cannes and Toronto, which I think are reputed film festivals.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I know, but those aren't what the "notes" section is meant for. We can include that in his biography, but in his filmography listing that's too much information.--Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 5:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please use the correct dash (—) in the table.
  • Why is "Directed by Danis Tanovic" important in the notes section? You don't mention the directors for his other acting or production ventures?
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes column should not be sortable.
  • The Sify ref is incorrectly formatted.
It does not mentions the name of the author, others are mentioned. cannot understand what is "incorrect" here?--Yashthepunisher (talk) 3:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sifi is a website, so it should be referenced using the "cite web" template, and the "publisher" field, not the "work" field should be used.--Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 6:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Variety, Screen Daily, Mint, First Post refs are incorrectly formatted.
Don't know what is wrong with these, please if you could explain how It should be.Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
These are newspaper/magazines, so should be referenced using the "cite news" template, and the "work" field, not the "publisher" field. You can see how these are formatted in the various FAs/FLs. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 6:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes India.com a reliable source?
It is a part of the Zee media group per this--Yashthepunisher (talk) 3:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a valid reason. Surely there are better refs available. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 6:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes HansalMehta.com a reliable source?
Replaced.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes Bollywood Life a reliable source?
It is also a part of the Zee media group, and has been used in GA's like Kaminey.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 3:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Bollywood Life is a gossip site and should never be used in featured quality articles. Please replace it.--Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 6:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but there are far too many issues at the moment. The above comments are not exhaustive, and in my opinion this needs a fair amount of work before it's ready for promotion. For now, I have to oppose. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the prose has several grammatical errors and several sentences are improperly constructed. FLC reviewers shouldn't be making such corrections. I strongly suggest you to make a copy edit request at the WP:GOCE before you bring this back to the FLC. Good luck. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Krimuk90. I oppose this candidate. This list needs a go at peer review and a copyedit at GOCE before arriving here. The lead is rife with grammatical errors and will need to be rewritten by someone more familiar with English and GOCE is a good option for that. Lead could also be cut down to a better summary, he's had a relatively short career compared to his contemporaries so 618 words seems a bit much. Ideally it should highlight the notable films he's been involved in, the ones that won him recognition or marked setbacks in his career. The tables need rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility. Not sure why being screened at Cannes etc. are mentioned in notes as none of the films won awards at those festivals. A lot of references to youtube which is okay as primary sources as they're from the official channels but secondary sources would be preferred. Cowlibob (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened the lead, removed too much youtube references and Cannes/Toronto from the notes.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 9:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yashthepunisher: I appreciate the improvements but the grammatical errors still remain in the lead. I see you've put a request over at GOCE and I hope that helps. I'll also point out that words/phrases such as "universal acclaim", slang like "landed", "full-fledged" shouldn't be used. Cowlibob (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Over the time the list has seen much improvement, yet the list does not satisfy the featured list criteria. I spot a lot of grammatical errors in the list. There are a few issue in references, for example ref. 102 - a YouTube source from an unknown user, which is unacceptable. The work is done quite well, yet I will suggest the nominator to withdraw the list and go with a peer review and/or request a thorough copy-edit at WP:GOCE. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like the nominator has opened up a peer review for the list. Suggest them to withdraw the candidate. —Vensatry (ping) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I want to withdraw the nomination. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 2:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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 02:33, 3 June 2015 [5].

Nobel laureates of India

[edit]
Nominator(s): -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have developed this from a piece of junk and array and made it up to meet FL status. Each entry is well cited from trusted sources and all are fine to roll it out. Thanks..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The lead needs serious work. There is a quotation in the first sentence but no source is given. Also Nobel Prizes are not awarded to contributions to mankind in the previous year, they are often awarded many decades after the contributions. The lead needs to better summarize the individuals on the list. Also the section on Mahatma Gandhi is interesting and worth noting, but perhaps can be summarized and inserted into the lead rather than a section all on it's own. As it is now it stands out rather oddly. Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, the quotation you have in the first sentence is not found in the reference you cited. Also all references should have more complete cite web categories. And the lead still needs a good rewrite, for example "Instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will, which specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes, the Nobel Prize is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious honors awarded in the aforementioned fields" is a hard to read passive sentence which should be more clearly written. The Ghandi part is better now that it is in the lead, but has too much weight. The rest of the lead could be expanded better summarizing the list, or that section could be shortened. Mattximus (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have sprinkled some Britannica dust and removed the superfluous statement on Gandhi. The lead is rewritten to remove passive-excess. With cites, do you mean that all cites should be web-cites? Please more clearer. Thanks..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald: I think he meant that the references should have more info provided such as who the publisher was, author, date, accessdate for each source. An example is that the references to the nobel prize only have title, url, accessdate and nothing else. Cowlibob (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.