Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 12:22, 30 March 2015 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Vibhijain (talk), Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Danish Kaneria's fifers was created by Vibhijain. I worked on the list and now I feel this is according to the FLC criteria. Appreciate your comments and suggestion. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per criterion 3(b). The size of the parent article hovers around 4.3k chars —Vensatry _(ping) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: the parent article is now over 7.5k characters (over 1250 words). I think your concern is addressed! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it still needs expansion. Though others might have different opinions, my rule-of-thumb is 12k chars. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll try to expand this a little more. --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Parent article's size is now 12k chars! --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan, all formats of the game combined." --> "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan in all formats of the game combined."
    • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the Template:As of for the above sentence.
    • Stats for the list change with time, so no need of this. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would center align the values for the Inn, Overs, Runs, Wkts, Econ, and Result columns for aesthetic reasons.
    • This is for consistency reason since the plainrowheaders' rowscopes align to the left. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to add column scopes to the table per WP:ACCESS#Tables
    • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link all instances of ESPNcricinfo in your references.
    • No need of this, the first one is already linked. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't put rowscopes in the middle of a row as this will confuse screen readers. They should ideally be put at the beginning of a row.
    • Yes, they should be in the beginning but in this case the list is about "five-wicket hauls", so I rowscoped the corresponding one. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I disagree with Vensatry that this is a 3(b) violation. This list is long enough that it would be awkward to merge it back into the parent article. Plus, Chaminda Vaas has only 16 five wicket hauls, one more than Danish Kaneria, and it is a featured list. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Blackhole78: thanks for the review, I'll do your list ASAP! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not about the length of the list, but about the size of the parent article. And yes, the Chaminda Vaas list shouldn't have been promoted. Nevertheless, the issue is now resolved as the parent article has been expanded. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: have you had a chance to have another look at this list? Harrias ^talk 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not much to say about this one. I've made some consistency fixes to the references, but otherwise it is a pretty solid list. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (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) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's been little interest in this nomination. It's of the age where it's better to archive and start anew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 12:22, 30 March 2015 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners for featured list because of the high-importance it is to the Eurovision WikiProject. It gives a quick brief of the competition at the start, to those who may get onto it randomly. It features the list of all the winners, along with the song, performer, points, margin and the runner up (in columns beside it). It features also a list based on the countries who have won it the most often (along with a map), and winners by languages. Queries are welcome. Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (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) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's been little interest in this nomination. It's of the age where it's better to archive and start anew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 12:22, 30 March 2015 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting list I've worked on which I believe passes WP:FL? I hope reviewers will check it out. Thanks for any feedback! Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, the ping didn't actually ever send anything to me. You might try it again for the others. Anyway, I supported last time, so I Support again. Thing I noticed this time:

• "A total of seven planets has been suggested for Gliese 667 C (but only two have been confirmed)" - the aside sounds better to me without the "but"
• If this review (hah) is helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC down below. --PresN 20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Planets d, f, and g for Gliese 581 are not simply unconfirmed, but have been basically disproven at this point, so I would remove them completely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine removing f and g, but if d is indeed retracted, wouldn't e become the new d? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extensive discussion about this earlier on Talk:Gliese 581 and Talk:Gliese 581 e. The consensus was that, due to the fact that scientific studies still refer to the planet as "e", the article should stay at "e". Anyways, I've made the change, so now I support this nomination. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StringTheory11 and Dudley Miles:

Comments. This is an interesting list but I have some doubts about it.

• I am not clear why nearest is taken as 50 light years and I do not see any explanation. Why not 100 light years or 20 parsecs. I think you need either to justify the limit or change the name of the article to "List of explanets within 50 light years".

I wanted a round number that contains a manageable number of planets. I think 50 ly is round enough, and at around 100 entires is a manageable list. Going to 100ly I think is a bad idea since it would have around 8x more planets which is way too much for the scope of the article, while 10 ly would be too little for the list to be relevant. A parsec is a meaningless value to a layperson so I strongly prefer using ly increments. List of nearest stars for example contains only up to 5 ly and does not say "list of stars within 5ly". Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of nearest stars redirects to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. This is out to 5 parsecs, not ly, and List of nearest bright stars is to 15 parsecs. Neither is an FL. I think the article name should be "List of explanets within 50 light years". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what would be gained my the title change. What do others think? Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a good deal of 'recentism' in the article. The opening sentence "Astronomers have identified a total of 65 exoplanets within 50 light-years of the Solar System," will become outdated when the next near exoplanet is found. It should be "as of date..." This also applies to many statements in the lead and note d. I would suggest a note stating that all statements in the article are "as of ..."

Good catch. I tried to put a year by each count. Nergaal (talk)

• There are no references for much of the lead and note d.

Which parts of the lead? For note d there is a sentence in the criteria section: "For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Many of reported objects sometimes even are confirmed by some other scientists only to be later disproven or reclassified. Basically I don't want to inflate the count with planets that only are reported in xarchiv until at least some review later discusses it (or better said, somebody with knowledge in the field took that xarchiv report seriously). Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no refs at the end of the first 3 paragraphs. Note d says "This recently-discovered exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed as there is only a single (primary) report discussing its existence." You need a ref for this specific exoplanet, not just the general principle. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each time note d is used there is a reference to one of the databases, which seems to list all the papers pertaining to that planet's entry. Note d comes only when there is a single link in that database. As for refs at the end of intro paras I don't think it is necessary. I put refs only for specific measurements, while for "counting" of things done in this list I did not put one. Most FLs have statements like "there are x many things" (implying that they are listed below) that are not explicitly referenced. That works fine, but the only real disadvantage for this list is that it gets updated a few times a year, so whoever makes the update has to change this count without having an easy reference to cross-check the updated number. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The only ref for the number of 65 exoplanets in the opening sentence is a list of visible stars within 50 ly, which is not the same thing, and it is not clear that this source is WP:RS. Out of the 4 sources listed in note a, the first two do not appear to list distance (although I may be missing something due to lack of technical knowledge), and 3 is a dead link. In 4 the list of confirmed planets in the NASA source has the distance column blank for half of them. If you are assuming that any where the distance is unknown must be over 50 ly away this must be justified.

note a is the ref for the number 65, and is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances. What I did is go through all those 4 links and comb for items within 50 ly. For 1 you have to click "all fields", so I added that link too. For 2, you have to click "+" on the right side to get the "DIST", but that option is only saved as a cookie (so I cannot have a direct link to it). I could try to put a note to the ref entry if you think that is what it needs. 3 was live less than a month ago, but fixed it. Same for 4. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand "is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances." On the other points I think you need to spell them out in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 4 databases split their entries by distance from the Sun. They all contain some 1k+ entries with all the known exoplanets. This list is a trimmed version of those lists, containing only 65 + 35 entries, so in that sense it is a RS. Updated each of the 4 links. Let me know if there is anything else.Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand the table 'Systems visible with the naked eye'. How can they be visible when half of them are listed as not having a visible host star? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The column is "Visible host star?" and split by Yes and No. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you showed the table heading with a question mark as 'Systems visible with the naked eye?' it would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Dudley Miles:. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: sorry for late replies, I somehow missed your review in my watchlist. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: and @PresN: I would appreciate any feedback. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the article's name/scope? I'm persuaded by your argument that 50 ly gives you on the order of 100 entries, while 100 ly would be ~800 and 10 would be ~5. Any cutoff point would be arbitrary; I'm fine with where you've chosen it and I don't think that you should make the title needlessly complex, since that doesn't change the arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. If you meant you wanted feedback on something else, let me know, since I already supported. --PresN 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any non-arbitrary cut off in the literature, so there is nothing wrong with 50ly. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (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) 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's been little interest in this nomination. It's of the age where it's better to archive and start anew. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 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 archived by SchroCat 07:50, 26 March 2015 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Sriram ^{speak up} 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a diverse body of work, Vikram is one of the most decorated actors in contemporary Tamil cinema. The list has been compiled following extensive research and has been adequately well-sourced. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Sriram ^{speak up} 12:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Is the prefix "Chiyaan" needed here? I think it is best suited in Vikram's main article, not here.

That part was modeled after a similar note made in the lead sentence of SRK's filmography, a clarification which is comparatively minor in SRK's. Would it be better if I rephrase it to often credited as Chiyaan Vikram? He has been credited so since Sethu... and not everyone know its genesis and significance.

If that is the case, then it may be retained.

• I don't think you have to mention him as "model-turned-film actor" as the next para mentions his brief stint of modelling; and film actor is a redirect, so just say "actor".

Will remove the 'model' part. But, isn't there other kind of actors too? Will it be okay to put it in the general category?

Yes, if he achieved anything big through modelling.

• "switched base" - how about he shifted his focus there?

Done.

• "essaying the lead roles" - I'd prefer "portraying".

Done.

• "Labelled by a critic" - who? And in Pithamagan, he says in the end "sakthi kodu", which I think was his only line in the film.

How about rewriting it as hardly any dialogues?

Just try writing that his character had mostly no spoken dialogue.

• "moonlights as a Robin Hood in the guise of an anthropomorphic rooster" - I think vigilante is a better word than Robin Hood.

Wasn't he was more of a Robin Hood than a vigilante? He never questioned anything other than economic offenses, did he? Most refernces too refer his character to be ala Robin Hood.

By vigilante, I mean someone like Batman or Spider-Man. Ain't he similar to them?

• "Rajapattai (2011), a box-office dud" - you mean failure?

Yes. Does that sound non-encyclopaedic? Should I rephrase it?

Never mind, I rephrased it.

• "larger-than-life" sounds idiomatic and seems to convey POV. Search Wiktionary for any formal synonym.

Explanatory notes

• "In the anthology film, Vikram's part was made in Hindi and dubbed into Tamil." - source?

Claim has been sourced.

More to come later... Kailash29792 (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some new comments based on your new edits:

• "kick the habit" - isn't he trying to overcome his addiction to smoking? Write this way.

Rewrote.

• "in the debutant Bala-directed tragedy Sethu... (1999), whose making was deeply troubled" - rewrite as "Bala's directorial debut, the tragedy film Sethu... (1999)"; and I don't think you need that last sentence about the making.

Fixed.

• Mention something about I and the Tamil David in the lead.

Done.

• Avoid overlinking in the tables.

Removed overlinking.

Support: Thank you for addressing my comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the list looks nice at first glance. Good work! — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 12:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Only "State Film" awards is mentioned. Please rephrase it as "Tamil Nadu State Film" awards for better clarity.

Done.

• "moonlights as a Robin Hood" — What do you mean by "moonlights"?

Check this.

That's all right. But, can you replace it with a better word for more clarity?

• Raavan wasn't universally panned. You can write it as : received negative reviews.

Done.

• "heavy criticism" — simply "criticism" should suffice.

Done.

• Can you find any source for the year the TV serial "Vishwanath" was aired?

Nope. However, this source mentions it as Killer Vishwanath.

Other sections

• In the "As a dubbing artiste" portion, the films Paasamalargal, Kuruthipunal and Karuppu Roja are unsourced. Please find reliable sources.

Could not find reliable sources. Have hidden them from the list.

Support

— Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Krimuk90

=*Any reason to 'justify' the text?I ask because I have not seen this done in any article, correct me if I am wrong. I don't get you here. Can you clarify what you were asking? And, is it still a concern or has it been solved? There is a "div align="justify"" field in the lead. I wonder why. Well, I just found it better looking with aligning the text. While I do agree that most other articles does not use it, I didn't find any policy prohibiting text alignment. @Krimuk90:No existing policy discourages aligning texts. -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'll let an administrator decide this, as I am not qualified to make a decision. I am taking the liberty to ping SchroCat to ask if this is okay. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] In " he has co-produced and co-directed one each of his films" I'm not sure what "one each of his films" mean? Removed the statement. "Following a brief stint in modelling, where he appeared in television commercials and a short film solely to get noticed,.." I can find atleast three things wrong with this sentence. Firstly, in "where he appeared", what does "where" signify? Secondly, in "..and a short film" the "and" would signify continuation of the previous statement, but I see no link between the two. Thirdly, I don't understand what "..solely to get noticed" means, and I really don't see the relevance of it. Rephrased for clarity. Btw, "..solely to get noticed" means he got into modelling not because he was interested in it. He wasn't comfortable meeting directors and producers with his portfolio and asking for film chances. He believed that appearing in commercials would get him noticed and he would be called for a role. "Vikram began his acting career.." His acting career began when he appeared in the short film. This would make it his television debut. Fixed. "largely unnoticed". What was unnoticed, the series or his role in it? Clarified. "His early film career was marked by a series of flops, which earned him the label of a "jinxed star". Following consecutive box-office failures in Tamil," So his first few roles were in Tamil films? Then you can merge these two sentences. Done. Combined both sentences. "..under established actors in Malayalam cinema in several ensemble films" - "several ensemble films" is redundant here. Rephrased. Is it still redundant? "During its making, he survived for months on a diet consisting only of fruit juices and lost 21 kilograms in 20 days to convincingly portray an emaciated mental asylum inmate." Highly unnecessarily in a filmography page. This information is relevant only in his biography. Agreed. removed. "fetched" is not a very formal term. Please change it to something more encyclopedic. Reworded. "..or which he sunbathed on his terrace for a sunburnt look and got dizzying headaches while practising to look blind" Again, not relevant here. Again, agreed, removed. "won him his maiden Best Actor award". Just say his first. Okay. Done. "..earned him a matinee idol status" That's not very encyclopedic either. Rewritten more formally. " undertaker with autism spectrum ". ==> "Suffering from autism." changed "with" → "from". "..had to emote through body language." Isn't that obvious when he has no dialogues? Removed statement. "The film, which was labelled by a critic for The Hindu as "a symphony on celluloid"" Unnecessarily in his filmography. Removed. "coveted" National Award. No, we don't use such words. Sure, we don't. "slew". Not a formal word. Reworded. "who moonlights as a Robin Hood in the guise of an anthropomorphic rooster". I don't understand what this means. Clarified with better phrasing. "He found his lone box office success..." Lone success during this period, I presume, since he did star in successful films earlier. Have mentioned so. "While the former was a commercial and critical success, earning Vikram his fourth Filmfare award, the latter received mostly negative reviews and failed at the box office." No citation. Yet to be addressed. "a loose adaptation of I Am Sam (2001)". What's a loose adaptation? Means that I'm a loose! Just kidding!! Fixed. "aspiring screen villain". So he was an aspiring actor who wanted to play a villain in the film? Yes. That's right. General note, claims of "critical acclaim" needs to have citations that say his performance was acclaimed by a large number of critics, and not just by one critic. Added more references for such claims. Done. Pls. strike out if convinced. -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] In the tables, names should be sorted last-name first. Added sortname templates where applicable. Are all his television commercials mentioned? Also, what does "2010-11" in the year column mean? Surely, the commercial released in one particular year. No. He appeared in a lot of commercials before entering films, but sources merely mentions them. An editor pointed out that only notable commercials needs to be listed. Hence, those that are mentioned have articles discussing the commercials. So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] I know how difficult it is to find reliable sources for commercials. But I guess this works on either all or neither. I'm not sure who decides on which commercial is notable and which one is not. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Since there is a separate awards and nominations page, I would suggest restricting his awards in the "notes" column to the most notable ones, which would be the National and Filmfare Awards, though some editors would suggest removing them altogether. Removed other awards except National, Filmfare and State Film awards. I believe awards from the state government are equally honourable as National awards; hence retained them. What makes "upperstall.com" notable enough to be included as an external link? The wikipedia article itself stands testimony to its notability. Moreover, one of its founders, Karan Bali, have made a film An American in Madras on the American-born Tamil director Ellis R. Dungan, proving that its more than just an entertainment portal. So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Isn't I yet to release too? I released on 14th Jan. The prose requires quite a bit of fine-tuning before this is ready to pass. I am not going to oppose this just yet, and see if it improves. Good luck!-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Some additional comments wrt the new version: I don't think the missing the National Award by a narrow margin is notable here. Have removed it. replace "string of" to "series of" or "number of" Done replacing. "warmly received from critics" ==> "generated positive reviews" Well, I actually lifted the phrasing from Jake Gyllenhaal's filmography. Written as "attracted positive reviews". "career slump" ==> "professional setback" reworded. "a spate of " ==> "series of" or "number of" written as "a succession of". "he appeared as a costumed superhero with a CBI officer as his civilian identity". The "with" is misleading here. Rephrased it. Is that better? "Vikram found his sole box-office success of that period" ==> "Vikram's sole box-office success during the period was.." Rewrote as suggested. ".. joining the company Reel Life Entertainment as one of its directors". Confusing. He turned into film production by joining as a director? Yes. He joined the film production company as one of its directors— not a film director but a company's director, like a managing director or something. I think it is much clearer now. I have got the lede copyedited by a member of GOCE. Citation needed for " While the former, a box-office debacle, earned Vikram mixed reviews, his performance in the latter earned him rave reviews and his third Filmfare award." Well, for the time being, lets forget about citations. Coz, I have been making multiple drafts for the lead which results in newer claims being mentioned and older claims being removed. It isn't easy for me to update the refs every time. Once we settle with the contents of the prose, I will do a source check and update it. If there are any unreferenced claims in the lead, they can be removed later. But, the problem exists only in the lede. All claims in the article body have been adequately sourced. I'm sorry but that's not how the FAC works. I'm not going to keep checking the list periodically to ensure all the claims have been properly cited. You should have ensured all your claims are well-cited before you nominated it here. You cannot say that you'll look into them after resolving the comments. Remember, the FAC is not a peer-review. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] The source you provided does not match your version. The source says, "His roles in Mani Ratnam’s Raavan in Hindi and Raavanan in Tamil were also well received by audiences", while you say that Raavanan garnered him mixed reviews. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Rephrased the sentence and added appropriate citations to substantiate the claims. So, can this be considered resolved? -- Sriram speak up 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] "collected the Critics Choice award at the Filmfare". Replace the word "collected" with something better, and simply say "at Filmfare" or "at the Filmfare Awards ceremony". Done. ".. in addition to receiving multiple awards and nominations". at which ceremony? Say "other" ceremonies for clarity. Also, it needs a source. Coming soon! "Vikram's part, which co-stars Tabu and Isha Sharvani, was dubbed into Tamil and released as a two-story film". Not sure I understand this. So there was a third version of David? It was an anthology film set across three time frames and centering on three protagonists, all named David. The hindi version had a wannabe rockstar, a drunkard fisherman and a scheming gangster. But, it was also released in Tamil with only two protagonist: the rockstar and the fisherman. While the former part was remade in Tamil with changes in the cast, the fisherman's part featuring Vikram was dubbed into Tamil. I think it is much clearer now. Sorry, but it's still confusing: "When released in Tamil as a two-story film, Vikram's part co-starring Tabu and Isha Sharvani was dubbed into Tamil, while the other narrative was remade". When released in Tamil his part was dubbed into Tamil doesn't make much sense to me. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] I have made it simpler, eliminating the details regarding the two-versions since they are clearly stated in his biography. This was mentioned in the list of comments above, and not done: "In the tables, names should be sorted last-name first." -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. In the playback singing section, why are two titles mentioned in one row? For example, why are "Kanthaswamy" and "Mallana" mentioned together? I don't understand the language, so am I missing something?-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Well, he also songs the songs for the Telugu-dubbed version. Have tweaked the table now. Pls. check. I presume " "cardboard" characterisation for the Raavan character is from a review. If most reviews have crititised his characterisation, I would suggest simply saying poor characterisation. Done. "Shankar's romantic-thriller I (2015) featured Vikram as an aspiring bodybuilder-turned-supermodel, who is reduced to a deformed hunchback when his career success earns the wrath of a few people. His portrayal and the physical transformation he went through to portray the different stages of his character received unanimous acclaim". Too much detail on one film. It's alright in his biography, but in his filmography it's a bit too detailed. Made it much brief. That introduced a new set of errors. I'll try fixing it myself. I see the sortname has only been partially done. I thought we decided on sorting the names last name first, where appropriate. This has not been done. I can only use sortname for people with second name/family names. Can't use them indiscriminately for everything. For ex: In SRK graph, Hema Malini has been sorted with 'Malini' as the second name. However, according to her biography, her second name is Chakravarty while 'Hema Malini' is her full name. I don't buy this. So, I'm not gonna add sortname unless warranted. For Bejoy Nambiar, isn't Nambiar his last name? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] While it is possible, can't say that for sure. -- Sriram speak up 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Raavan "was a box-office debacle" claim is still unsourced. Removed claim. Found it unnecessary. "For claims like "Released in Hindi as ...", I presume the films were dubbed, so it's better to say "Dubbed into Hindi as..." etc.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. In the references, the authors need to be written last name first, eg. Bhattacharya, Roshmilla. Is that even necessary for India-related articles? -- Sriram speak up 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why shouldn't it be? Okay. Done. DNA India should be Daily News and Analysis Done. The reference formatting for CNN-IBN is not consistent. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. CNN-IBN should not be in italics. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.

Note: As I stated in my edit summary here, the process of tweaking the prose was getting a bit tedious for me. I really want to see this pass, so I decided to copy-edit it myself. I have removed a chunk of redundant information, corrected the grammatical errors, and ensured that the lead flows better. Given these contributions, I believe I am exempt from either supporting or opposing the nomination. My only outstanding comment, at this moment, remains the inclusion of a partial list of his endorsements (as stated above). Also, a thorough source review needs to be done. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have this established as a Featured List, but other than looking pretty, it lacks the fundamental goal of being complete.

• Unknown roles can be filled up, with little research.

Not all films are available in YouTube. However, I'll try to find his character name from what's available.

• Some dubbed films are included, while others like Vicky, Maari, Aarusaamy, Miss Madras et al are excluded. I know this is due to a lack of sources, but still the films are up online and would easily help complete the article.

They could be dubbed for television screenings, in which case, it cannot be included. Only those films that were dubbed and had a theatrical release can be named, which needs to be verifiable. I could not include them due to lack of reliable sources supporting the claim.

• Bheema just says 'Released in Telugu' - lacks continuance with the rest of the article.

Written as in other instances.

• Siragugal was made as a film, not a television soap. It should be featured in the filmography instead.

As per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, "TV films" belong in the Television table.

• The films he provided voiceover for, should surely be included. He is credited in those films

They have been included later in a separate list.

Editor 2050 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Image needs alt text

Provided alt text

• (often credited Chiyaan Vikram[1][2]) - Place the refs. after ')'

Done.

• Isn't "Breakthrough role" over-linked?

It has been wikilinked only once. Do you mean it doesn't need to be linked at all?

Exactly. Isn't the term 'Breakthrough' plain English? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, I have wikilinked "breakthrough role" and not "breakthrough". If it is a normal word, why does it have a separate article in wikipedia explaining the terminology instead of an entry in wiktionary?

• A mention of films like Thanthu Vitten Ennai, Meera, etc., could be made in the lead. He played the main lead in those films while working under biggies like Sridhar, SPM and PC.

I had mentioned them in an earlier draft, but the lead was too long. Therefore, I have mentioned or discussed only those films that were a subject of discussion themselves in the media, and those that earned him recognition.

• Likewise a mention of his Telugu and Malayalam films could be there. You start with En Kadhal Kanmani and then jump into Sethu, which came almost ten years later.

Prashant says the lead is too long and needs trimming. You say that a few more of films can be mentioned. With all due respect, what am I supposed to do?

• You can include a bit about Vikram declining the lead role in Mani Ratnam's Bombay. I leave this to you.

I'm against it. Per Baradwaj Rangan's profile in Caravan, he was also considered for a role in Raman Abdullah. More recently, he was even offered to play God in Gopala Gopala. Could not mentioned them all. They are more suitable in his biography.

• His performance in Ullasam was well received isn't it?

The film wasn't really well received. Vikram only said that his role earned him female fans.

• You could go a bit deeper into explaining the kind of characters that he played in Sethu and Pithamagan. After all, it's the characters that fetched him acclaim.

Any more detail, the lead would be too long and boring.

Now I see that the characters have been explained for both the films. Don't know how I missed it. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the film grossed over INR100 million" - USD conversion is needed.

Added

• Need to adjust this for inflation. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added year to template.

• "In late 2001, Vikram was awarded his first Filmfare Award ..." would mean that the award ceremony was held in late 2001.

Fixed.

• Arul and Majaa were highly anticipated?

Removed the term.

• Link all entries in the table as it's sortable.
• Why don't you have the Tamil and Hindi versions of David in two separate rows?

1. The film was a bilingual and was released simultaneously. 2. Vikram only featured in the Hindi version. It was dubbed into Tamil, without his knowledge.

• If it was only a dubbed version, how come this will count as an appearance? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is why, unlike Raavanan and Raavan, I have listed the two versions of David within a single row entry.

• Thommidi Nelalu should be 9 Nelalu

Done.

• Filmfare Best Actor Award -> Filmfare Award for Best Actor – Tamil

Reworded, but without the lang.

• The emphasis should be on the language. Now, it looks like the one for Bollywood films and hence will mislead the readers. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "Filmfare Award' mean an award given by the Filmfare (the magazine)? Is there a necessity to distinguish between the Filmfare Awards and Filmfare Awards South? I'm not sure.

Of course, then why do we have different articles for all languages? Wouldn't that mislead the readers? —Vensatry _(ping) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Raavanan actually fetched him his fifth Filmfare Award

Corrected error.

• The playback singer table needs a language column

Then I might have to list the Telugu songs as well. It would make the table too complicated.

Of course, they must be included as he did the playback and was credited in the soundtrack. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Is the dubbing artiste table complete? I'm sure there are more number of films than the ones mentioned here. He was Ajith's voice in Paasamalargal and another actor's (don't know his name) in Karuppu Roja.

They have been removed due to lack of reliable sources supporting the same.

• Sorry, but that's not convincing. This being the case, the list doesn't meet criterion 3(a). —Vensatry _(ping) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about WP:VNT?

• Sriram, that's an essay and cannot be co-related with WP:FL?. That being the case, I can say your argument borders on WP:GAMING. —Vensatry _(ping) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry:Very well then, what do you suggest I do? The claim might be true, but without RS how do you expect me to substantiate it? Will it be okay if I use "cite dvd" and mention the timestamp where his name has been credited in the titles? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say he dubbed for J. D. Chakravarthy in Satya, the language (Tamil version) should be noted.

Added note.

• Above all, how come there is no mention about I in the lead.

Will add them. It wasn't released when I nominated for FLC. And, other existing FLs did not mention unreleased films in the lead.

Added info on I.

—Vensatry _(ping) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• After watching I, I have become a fan of Vikram. Thank you for working so well on his filmography. I think the lead is quite large. I would suggest to trim a bit.—Prashant 21:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has acted in about 50 films but I have discussed only 20 of them in the lead, on the basis of which got him critical acclaim/scathing criticism/notable awards. While another reviewer is asking me to mention/discuss a few more of his earlier films, you are asking me to trim the plot lead. What am I to do when I receive contrasting comments? Which way do I go!

I beg your pardon, is it the lead that you mean? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think length should be problem. WP:LEAD states that the lede should adequately summarize the whole article. Further, criterion 2 of WP:FL? states that the lede should be "engaging". I don't see a limit for the prose size in lede anywhere. You can make the lede "engaging" even if it's too long. For an actor who has made 50+ appearances with a diverse body of work it's just normal. What if somebody wants to take the filmography pages of actors like Rajini, Kamal or Mammooty? —Vensatry _(ping) 08:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about cutting the unwanted texts for a more crisper prose.—Prashant 14:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is IndiaGlitz a reliable source?

Pls. check this out.

• Why isn't accessdate included in all of the cite templates?

Well, I had actually intended to archive all the links in which case accessdate would have been redundant. However, there were some issues with archiving links from The Hindu. So now, some links have been archived while the other have accessdates. Still, if you think it is necessary, then lemme know and I will add accessdates to all links.

Add accessdates to every web/news citation.

• In the "dubbing roles" section {{efn}} is not really needed just mention the info directly in the notes section.

Done.

• Are you sure that all of his commercials are included?

No. Before his film career, he featured in a few adverts. But, only their names are known and nothing else like the directors/year/role. Also, another editor pointed out that only notable commercials should be included and that they themselves should be a subject of discussion in reliable sources. So, I have only listed such commercials.

• Composers & singers in the "playback singer" should sort by their last names.

Have used sortname where applicable.

• Same for directors & roles in "actor" section.

Again, have used sortname where applicable.

Could you pls. take a look at this before commenting on this issue? Sorry for the trouble. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 13:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link directors at every occurrence in the lists.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My concerns have been addressed. Good work on this list.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead seems a bit too long and detailed per this discussion

That discussion has less than half a dozen editors expressing their views. There seem to be no consensus and, even if there was one, it can't be used as a rule of thumb unless it has been implemented as added to a policy. My intent is to take this list to FL at any cost, even if I were to have only one or two sentences for the lead. But, if the different reviewers are of contrasting opinions, I wonder which way to sway.

Given Vikram's career, I think the length is absolutely fine. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sidebar should probably not be there per this decision

Removed per consensus.

• Three of the ten listings under playback singer appear to be complete duplicates except for film title. I guess they are dubbings? Can these be combined on one line each? It looks weird as is.

He did sing the song in both languages. I couldn't get what you mean? Can you clarify a little? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it looks odd to have two rows, one for Rajapattai and one for Veedinthe, with the same year, same songs, same composer, and same co-singers. Only the language and sources are different. Could you combine these two rows, to remove this duplication? Same for the other two duplicates in this table. BollyJeff | talk 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have combined them into a single row entry. However, could you take a look at this? I had originally split them into separate rows for the two languages as per comments from another reviewer. So, again, I have been receiving contrasting opinions about it!! -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not very comfortable with the 'unknowns'. Has all possible research been exhausted? To me, even a video source with a credits roll would be good, but I don't know how others would feel about that.

Will look into it and find as much info as possible.

• I also believe that access dates should be added to all citations that include links.

Will add them, probably by tomorrow.

• It's not clear what is meant by "Lent his voice for the Tamil-dubbed version". The Gandhi article makes no mention of a Tamil version, nor does the source that I can see. If it's on a page other than one, please note the page number.

Actually, the article has an option to be seen in single page. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rediff and The Hindu are linked in the citations, but not at their first occurrence. Try to get all firsts.

Fixed. Wikilinked first instances.

• The Rotten Tomatoes and Bollywood Hungama external links are not adding anything useful to the article.

Sites like IMDB and Rottentomatoes are similar to wikipedia in that they are crowd-sourced. They could evolve anytime with more info.

• In the actor section, many of the notes say: Dubbed into XX as YY. How is this relevant to Vikram? If it was dubbed with his voice, it would be noted in the dubbing section, no?

The films were dubbed into other languages and had a theatrical release. While the original versions always had his voice, the dubbed verions didn't always. He only dubbed for some of them, Still, they can't be listed in the dubbing section as he voiced for himself, as an actor and not as a dubbing artiste.

I think that only the ones where he dubbed for his voice should be listed then, not ones where he was not involved in the dubbed release, and a note should be made to clarify that.

The table heading reads "As an actor"! Whether he was involved in its release or not, he did feature in the dubbed versions too. I don't know what this fuss is all about. I had earlier wrote "Released in XX as YY" for clarity; but,it was Krimuk90 who asked me to reword so.

Sorry, you are correct. He "acted" in both versions, so it's okay. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was told in another FAC that "debutant filmmaker" is not appropriate encyclopedic use of the word debutant.
• "Vikram's sole box-office success during this period was ... disorder; a commercial success across South India." I think the part after the ; is redundant here.

• 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) 07:52, 26 March 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 archived by SchroCat 07:45, 25 March 2015 [5].

---

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the requirements to become a featured list. I have made improvements to the list as suggested when it was previously nominated for FL status. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "After the 1992 baseball season, Charlotte, North Carolina, home of the Double-A Southern League's Charlotte Knights, acquired a Triple-A expansion team in the International League, leaving the Double-A Knights in need of a new home. Larry Schmittou, owner of the Triple-A Nashville Sounds, offered Herschel Greer Stadium as a temporary home for the displaced team. The Triple-A Charlotte Knights retained the legacy of the Double-A franchise that preceded it, and a new history was established for the Xpress." - this is very unclear to me, especially the sudden introduction of the Xpress name. Is it saying that there was an existing (AA) team called the Charlotte Knights, which moved to Nashville and became the Xpress, while a brand new (AAA) team was formed, which inherited the history of the former AA team despite not technically being the same team? If that is the case, I would amend it to something like "After the 1992 baseball season, Charlotte, North Carolina, home of the Double-A Southern League's Charlotte Knights, acquired a Triple-A expansion team in the International League, leaving the Double-A Knights in need of a new home. Larry Schmittou, owner of the Triple-A Nashville Sounds, offered Herschel Greer Stadium as a temporary home for the displaced team, and the team relocated to Nashville and became the Nashville Xpress. The new Triple-A team in Charlotte inherited the Knights name and the legacy of the Double-A franchise that preceded it, while the Xpress were treated as new team with no previous history."
  • Other than that it all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I clarified the move by adding your suggested explanation verbatim. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2015 (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) 07:47, 25 March 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 archived by SchroCat 07:45, 25 March 2015 [6].

---

Nominator(s): FairyTailRocks 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a year since my last nomination of this list. I became inactive due to some real-life activities, but I know that List of Sword Art Online episodes will have a lot of potential of becoming FL. All criticisms and comments are welcome! FairyTailRocks 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

After a quick look, issues from the previous FLC are still there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specifically say what are those problems so that I can fix them out? FairyTailRocks 12:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PresN's comments stand. There are still prose. Accessibility is subjective, but I think you should continue improving on that in the plot summaries. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any improvement in the article for a month now, maybe it is time to close this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (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) 07:47, 25 March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 18 March 2015 [7].

---

Nominator(s): pbp 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is ready. It follows a similar format to other featured lists such as NBA Most Valuable Player Award and IBM Award. All award winners are sourced. pbp 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Is it Euroscar or "Euroscar European Player of the Year Award"?
• "award that started in 1979" -> "was first presented in..." or something.
• "The award names each year's best " perhaps better something like "The annual award is presented to the best..."
• Consider infobox.
  • One has been added pbp
• " including National Basketball Association players." seems nugatory after "regardless of where he plays in the world"
• Is this a male-only award? What are the rules?
• "This is not the official European basketball player of the year award, which is the FIBA Europe Player of the Year Award given out by the International Basketball Federation." This is also not many other things. This is an odd turn of phrase. Perhaps just state that there is also a European POTY...

 Fixed Removed pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous calendar year thing is repeated and over emphasised.

 Fixed Removed second instance. pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award is given out by" do you really mean that it's sponsored by La Gazetta? A newspaper can't give out an award.
  •  Not done Sure, they can. If their writers vote on it and the newspaper buys the trophy, why can't they? Compare Sporting News Rookie of the Year Award pbp 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other crap exists. Or doesn't, according to your link.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "It is one of four "player of the year awards" needs citation.
• Five paras for the lead is too much, either write a smaller introduction with some history and awardees sections or reduce the lead.
  •  Not done. Follows the format of other FL awards
    • Sure, well as per the December 2012 FLC, I'll oppose on this alone, regardless of the other details. I seem to recall suggesting you look at the Gordon Bennett Cup in air ballooning for inspiration on what is a suitable set of introductory sections for a list like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
      • Why would I look at that when there are existing basketball FLs? IMO, a basketball FL is a much better indicator of what this article should look like than a ballooning one. pbp 11:57 am, Today (UTC−8)
        • Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done pbp 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Of players who won the award" grammar.
• Nick Galis is Nikos Galis apparently.
  •  Fixed
• Last para of the lead is unreferenced.
  •  Fixed

I'll look at the table if this lot gets sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things you're advocating fly in the face of current featured lists. Most other basketball award articles have at least four paragraphs of prose. While they have navboxes, they don't have infoboxes. pbp 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get your point. I've made a partial review of this list, it's far below the standard I would expect to see as a featured list. If you want to work with me to address my concerns that's fine, if you'd rather not, fine too, I'll just leave my oppose and you can wait for other reviewers to weigh in and support you perspective. I'm sure you'll be happy either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player Award. That's a FL and it's written and formatted almost exactly the same way this article is. If that's a FL, and Euroscar is written and formatted the same way as the NBA MVP, why shouldn't Euroscar be featured? Also, I consider the claim that 5 paragraphs is too much text to be completely arbitrary. pbp 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that comparing something a current FL which was promoted in 2008 (!) is really weak? Regardless, my opinion on this list is purely objective, based on the list itself and no other precedent. My suggestion to look at the Gordon Bennett list was to help you realise that you could write a nice intro, then some history etc before introducing the list itself. You don't like it? Whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, then put your money where your mouth is and nominate it for reassessment. Until you do, I consider your belief that an article shouldn't be FL solely because its prose is split into five paragraphs instead of four hideously pedantic, and would urge the closing admin to discount your vote for such silliness. pbp 20:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, have as many hissy fits as you like, but right now I've only commented briefly on the lead, which is not suitable for Featured List status. Of course, feel free to ignore all of my comments and wait for others to comment, which I'm sure they will in a month or two. By the way, it's not a "closing admin" here, it's an FL delegate, perhaps you forgot where you were for a moment? It might be worthwhile you taking a moment to realise that it wasn't me who brought up comparisons with other FLs, it was you. I was purely objective, without comparison, until pressed. Deal with it, fix it, or leave it, whatever! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a potentially closing admin, I think The Rambling Man's comments need to be looked at closely, Purplebackpack89. They are good, and I would suggest trying to work with the reviewer and not against them. In terms of things like number of pars, see the final (by which I mean third) paragraph in the lead of WP:LEAD: "it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." (I've seen 5,000 word FAs which stick to a maximum of four paras, for example). No, newspapers cannot give out awards (the company behind them does, or the awards are drawn up by the paper's sports writers, or the newspaper sponsors the award, etc etc. TRM has left his rview in good faith, and I think you should take it as such. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:, I have combined two of the paragraphs, so it should pass your muster. But I still think it's ridiculous to say that a ballooning FL is a better base template for this article than a basketball template. pbp 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that at all. I suggested you looked at a decent FL which had a decent lead and intro section. If you don't want to do that simply because it doesn't relate to basketball, that's fine, that's your choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better of you to say why you like the Bennett Cup's lead (or why you don't like the NBA awards' leads), and what you would change in this (or the NBA awards') lead. FWIW, I have read the Bennett Cup's lead, and after reading it continue to believe in the lack of inapplicability to this article. The Bennett Cup is a race in addition to a trophy, so you can fill a lead with notable races. Trophies for an entire year or season can't do that as much, which is why the NBA awards and this focus on distinctions. Do you want me to find more superlatives, like the guy who scored the most points in his Euroscar year (which would be a pain to find, as it's given year-to-year and contains parts of two seasons for each)? You want more people who did X the year they won the Euroscar? vpbp 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it's simple, and I believe you were reminded of this several years ago. If the list is the main article about the award, the lead should be comprehensive and spend some time discussing the history and the winners. The reason I gave the Gordon Bennett FL as an example is because it took a hell of a lot to get it to FL, with a lot of research and made for a better page. If you're not interested in addressing my initial specific comments on the lead and would rather spend time arguing why you shouldn't, then I'll pass on reviewing the rest of the article. My oppose stands, but do remember, it's just my opinion, I'm sure you'll be able to find a bunch of other people who find my pedantic comments trivial and will support your list. It's a shame your apparent combative attitude clouds your ability to fix this up to a standard which I would consider featured quality: it's way off that right now. I won't be commenting further unless you demonstrate that you're content to work with me and deal with the comments I make in good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just tell me what in particular you like about the Bennett Cup article that could be done on this one, or in NBA award articles? Do you want it to flow chronologically? Do you want the lead to impose some grand narrative? And maybe I wasn't acting in good faith earlier, but I am now. pbp 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example I provided was simply to demonstrate that for an awards article which has no main article, you need to do more, discuss the winners, the origins of the award, etc etc. I don't know where "grand narrative" comes into it, but a decent lead and history section (like the GB cup I mentioned) would be great. If you can't do that, perhaps we need to think again about the nomination. On top of that are the many issues I already noted above. I haven't started to review the list itself. But right now I don't see much point in doing that. Again, I'll remind you that I'm just one voice here. I'm sure others will look at this list and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not entirely clear to me what you want. I'm working on figuring out why Gazzetto decided to throw the award in the first place, but I'm hampered by the fact that the source I need is likely in Italian. You've basically said, "It needs to be like this" and "it needs a decent lead", without giving me the information you would like to see. pbp 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I've given far more points to correct than that. But yes, you're right to an extent, I want to see the history of the award expanded upon in the lead or better still, a history section. That's why I've given you an example of a featured list which took a lot of work but resulted in a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected most of the grammatical and repetition errors. Does the stuff about multiple winners and distinctions go in the history section? pbp 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fleeting comments from Bencherlite (oppose, see below)

• Avoid "currently", "most recent" etc - see WP:CURRENTLY. Use "as of" instead.
• Image captions that are full sentences should end with a "." (see the Tony Parker image)
• You have too many images - forcing two images to display in the lead with {{-}} leaves a massive area of white space before the "Award winners" section; and the images still bleed into the references section.
• Having said that, the table of award winners is very narrow so you may be able to use {{multiple image}} to have 2 images side by side sometimes - have a go and see what it looks like.
• When you've decided what images you want to keep, don't force the image size with |200px or similar
• Can someone remind me what the current rule/practice is about flag icons? My instinct is to say they are inappropriate in the infobox at least per MOS:FLAG and in particular because those icons link to the national basketball teams, which are irrelevant here. I don't like them visually in the table but I couldn't say whether that's an appropriate usage. Bencherlite^Talk 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to fix a number of your concerns by removing Parker's pic (and Marc's). pbp 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bencherlite:, have you gotten a chance to take a second look at the article? pbp 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I have looked just now, and if you can't be bothered to address all the points I make in a short list, then why should I waste my time? Bencherlite^Talk 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bencherlite:, Didn't I address all of those things, though? Or do you want me to tick off how I addressed each one? BTW, the reason I'm continuing to force size is because it looks best when all images are the same width. pbp 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Avoid "currently", "most recent" etc - see WP:CURRENTLY. Use "as of" instead. Not done. Image size forcing - not done because you know better than the MOS, it seems. Flag icons - no response, whether to agree or to disagree. And now I see you've added very poor prose such as For the first two decades of the award: 21 of the first 23 winners were born in the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. which manages to be wrong in terms of both grammar and mathematics at the same time, which is quite an achievement. I won't waste my time here. Oppose Bencherlite^Talk 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • "@Bencherlitr:, Currently" isn't used at all in the article, "most recent" was used once, but now is accompanied by an "as is". I replaced the colon in the sentence you cite with a comma. As for the flag question, I can't find an answer either way, though I have found that most international basketball-related templates do contain flags. Can you point me to the section of MOS/IMAGES where it says that image size shouldn't be forced? And can you be a little more civil? pbp 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my alleged lack of civility is entirely in your head, not my words, and your behaviour as a nominator is hardly going to attract further reviewers - honey, not vinegar, is best! "Currently" was in the article when I first looked; you've since removed it, along with the "most recent", thanks. I see you've now also removed the forced image sizes, thank you (WP:IMAGESIZE for future reference). In an effort to assist further, I've performed a mild copy-edit on the "history" section but unfortunately this just showed more problems - I ran into considerable difficulties in understanding how the assertions as to the current state of affairs could be derived from websites dating from 2009, or last accessed in 2012. I am at a loss to know why a website that has a title "Pau Gasol is 2008 European Player of the Year" is used twice in the article (once in the general references, once in the specific references) with the made-up title "History of the Award (to 2008)". I left a number of tags and hidden comments in that section to try and point out specifically the problems there. If you can deal with all these points, then we might get to a stage where considering the flags issue is a good use of my time. Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in the article about the prize changing its name to "Europlayer" for several years, [8]Bencherlite^Talk 15:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked exclusive at references and reference formatting, as is my habit for first-pass evaluations over at FAC.

• In general: Websites are not cited in a consistent manner. Websites are varyingly listed in {{cite web}} as |work (correct) or |publisher (not so much). This will produce inconsistent metadata. Additionally, while you properly style gazetta.it as La Gazzetta dello Sport, many of the other websites are named by URL. Sometimes that's the correct choice, for when a website includes ".com" (or whatever) as part of their official titling (NBA.com, for example, appears to really be NBA.com; you need to have consistent capitalization, however); sometimes (as with Mundo Deportivo), it's not. Also, you are missing a lot of bibliographical data.
• In the general references: The source you are citing as "History of the Award (to 2008)" has a publication date, but far more importantly, that's not at all what it's titled. I would oppose promotion for this issue alone. The Bob Bergum book is self-published, and is not a reliable source. Also, to be pedantic, ISBN-13 is strongly preferred over ISBN-10 at this point; I wouldn't fail over just that (and this book isn't acceptable sourcing regardless), but it's very easy to convert old ISBNs to the new standard. The third general source is a forum post, which is not a reliable source (it appears to be repeating information from La Gazzetta dello Sport, so might be replaceable, but that doesn't solve the immediate problem).
• In the specific references: The "Stojakovic" source has a publication date available. The "El Barça" source has both a byline and a publication date available. The "CSKA Moscow" source has a byline and a publication date. The Ballin' Europe source is not correctly targeted (the correct URL is this one), and has an uncited byline; also, I'm not particularly convinced that it consistutes a reliable source (and since it seems to just be repeating information from La Gazzetta dello Sport, it should be replaceable).

There may be other problems, as I did not make an effort to be comprehensive once the state of the referencing was apparent. The malformed citations and missing bibliographical data are relatively easy fixes. The use of non-RS sources as general references, however, cannot be remedied easily. I'm troubled by the significant reference with a misrepresented title as well; I want to assume it's somehow accidental, but it's very close to what I'd consider source manipulation, and so suggests that a very thorough vetting of sources would be needed before I could reconsider my stance here, even if replacements for the non-RS material were forthcoming. Accordingly, I oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first FLC for this article also raised concerns about the reliability of InterBasket which, as best as I can tell, have never been responded to. I'm neutral on that particular issue, as the article's other problems are fatal to promotion regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Further review of InterBasket leads me to believe that even its non-forum content does not constitute a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just can't be reliable - it's a blog post on a forum. Interestingly, though, it talks about 2nd and 3rd place awards, which aren't mentioned in the article. Either nobody is named as runner-up / in third place, in which case the source is completely discredited, or people are named in such positions, and the article is incomplete. Either way, it's yet another serious problem. Suggest withdrawal as all the problems listed above by Squeamish Ossifrage, added to those I've noted, show that this is not within shooting distance of being an example of Wikipedia's best work. Bencherlite^Talk 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other uses of InterBasket that aren't just a forum post. The previous FLC seemed uncertain whether the site's news reporting was reliable. It's on that topic that I'm neutral, although the site's about page does not inspire confidence. Looking back over the InterBasket sources, I note that the "Parker Wins Euroscar" source is also improperly titled (actually "10 NBA Players from Around the World (01/09)"). I'm going to have to echo the suggestion for withdrawal. Any effort to correct the sourcing situation is going to require sufficient rebuilding as to render it a different article than appears here at current. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite:, @Squeamish Ossifrage:: Near as I can figure, InterBasket is an international equivalent to CBSSports.com or Bleacher Report. As for the 2nd and 3rd-place information, there is no award per se given to people who finish second in the voting, but there still are people who finish second in the voting, and people might actually want to know who they are, albeit not enough to actually put that information in the article. In regards to why I have adopted titles different than those of the webpages they link to, it's mostly because the articles' titles don't illustrate why they are being used as sources for particular matters, and won't generate interest for readers to follow them. pbp 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InterBasket is not much like Bleacher Report. Although it has a few other editors, it is, by its own admission, primarily the efforts of two guys who parlayed a Yahoo Group into a website. Bleacher Report, on the other hand, is a division of Turner Sports, and can reasonably be expected to have editorial oversight. As for changing the titles of sources in order to make them more interesting, let me put this in the clearest terms possible: do not do that. You must cite sources accurately. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what SO said. Plus how anyone could think that this is a reliable source for anything is beyond me. It's a list in a forum post with no sources from some random bloke using a pseudonym "Önder". Bencherlite^Talk 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove that one if you want. pbp 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary but not sufficient. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage:, there is currently at least one reliable source indicating the winners of the award in any given year. And, @Bencherlite:, I've also addressed most of your sourcing concerns with the prose. pbp 16:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 award doesn't appear referenced. 2007 is cited to InterBasket, which, again, I don't think is a reliable source with editorial oversight. 2011 to Ballin' Europe, likewise. Beyond that, at the FLC level, it is not enough that some sources are reliable; all sources used for the article must meet the standards of WP:RS. And there's still problems with citation formatting and missing bibliographical data, and I haven't even really looked at the prose. I'm sorry, Purplebackpack89, I appreciate the work that's gone into this, but I really don't think this is ready for FLC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (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) 11:57, 18 March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 18 March 2015 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria of featured article.--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following are not (as far as I can see) used to support information in the text and can be taken out, I think (unless they are being used in a way I cannot see):

• Martin, Richard C. Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim world; vol. 1.
• Akhtar Rizvi, Sayyed Saeed (1987). Prophethood. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania.
• al-Shaykh al-Saduq (1982). A Shiite Creed. Fyzee (3rd ed.). Tehran: WOFIS. OCLC 37509593
• Dungersi, Mohammed Raza. A Brief Biography of Imam Ali bin Muhammad (a.s.): an-Naqi. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. GGKEY: 8634KUB72L4
• Madelung, Wilferd (1998). The succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early Caliphate (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Why is Fatmah's birth given in the CE form as 605/15 – 632/633, but the AH form as 17 or 7 BH[6] – 10 or 11? Aim for consistency throughout – you'll need to settle on one form and make sure all the others are in the same format too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

# Done, Thank you.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is needed to delete the "CE" in the Date of birth Column for Fatimah. Is it right?Salman mahdi (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. CE is essentially the same as AD, and so the 53 BCE in Muhammad's hijri lifespan (which you appear to intend to say "before the hijra") actually implies that he lived on Earth for almost 700 years - not something I've ever heard taught. Islamic calendar uses the abbreviation BH (once, admittedly; I don't see any references for a standardized term) which would be more correct. This needs to be fixed.
2. Another small point is that a lot of your phrases end with periods. Only sentences should end with periods.
3. Also, why are you giving five references for Fatimah's lifespan, and two for her titles? I doubt any of the information here is so highly disputed as to require such Citation overkill.
4. POV evident in terms such as "tragically", unsupported "famous"
5. Copyediting of the table still needs to be done (overlinking, spaces, grammar, etc.). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Crisco 1492:, with thanks,

1.  Done
2.  Done
3.  Done
4.  Done.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's been done? The citation overkill, for example, is still very prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ @Crisco 1492:, I tried to solve POV problem. Is there any other unacceptable phrase based on NPOV policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several points that I've brought up... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this is needs more work. It is to be expected from someone not accustomed to using English so please try to CAREFULLY read all the comments by all the reviewers and try your best to solve them. Here are mine:

• citation overkill means way too many refs. I completely agree. You do not need a reference for Mohammed's or Fatimah's name or for all the other 12 names. you may keep those for kunya
• I don't see the use of giving the names in Persian. Why are those necessary?
• for #1 and #2 why is there no Turkish title?
• I think it is more useful to readers to give the approximate translation of the titles in parentheses not in footnotes
• for dates please use this format "CErange (AHrange)"
• why does Fatimah have two different references for her AH dates?
• for date ranges I am pretty sure you can use a widely accepted islamic book and link that right after "Date of birth and death"
• what is with the unknown dates for #14? I think it needs a footnote
• for example "He is considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[13] According to Muslims God revealed the Quran to him which is the God's word and the greatest miracle." can be changed to "Muslims consider him the last prophet sent by Allah ?to? mankind. According to Muslim ?tradition?, Allah revealed him the Quran, [insert here something non-POV]".

I tried to make it NPOV. Is it OK?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• why does the article use "God" but link to "Allah"?

I changed in to God in Islam.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. 2's importance doesn't even clarify that she is the daughter. other than spiritual "mother" of other 12, what is the biological relationship to them?
• why is #4 important?
• similarly, why do Muslims consider the remaining ones imfallible/important?
  1. 7 is missing the separation for burial place
  2. 14 needs a N/A for burial
• perhaps remove "buried in"

Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear@Nergaal:, with thanks for your comments

• Citation overkilling is done.
• We brought the titles in the footnotes because the table was too much cluttered and confusing.
• For the first three, we can not bring AH, because it is before beginning the AH.
• It is linked to Allah, because we wanted to mean God in Islam.
• The family tree above it shows the biological relations between them.
• Why do you think that #4 is important, we did not want to convey such a message.
• As it is the list of the 14 infallibles, we can not give detailed information but the reader can refer to the links if interested.
• #7  Done
• I does not need because he is alive as it is explained.

Again thanks for your kindness.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extra references. We can remove Turkish names as well. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Crisco 1492:, With thanks for the reviews, We have apllied all the suggestions, is there any other suggestion or problem with the article?Salman mahdi (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Looking only at references and reference formatting for the moment:

Sources should be alphabetized within each section. ISBNs should be given as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s (use this tool as needed; you can convert an ISBN-13 to 10 and back in order to restore its proper hyphenization). Web sources that do not have print editions (or that specifically site website-formatted editions, such as your Encyclopaedia Iranica references) should all have retrieval dates. You need to be consistent about whether you use the æ ligature in "Encyclopædia" or two separate letters, at least for any specific work (ideally based on the publication's preference); this is a problem throughout the encyclopedia sources.

Publisher locations are optional, but you need to stick to either including them for all print books, where available, or not at all. You cannot have some with and some without. Some of print works for which you cite non-ISBN reference numbers (such as Dungersi 2012 and Fatima the Gracious) have ISBNs available, and you should use those instead of Google or Amazon proprietary indices. You need to be consistent in how you reference publishers, such as Ansariyan Publications and the State University of New York Press. Burleigh Press should not appear in all-caps. The Ordoni 2013 source is self-published and not a reliable source. The Corbin source is not properly titled (the translators are not part of the title). The Ordoni 1992 source is not properly cited; as best as I can tell, Ibrahim Amini and Kazem Qizvini are the authors; Abu Mohammed Ordani was the translator. The Paulist Press printing of the work of Ibn al'Arabi needs to have its modern editor cited (Ralph Austin). You have references cited as Madelung 1985, Madelung 1985a, and Madelung 1985c. Presumably, there used to be a "b" that has since been removed.

I haven't looked at how these sources were used, but it strikes me that a lot of this material is cited to the publications of Twelver organizations (Ansariyan, Bilal Muslim Mission), rather than to independent historical analyses. That's not necessarily a fatal objection, but it may be cause for concern on POV or comprehensiveness grounds.

I am neutral on promotion based on the state of references and reference selection (assuming the easy problems are corrected). If other editors determine that the sourcing has resulted in POV issues in the article text due to the frequent use of Twelver references, then my analysis may also be read as opposing promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Squeamish Ossifrage:, with great thanks for your comments, by consistency in publisher references, you mean we use just the word for example "press" for all of them?

Ordoni 2009 and Qurashī 2006 both have "Ansariyan"; the rest have "Ansariyan Publications" (the latter is probably the correct choice). Amir-Moezzi 1994 and Nasr 1989 have "SUNY Press", Tabatabaei 1975 has "State University of New York Press", and Tabatabaei 1979 has "SUNY press"; either of the first two are generally acceptable, although I personally like spelling things out (we don't pay for ink, after all!). Meanwhile, looking over this some more ... you're also inconsistent about the use of diacritics. Compare "Qurashī, Bāqir Sharīf (2006)" with the other three Qurashi sources. Additionally, you should only author-link in the bibliography on first appearance, rather than every time. And while I recognize that this is intended as an article about an aspect of Twelver Shia faith, I remain concerned that it does not present a neutral point of view: several of the "Importance" phrasings are decidedly not neutral, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan's section presents only the Shiite religious interpretation. This article could benefit from a broader range of sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordoni has been used for the Fatimah's titles and we can remove the titles, if it looks biased. I think 3 titles are sufficient.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and Nergaal: We have tried to solve the problems, however please tell us whether you are satisfied or not. We are eager to know what should we do to make it a better list. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At a quick glance I don't think you fixed ANY of my suggestions. I actually spent time going through finding suggestions hoping that it would become a decent list. However, you keep pinging me without really putting an effort into listening what I have to say. Unless you really care to work with the reviewers, please stop wasting everybody's time. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear @Nergaal:, I have worked on your comments and answered them above, would you please study above?Salman mahdi (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and Nergaal: With thanks for your comments, we have worked on all the comments, what else we must do?Salman mahdi (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2015 (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) 11:58, 18 March 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 09:14, 17 March 2015 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the GA-review it was decided that this was more a list than an actual article. Because the article was written like an article at first, It's very detailed and comprehensive for a list. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been nominated for AL? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonas, I'm asking whether you considered nominating it as a Milhist A-Class list? I see it went to GA and was rejected (for being a list), the usual next step for a Milhist list would be to nominate it for AL. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. What exactly does "AL" stand for? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, stupid me! After reading your comment properly I understand what you said. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you answer your question, no it has not; the editors of this article have primarily been me and Kierzek, and he usually copyedits new inputs of mine. And also, it's a list so I, personally, don't see the great need to ask for an A-Class review. With that being said, I'm sure problems voters of this candidacy find will be voiced on the page. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although going through the A-class review is not a requirement for FLC, it often offers subject-matter expert feedback. Rather than withdraw the FLC, perhaps some editors interested in WWII can be invited to comment? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor comment only: there are a number of short citations in the references section to "Shirer 2000"; however, the only corresponding work in the sources section is "Shirer 1960" is this the same work (possibly the 2000 relates to a reprint?). Can this pls be fixed? Anotherclown (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I will look into this. Cheers. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor comment: Coming to this topic from outside a military history background, I read the section heading mentioning the "Air Force", a generic term which didn't register with me, then realised that this was the Luftwaffe. (Ja, ich weiss dass mein Deutsch furchtbar ist!) I looked up the article and, sure enough, its title is Luftwaffe. Could it be argued that this is the WP:COMMONNAME and should be used in the section heading? Ham II (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sie hast recht. Fixed :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very good list, I would recommend expanding on the role of an adjutant a bit more in the lead. I would also suggest classifying them into political adjutants, military adjutants (Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS), etc. What about his secretaries, should they be part of the list? I would also recommend that in the individual biography sections more focus is placed on the role the individual played as adjutant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions. I will add a part about the role of being an adjutant to Hitler and also categorize them into Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS sections. Regarding his secretaries, I think Kierzek would agree with me that they should not be included; we previously discussed adding valets to the list, but decided to add them in the "See Also" section instead, click here to see the discussion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The secretaries should not be included in this article; there is a better argument for the three valets, but then the title would have to be changed to "List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants and valets"; and some re-write and additions made, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specific comments:

• I have concerns regarding the use of "Scherzer, Veit (2007). The Holders of the Knight's Cross 1939-45. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2." The article currently claimes that information in the "Gerhard Engel" section was taken from pages 290–295. I own this book with the same ISBN but different title, I can say that in my version of the book, Engel is mentioned on page 294 only. The book does not go into the level of detail claimed to be taken from pages 290–295. Maybe the wrong Scherzer book is listed in the "sources" section? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all information, including the sources used to cite the info, is borrowed from their main articles. As none of them are that developed, I'd say it's possible it's either the wrong Scherzer book or simple a cite error; I will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I checked into the article history. It looks like DocYako introduced these citations. I can only say that Scherzer cannot be the source of this information. Therefore the entire Engel section is without valid citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a serious problem; I will do my best to fix it ASAP! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, it's done - everything is replaced by new sources. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct reference to ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2 is Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives] (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.. I would refrain from giving the readers the impression that the book used as a reference is in English, use the correct title. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The files File:Nazi Party and SS member Wilhelm Brückner in 1924.jpg, File:Albert Bormann.jpg, File:Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer.jpg, File:Fritz Darges 5ss.jpg and File:Willy Johannmeyer.jpg require rational why the use of this non-free media is okay to use on this article. If this article is a list: all non-free media has to be removed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a list. I will ask someone to crop the images so they can be used. Well spotted. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ALT needs to be added to all remaining images MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best. Thanks for all your comments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is still a considerable degree of over linking (WP:REPEATLINK). This needs fixing. Try using the tool User:Ucucha/duplinks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is some kind of mix-up here. Hoßbach, Schmundt, Below, Engel, Puttkamer and Johannmeyer were ADCs not mere adjutants (the German term has a slightly wider range). Incidentally, Belows predecessor - Mantius - is missing from the list, as are Schmundt's successors Amberg and Burgdorf and Engel's replacement Borgmann. Bormann, however, never served in the Wehrmacht, as far as I can tell. These appointments would be more suitably described in an article on the "Adjutantur der Wehrmacht beim Führer und Reichskanzler" which was actually part of the OKW command structure.

The other individuals were more in the party line, so there is the question whether they represented their organisations or were merely picked by Hitler as he saw fit.

Max Wünsche was seconded to Hitler's personal staff in 1938/9 in a role that fits more the Wehrmacht ADCs than Schraub or Bormann. It seems that he is considered a predecessor of Darges and Günsche. Apart from that, there are numerous factual errors and inconsistencies (e.g. Schmundt was Wehrmacht, not Army ADC). I am not sure, though, if it is worth the effort to go through the list and fix it, until the scope has not been defined more narrowly. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good point about Curt Mantius MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to be on Wikipedia for a few hours, but will make series changes tonight. And thanks for you comments of course. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "problem" is that the list includes both military and Party "adjutants". Certainly, Hitler both allowed certain adjutants and picked others as he saw fit; that was his prerogative. As to the list information, MisterBee already said the distinction of each should be noted in greater detail. Remember that most all of the information is from the articles of each person, so if there are "numerous factual errors" as to certain men listed then their own articles should be corrected, as well. Kierzek (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: thank you for your hard work with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in the lead, I think it would look a little less clutter if you changed the "(from DATE to DATE)" next to each name to an endash. For instance, "(1940–45)";

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the first two paragraphs of the Puttkamer section appear to be uncited, could you please add an inline citation to both (at least at the end of the paragraph)?

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the images, where possible should probably face into the article. For instance, Johannmeyer's photo, if possible should be moved to appear on the right, or rotated. Same same probably for Puttkamer;

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, should be moved to the right. Rotating is inaccurate, as people's faces are not completely symmetrical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain" - I think it would be wise to attribute this, as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to WHOEVER, Bormann believed he was serving the greater German cause by being Hitler's adjutant and did not use his position for personal gain". Please look for similar statements;

Tweaked. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there apparently was still some lingering query, I tweaked the sentence; the statement is based on what Bormann said and actions he made; I cited to two different historians. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the list would benefit from a bit more copy editing, as there are still some instances of typos and awkwardness. For instance, this is grammatically awkward: "Bormann was significantly different than his brother; tall, cultured, and was careful not to steal any "limelight" from Hitler, but was shown on most of the private home films of Hitler at the Berghöf which were made by Eva Braun". (specifically "tall, cultured, and was careful...")

Will look into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit done and cited. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in the Bruckner section "World War I" is used in the first paragaph, but in the second "First World War" is used. I think this should be consistent (either term would be fine, IMO, so long as you are consistent)

Never known this was problem, but will tweak it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in the Sources section, is there a publisher for the Bradley 1984 work?

Added. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• as this is a featured list candidate, is this source the best that could be used: [11]? Is it a WP:RS? Would it be better to replace it with something else? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website strikes me as A-Okay when it comes to reliability, but this is just an assumption. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bormann, I have re-worked the sentences. As for Puttkamer, I very recently added what citing I could find in both his main article and herein; I agree inline citing was and is in fact still needed for both; I hope someone else can add cites to each, accordingly. Jonas Vinther, make note of the above and see what you can do. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose this is not a list and the "List of" should be dropped from the title. 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Nergaal, it was decided during the GA-review that this article is a list, and not an article; the article was written as an article and nominated for GA-status, but failed it's nomination as it was declared a stand-alone list by the reviewer. This was later acknowledged by many other editors who worked on the article, including myself and Kierzek (the two main contributors to the article). Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Nergaal, but this has been determined to be a list by consensus at both the GAC and Milhist page. This is, admittedly, a very prosy list, but it is a list. With my delegate's hat on, I'm noting that I consider this oppose non-actionable except if there is a wider consensus that this is an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article should focus more on what it meant to be an adjutant to Hitler and what the work entailed. Right now it is not sufficiently explained what the adjutants did and parts of the article feels more like mixed general biographical details on the adjutants jumbled together, rather than information about their time as adjutants. At least one paragraph on this is needed in the lead. If you need more information on this matter a suggest that you consult "Managing Hitlers Court" in High Society in the Third Reich by Fabrice d' Almeida. There should also be plenty of information on this in several of the books listed in the source section of the article. I hope that you do not find this review to harsh, overall the article is otherwise very good.

MisterBee1966 make a similar comment earlier which compelled me to add "As adjutants to Hitler they had the unique opportunity to interfere in military matters and effect Hitler's way of thinking". If you think a whole paragraph is required, I will expand it as best I can. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sources

• The link to Library of Congress does not support the information given about Brückner "As a result, he was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, but was released after five months for good behavior".

The link support the information he was imprisoned as a result of the coup attempt. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that the information in the article is correct. But the Library of Congress link only says that he was one of the participants in the trial, it does not support the claim that "As a result, he was sentenced to a year and a half in prison, but was released after five months for good behavior". Please find an other source.P. S. Burton (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with previous reviewers that there most be a better source than paulfrasercollectibles.com for the information on the wound badge.

I agree there are better sources, but don't see any problems with paulfrasercollectibles.com; actually promised to find a better, but must have slipped my mind. Will fix that right away. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be good if information was taken from the works of historians rather than directly from the memoirs of Hitler's men. I therefore recommend that At the Heart of the Reich: The Secret Diary of Hitler's Army Adjutant, Tigers in the Mud: A Tiger Tank Commander Reports , Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary, Inside Hitler's Headquarters, 1939–45, and With Hitler to the End: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Valet are replaced by other sources. Per WP:PRIMARY I would also recommend against using "Minutes of a Conference on 23 May 1939" as they are written by Rudolf Schmundt and Hitler. The same goes for using the actual Hossbach Memorandum as a source.

It's worth noting that Tigers in the Mud: A Tiger Tank Commander Reports is used to support the claim the Willy got shot both his longs, but somehow survived ... sorry, but I don't see what's wrong in using the memoirs of a panzer ace? More importantly, statements from survives and veterans of World War II were heavily used anyways as sources by historians who published books in the 1940-80s. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY. Historians can definitely use primary sources, but we should as much as possible rely on secondary sources to avoid original research. This is a meticulous studied time period that historians have written extensively on, so it should not be hard to find good secondary sources. This is especially important as the cited memoirs were written after the war, by people who had been close to Hitler and in many cases were desperate to clear their names.P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adolf Hitler und die Geschichte der NSDAP: 1889 bis 1937 seems to be self published. How is this a reliable source?

The book is not self-published. As stated in the source template, it is published by Books on Demand, a book publishing company, which has offices in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France, Austria, Britain and Switzerland. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is self published. The author who is an amateur and not a historian has paid Books on Demand to print his book, please see http://paulbruppacher.ch/5/home-startseite and http://www.bod.de/autoren/buch-veroeffentlichen.html. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that he was rejected by at least six publishers before deciding to print the book on his own through Books On Demand, and this article clearly describes him as a "hobby historian". I do not doubt that the information in his books are mostly correct, he seems to have been very thorough, but a self published book by a hobby historian is nevertheless not a reliable source. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, replaced by a more suitable source. Should have checked more carefully. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Joos 2013 Alt-Berlin in Farbe is a picture book of Berlin. I would like to see a better source for the claim that Martin Bormann was behind the firing of Brückner.

Many picture books has images with related captions, but if you insist, I will look for a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at page 70 of the book. It is a picture of an office, with the caption "Working room of Hitler’s assistant Wilhelm Brückner who had already been fired by 1940. Apart from this, the Neue Reichskanzlei was often deserted during the war, since Hitler and his entire entourage stayed in the relevant headquarters on the fronts." I do not think that supports "Brückner was fired from his position on 18 October 1940, officially because of personal disputes with Hitler's then-housekeeper, Arthur Kannenberg. However, it has been circulated that the main reason for his sanction was the work of Martin Bormann, Hitler's private secretary."P. S. Burton (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Life Magazine cite is a dead url with no information on date of publication. More information is need for this cite to be verifiable for other users.

Sorry, but I can access the Life Magazine link just fine? And not all newspapers or magazines list publication dates on their websites. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by the link being dead is that it takes me directly to the frontpage of Life. Can you see the actual article? P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure that using The Hitler Book, written by the Soviet NKVD as a primary source is a good idea. See for example this review

The Hitler Book, compiled after the suicide of its subject, has its own strange history. Its origins lay in “Operation Myth,” conducted by the NKVD (after 1946 the MVD) for Joseph Stalin in order to confirm Hitler’s death. Soviet secret police repeatedly and sometimes brutally interrogated Hitler’s head-of-household Heinz Linge and Hitler’s personal adjutant Otto Günsche, neither of whom was released from captivity until 1955, and the latter of whom then vanished into an East German prison. The Soviets confirmed Hitler’s death in 1946, after which they further interrogated their unfortunate subjects to extract a more general analysis of the Führer. Stalin received the final report of 413 typed pages in December 1949. One copy of the original was made—at the behest of Nikita Khrushchev—and discovered in the Communist Party archives in Moscow by German historians Henrik Eberle and Matthias Uhl in 2003.

The Hitler Book represents the only known such detailed Soviet intelligence study of Hitler’s personality. [...] The Hitler Book is a valuable document indeed. Linge and Günsche, the editors show, had detailed memories. Their stories, moreover, were checked and crosschecked by Soviet intelligence officers. Their discussions of meetings and briefings for which they were the only sources are especially interesting.

Still, The Hitler Book must be read cautiously. As the editors note, the portrait that emerged from Operation Myth was in many ways the picture that Stalin’s subordinates thought their boss expected: The Hitler Book is as much a record of the Soviet understanding of Hitler, Nazism, and the war, as a record of the actual Hitler. Soviet collaboration with Hitler from 1939 to 1941 is not mentioned. Nor is the Final Solution

I will work to find a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The cite to the Daily report. East Europe by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service should specify date of publication and page number. It is not enough to just give the name of the publication.

Not all online sources has date of publication information, but will try to find a new source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an online source. The link only gives the name of the publication. The actual report is not online. At least not at the link given. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service published hundreds of news reports every year from 1974 to 1996. You do not even give the title of the specific report you are citing. That is like saying that the information can be found somewhere in the New York Times the last 20 years. P. S. Burton (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The isbn given for Bradley, Dermot (1984) appears to be incorrect. Furthermore the report appears to be written by the adjutant Rudolf Schmundt and only edited by Dermot Bradley, see here and de:Dermot Bradley#Publizistische Tätigkeit. Is the cited information taken from some sort of introduction to the report written by Bradley? If so that should be made clear in the citation. The article gives a English title, but from what I can tell the work is in German and has not been translated to English.
• The isbn given for Stumpf, Reinhardt (1998) is incorrect. Gerd R. Ueberschär is the editor and not the publisher (this error probably comes from a mistranslation of herausgeber). I believe Reinhard Stumpf: General der Infanterie Rudolf Schmundt; in: Gerd R. Ueberschär (Hrsg.): Hitlers militärische Elite. Vom Kriegsbeginn bis zum Weltkriegsende Bd. 2, Primus Verlag, Darmstadt 1998 is the correct work. The article gives a English title, but from what I can tell the work is in German and has not been translated.

Quite right, will fix that ASAP. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While reliable, Rees 2012 is not a very good source, as it is very hard for other users to verify a documentary series that is three hours long. It would be preferable if at least the episode could be given, and even better if a time could be specified using template:Cite AV media. On the other hand, it should not be hard to find a more accessible written source for the cited information that "Even though Hitler did not hold soldiers with aristocratic backgrounds in high regard, Below was one of the few members of Hitler's entourage that was with Hitler throughout the whole war and up to the dictator's suicide in April 1945."

The way I see, if it's acceptable as a reliable source, but better sources exist, I would categorize find those better sources as being of secondary importance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normaly this would not be a problem and I would have trusted that the information is given somewhere in those documentaries, but since I have found several instances where information in the article is not backed up by the sources, I will not trust this cite to be correct without a time or at least an episode number. Not in a featured list. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The information given on Willy Johannmeyer is not supported by the cited article in the Spectator. The only description the article gives of Johannmeyer is "a tough veteran of the Eastern Front" which does not support "He embarked on a military career and spent most of the mid and late 1930s commanding infantry regiments. He took part in the invasion of France, leading regiments and companies. Shortly before the Invasion of the Soviet Union, he was transferred to Army Group North and fought mainly on the Leningrad front".

Will work to find better sources. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tyson, Joseph (2010). The Surreal Reich is self-published. What makes this a reliable source?

I don't regard self-published work as reliable; will find a better source. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand your comment to MisterBee1966 above correctly, the information have been added by copying from the various articles on the adjutants on Wikipedia, rather than you personally consulting the sources. I think that is the origin of the many problems listed above. Therefore I will oppose until the sources have been improved. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments P. S. Burton. I have responded to most of them and will make changes to the article accordingly tomorrow (as it's very late in my end of the world right now). I hope that the future corrections and changes will persuade you to change your oppose vote to a support vote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The information regarding Claus von Stauffenberg's attempted to assassinate Hitler does not appear to be given at pp. 27–30 in Shirer 1960, perhaps the wrong page numbers are cited. From what I can tell from the preview at Google Books there is, however, a subchapter on the plot to kill Hitler towards the end of the book.P. S. Burton (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, if you want to withdraw the nomination, please state so. Only an FLC delegate can close the discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I would like to withdraw the nomination out of the recent article/list changes. Thanks, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 09:36, 17 March 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 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 archived by Crisco 1492 09:14, 17 March 2015 [12].

---

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. All attractions and shows at the Universal Studios Orlando resort are listed in the list.--Dom497 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: No DAB links, no dead links Files check out in terms of copyright Is there a reason "Attractions" is capitalized in the title? That's a mistake on my part. Fixed now.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] The "Refs" column should not be sortable Done.--Dom497 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Link "dark ride" and "4D" consistantly throughout the "Type/Model" section; the "Type/Model" section should not use a slash per MOS:SLASH. Don't you think that's overkill of linking?--Dom497 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] No. If I sort by "Park", neither the first 4D ride I reach nor the first dark ride I reach are linked. Link throughout the table. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Use ndashs, not hyphens, where appropriate in the "Ride" and "Location" sections Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] The height requirement really should have a conversion to cm This wasn't an issue in two other FL's I have: List of Canada's Wonderland attractions and List of Kings Island attractions.--Dom497 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Add the metric conversion. Use Template:Ntsc to retain sortability. Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Eventually, Universal filled a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, a heavily themed attraction that was based off the film awkward wording; do we need "heavily themed" here? I reworded it. Better? One of the most notable additions "most notable" reads like WP:EDITORIALIZING I replaced it with "largest". Is that better?--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] How do you define "largest"? By size, income, visitors, what? Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Tried again. Better?--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Again, "most major additions" is vague and tell me anything; you can't substitute an adjective and fix the problem. How do you define "major"? By income, size, how? Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Seattle: 3rd time the charm?--Dom497 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] The table doesn't display the scope row tags properly; change the "|" to a "!" before the "scope="row"" tag Doesn't work (see the article revision history).--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] It absolutely does. Now, finish the table, and add a plainrowheaders to the table's "class". Seattle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorry but can you please explain what the purpose of the exclamation mark is? Based off your demonstration it appears to create "row headers" which I don't see a purpose for in this type of table. (I'm not super familiar with how tables work...I just use a general template) --Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] OK. Scope row tags are used to "help screen readers render header information about data cells", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. Seattle (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Dom497: I would like for you to add these yet. Seattle (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Seattle: Done.--Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] In the references, New York Times should be The New York Times: the article is in its title Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ensure all newspapers' titles are italicized Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Reference 5 (Strother, Susan) was archived on October 17, not October 16 Sorry, in my time zone it was still the 16th!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Same with reference 3 (Oliver, Mike), though Strother, Susan is also listed as an author in the reference. Make sure all archived links reflect the appropriate date of archival Same as above!--Dom497 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Use ndashes where appropriate in the references. Seattle (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.--Dom497 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Seattle: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Seattle: Hey Seattle. You still around?--Dom497 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2015 (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) 09:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]