Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2013

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

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 13:04, 19 January 2014 [1].

Nominator(s):  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Drama Series, Outstanding Drama Series Directing Team in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. , in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know all the others have been promoted in the same state as this one, but I don't think a bare table of winners and nominees is really featured material. Sure, the daytime Emmys don't get much coverage, but a minimal amount of analysis of the award would be appreciated. Besides the top winners, you could also include statistics for the shows with the most nominations, streaks, and award history. I see sources include the actual names of the head writer and other people who are members of the writing teams; why are they not mentioned at all? The award goes to the people, not just the show, so this article is seriously lacking. Are there any people who have won several times? Why did 2003 have seven nominations, yet 1986 to 1990 had uncontested winners? As I said before, info about the statuette is not relevant here. This article is about the Writing Team award, not who the statue was modelled after or its dimensions. In the lead, it should say it wasn't given out from 1982 to 1985. Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, I am only going to add the names of the writers and the table of statics of the nominations. I am not going to remove the statuette information becuase I think it is needed and I won't remove it just because you don't like it. Plus, if more people did agreee with this, I would but it's only you. Finnally, you understand that daytime emmys do not get much coverage. If you don't agree with my doing, I suggest leaving the review and take the oppose with you like it never happen. I am dead serious.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ″Why did 2003 have seven nominations, yet 1986 to 1990 had uncontested winners?″ I don't know, the sources says that happen however does not give the reasons. What am I suppose to do?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for 1986-1990 is just the list of all winners. Was there really only one nominee, or could you just not find the rest of them? If not that's a major omission and I will not retract my oppose. Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, I don't know, again there was no sources for the nominees with the exception of IMDB, but this is not really considered a reliable sources for awards. Therefore, that why there is no nominees beetween 1986 to 1990.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13th Daytime Emmy Awards through 17th Daytime Emmy Awards all show there were indeed multiple nominations for those years, though only with a general link to the IMBD listing. This version before you made the table included all the writers' names, as well as the nominees for these years. I agree that IMDB is not an RS, but if this information is just going to be left out, remind me again, why should this be a featured list? Reywas92^Talk 11:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed from that old version that the award was indeed given out from 1982 to 1985, with Guiding Light, Ryan's Hope (x2) and All My Children winning! It seems that the Soapcentral source and the statement in the lead are wrong. Reywas92^Talk 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, Are you telling me that version with no sources surpasses the ones with sources? That is wrong not soapcentral. Soapcentral is more reliable then IMDB therefore I am going with SC. I would of add the nominees if they were sources for them but there is not therefore we can infer that they were no nominees. You pratically telling me to add information that has no sources for them and remove the ones that do have sources. That wrong.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. IMDB might not be preferred, but I highly doubt 1986-1990 [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] are just totally making up the other nominees, and that 1982-1985 [7], [8], [9], and [10] completely fabricated the fact that an award for "Outstanding Writing for a Daytime Drama Series" was indeed given. Soapcentral as cited is wrong in its omission of those four years, and to quote you, I am dead serious. That page also incorrectly omits 1980 and 1981, but you managed to find other information about them, so why are you trusting it? Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, If you have not notice Wikipedia and IMDB both have users registered to edit, therefore neither would be reliable without sources. SC does not, its a reporter that went to the DAYTIME EMMYS since 1999 and I highly doubt he is just totally making up the other nominees and that they were an award for "Outstanding Writing for a Daytime Drama Series" was not indeed given for those years. I am not going to add any information that does not have sources. Therefore, I am sticking with SC.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the information on IMDB about the writing award those years is just made up? I don't care that SC has sent a reporter since 1999, it's 1981-1985 that they clearly didn't. Just a couple minutes of Googling got me this newspaper article from 1985 that says All My Children won that year, while this article and this article from 1983 confirm that Ryan's Hope won for writing that year, so I'm pretty damn sure the award was given and SC's list is incomplete. These articles also provide all the nominees' names that Soapcentral overlooked: [11][12][13][14][15]. Therefore, I am sticking with Strong Oppose if you are going to fail to try to make a complete list, per criterion 3a. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To directors and delegates, I withdraw this nomination. Also,@Reywas92: I do not want you anywhere near my nominations in the future even If I am in desperate need of them. Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you found all those sources and facts you can go right ahead a work on this article with the new informations. Since you have proven, you're a better editor. (sarcasm)  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. The article is pretty close; it is that unreasonable to expect a complete list? Reywas92^Talk 06:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 23:05, 31 October 2013 [16].

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is good for FL. —Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose looks pretty horrific to me and takes a day-and-a-half to load.

• Tables need to meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
• A key is needed, what is (F), (Pro-Admin) etc?
• I would suppress the Table of Contents. Too many arbitrary sections.
• "1928–1971" etc check WP:YEAR.
• I see not one single in-line reference. How odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think all the House delegations should be lumped into one table, as in United States congressional delegations from Iowa, or is it better to have them split up into sections so there's less left-to-right scrolling? —Designate (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I disagree that the sections are "arbitrary": they are split up by redistricting, which is the obvious way to section the article (if we are to have sections). Finding out Massachusetts' delegation in 1865, for example, is an entirely plausible use case for this article and I see no reason to suppress the TOC. —Designate (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Make the sections just like on United States congressional delegations from Utah and United States congressional delegations from Indiana, keep the TOC, and I think you'll be fine. Rejectwater (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to making big changes, but combining all these tables is a lot of work without any clear benefit. What's the advantage of having one huge table instead of 20 small ones? You think we're better off without linking to the Census and pointing out the changes in each redistricting? District 8 in 1813 has nothing to do with District 8 in 1913, so it's not like there's any continuity to preserve. What you propose would 1) remove a lot of useful information and 2) would crush the later tables into half the existing width. What am I getting for that? I don't think the two existing FLs are automatically the standard just because they were nominated already. —Designate (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As you have said, it's a proposal. In answer to your questions/comments: a)No more arbitrary sections. Easier to to read. Consolidates things like links to districts which are currently repeated over and over again. b)Yes. The article isn't about the Census and/or redistricting. A few sentences can explain those issues well enough for the purposes of this list. c)Massachusetts's 8th congressional district called and it would like to have a word. 1) The links to the census are not necessary. I don't see what other information would be lost. 2) I don't see width as necessarily being an issue. d) Yet we know that they are written in an accepted form and what we have here has already been described as "horrific". Rejectwater (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I accept that reasoning. I want to keep a clear division to indicate redistricting, though. This is an article on Congressional delegations—redistricting is inextricable from the topic. I don't want to imply that the 4th district in 1993 was the 4th district in 2013 and that the 10th district just disappeared into the sea. Part of the reason Congressmen resign (e.g. Barney Frank) is because the shape of their district got out of their control. Even if we don't go into those kinds of interpretations, we need to make the data available so other people can. —Designate (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No image alts. See WP:ALT.
• Tiny lead and no other prose for a topic that dates back over 200 years.
• Check out United States congressional delegations from Utah and United States congressional delegations from Indiana, both Featured Lists, for an idea of the quality level you are shooting for. Indiana is probably a better example due to a similar number of districts. Note that they were promoted three and four years ago and keep in mind standards evolve over time.
• Tables have to comply with MOS:DTT (this is basically the same as TRM's comment about ACCESS)
• Concur also on TRM comment about the references. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 23:01, 31 October 2013 [17].

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has a similar quality to other lists of awards recipients, recently approved as featured lists. Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Just add the something worth mentioning. However, overall great job on meeting the criteria! Do not see further problems.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Although I would maybe suggest using a photo of one of the winners with a caption. Other than that it looks fine.

---Birdienest81 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments, leaning Oppose

• Although the organization that awards has Argentina in the name, you never actually say that the award is for shows/people in Argentina
• "is given to honor an individual with an outstanding trajectory" - a trajectory in what? Being shot out of a cannon?
• "It was first awarded at the Martín Fierro Awards ceremony for 1991, held in 1992 and is" - grammatically suspect; perhaps "It was first awarded... in 1992 for works from 1991.", and stick the description of what the award is for in a sentence by itself beforehand.
• In the infobox you say it was first awarded in 1991, but it was actually first awarded in 1992, for contributions in 1991.
• "APTRA described the rationale as "the best among the best"" - the rationale for what? Maybe "According to the APTRA, the purpose of the award is to honor "the best among the best"".
• "No recipient received the award twice" - wrong tense
• "Nicolás Repetto, TV host of Fax, received a personal one in the 1999 ceremony" - but he didn't, he got it in the 2000 ceremony.
• Fax is a redirect link everywhere you use it.
• The sorting is off for the winners column- should sort people by their last name, not first name - see the sortname template
• Not sure for Spanish, but for English "The Thirteen" would sort under Thirteen, not The, so I think El Trece should sort under Trece, not El.
• The references column shouldn't be sortable.
• Given its small size and connection to these awards, I feel that the Platinum awards should also be on this page, not on a separate one.
• Since this is just one category of the Fierro awards, I would expect at least a sentence or two saying what the Martín Fierro Awards are, and mentioning that there are other categories. The lead is making it sound like this is the only award given at the ceremony by APTRA, and that's not true at all.

--PresN 17:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done Cambalachero (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As promised, I will take a look at this list today. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken a look at the list and apart from TRM's comments below, nothing seems to be in the way of its promotion. I will go ahead and support taking Rambling's comments as resolved. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and really disappointed to see supports from those above. From a quick look:

• Is it "Golden Martín Fierro award" or "Golden Martín Fierro Award"?
• Why isn't Martín Fierro Awards linked in the lead?
• What is an "outstanding trajectory"? A missile may have this. I'm not sure about a human.
• "described the rationale as" no, the rationale was, not described as. Needs a copyedit.
• "but there was no Platinum award for the 2013 ceremony" why not?
• What's a "telenovela"?
• "and the telenovela Graduados is the latest one, for the 2012 productions" ->"and, as of 2013, the telenovela Graduados is the most recent."
• "but Nicolás Repetto, TV host" why do you need TV here?
• "No recipient received" -> "Nobody has received"
• "lead actors of different works of fiction" is this important?
• "The ceremonies have no nominees for the Golden award, which is announced at the end, once all the regular awards have been received" needs copyedit work.
• References col could just be Ref and should be centrally aligned.
• Table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS requirements for row and col scopes.
• "Production or person" column doesn't sort correctly.
• "Susana Giménez " has a diacritic.
• Any English language sources?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them done, but I skip several ones. Martín Fierro Awards is linked in the lead. Nobody ever said why there was no platinum award this year, but neither it was mentioned to be cancelled; the only info available is that there wasn't such award, and so says here. A Telenovela is a television genre, perhaps you are not familiar with it because it's a Latin American thing. Nicolás Repetto is describd as a TV host because the awards are not only for TV. Similarily, I use "no recipient" instead of "nobody" because the award can be for either a person or a production. "Ref" may be acceptable wiki slang, but article content should have actual words. The "Production or person" does sort correctly: have in mind that people are sorted by their last name. And yes, Susana Giménez and several others have diacritics, their names are written that way. Cambalachero (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should link the Awards on the first instance. The point of me asking what a Telenovela is means that you should link it, it's a term many English speakers will not be familiar with. "No recipient received" is repetitive prose and should be adjusted. If Gimenez has a diacritic, make sure it's used every time. Please implement MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked all the genres, but which is the problem with DTT? The tables have captions, there are no headers inside the tables, they don't use images or color, there are no nested tables... Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Row and col scopes are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telenovela still not linked, "Networks with most awards" table is incorrect, image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop, what's a "Rotating cast"? And as this is English Wikipedia, why not use some English language sources, like Reuters, Buenos Aires Herald etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telenovela is already linked at the most natural place, the "genre or occupation" field. A "rotating cast" means that there was no steady cast, each episode was made with a new cast; neither the peer review nor the previous reviews saw a problem with it. See here, "Rotate" means "to replace (a person, troops, etc.) by another or others, usually according to a schedule or plan". Apply that meaning to a cast, and you get the idea. As for sources, let me quote Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available" (bolded parts by me). The mere use of non-English sources is not in itself a problem, and most sources come from La Nación, which is a newspaper of record. As far as I know, Reuters and Buenos Aires Herald are not newspapers of record; I don't think I should switch to a lower-quality source only because of the language. Do you have any concern about the actual content of the sources? Cambalachero (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telenovela should be linked in the lead so non-Spanish TV fans understand what it means. I've never heard of a "rotating cast", I have no comment on other reviews. You don't believe Reuters to be of record? How odd. As for the existing sources, I couldn't comment as I don't speak Spanish well enough. You do vary the way you present "La Nación" though, sometimes italics, sometimes not. I have no idea of the reliability of a source simply called "Página", nor "Clarín" nor "Los Andes". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems a bit pointless. None of the edits I make seem to suit you well, each time I fix something you simply ignore the fixes and made up something else to continue opposing. The "on it goes" edit summary seems to confirm the hostile attitude. If I answer about the newspapers of records, then "on and on it will go", and I'm not interested in never-ending discussions Cambalachero (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm incredibly disappointed by the supports that seemed to fly in with the list being in such a poor state. It needed (and perhaps still needs) a serious copyedit from a native English speaker. It needs to address concerns over terms that aren't common to English speakers. It needs to address the fact that few of the sources are commonly known to English speakers. Sorry if you consider my comments to be "never-ending discussions". Perhaps FLC isn't the right place for you if you don't want to receive critiques of "your" work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Oppose This needs a damned good copy edit to get it into shape

• "an Argentine individual" -> an Argentinian

• I'm not sure I agree with the essay, especially given that the Oxford English Dictionary list both "Argentine" and "Argentinian" as being a native or inhabitant of Argentina. "an Argentine individual" is an inelegantly phrased piece of writing and jars.

• "unrelated to the regular ones, distributed in categories": -> which are distributed…
• "telenovela". Never heard of this before: needs either an explanation, a wikilink, or a link to the wiktionary
• "Graduados": needs to be italicised
• "No recipient received the award twice": -> No recipient has received
• "TV host of Fax": doesn't need the "TV"
• "received a personal one in the ceremony for works from 1999": needs re-working to flow better
• Not sure why we need the list of winners in the lead
• "an outstanding trajectory": a missile or career may have one of these: people do not.
• "References" can be "Refs", or {{Tooltip|Refs.|Reference}}, if you want to be flash
• Sorting on the table doesn't work properly: it should sort on the surname of the first listed person
• You need to be consistent on listing format: "Carla Peterson and Luciano Castro" and "Enrique Macaya Márquez, Marcelo Araujo" are different.

May be best if you ask a third party for a good copy edit on this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done, with a few exceptions: For the demonym, see WP:NOTARGENTINIAN. If I make reference to Repetto simply as a "host", I'm sure I will be frowned upon the multiple possible meanings of the word: TV host, radio host, someone with visitors at home, a landlord, a victim of a parasite... The list of selected winners in the lead simply follows the standard I have seen in similar lists promoted recently. The sorting of the table has been mentioned before, and I have already said that it works: have in mind that it is a table with both names of people and TV programs (and, if this causes the confusion, "Santo" is indeed the name and "Biasatti" the surname, not the other way, despite the existence of other people with "Santo" or "Santos" as a surname). For references, my preferred style is to use actual words. Cambalachero (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. Repetto: not really: you've already said Fax is a television programme, so listing him as "host" makes perfect sense, especially in a list abaout a television award. "TV host of Fax" is just bad English and suggests that there are other formats of Fax - a radio version and a stage version, for example.
• I am confused by the sorting in the "Starring" column and don't know why you won't sort on the surname, which is the common practice at FLC
• "Refs" is entirely valid - the Oxford English Dictionary both use the term throughout and list it as an acceptable term
• One more: 1997 Tinelli's occupation needs to be formatted in the same way as the other. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 23:01, 31 October 2013 [18].

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album is an honor presented annually by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences at the Latin Grammy Awards. According to the category description guide for the 2012 Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental alternative albums. It is awarded to solo artists, duos or groups. — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Looks good! Just two very minor things:
  • Terra Networks/Telefónica should first be wikilinked in ref 2 (not 6)
  • Wikilink Los Angeles Times (Tribune Company) in ref 7

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Sorry for the late response time (both Hahc and I haven't been that active recently), but the issues have now been resolved. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As far as I have noticed, it is acceptable to open the table sections with a paragraph that explains the content of the table (meaning of each column, clarifications, etc.) It may be better to do that, than using notes for it. Everything else seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Note for directors: My time in internet is limited lately, so if this detail is fixed, or Hahc21 provids a sound reason to keep it this way, feel free to count me as a "support" if I did not return to do so myself Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, we mostly don't do that on Latin Grammy lists because the notes are just like redundant explanations of the headers. I have created explanatory paragraphs for other lists like List of Crystal Dynamics video games, but I believe that it is not necessary here. Users can understand the table as-is, and the notes are just a formality. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all nice and tidy and well put together. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro! — Status (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the list should be updated, in order to include the 2013 nominees. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. We hadn't realized the 2013 nominees were released. We will get on that within the next couple of days. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "alternative albums containing at least 51% of newly recorded material" -> I don't believe the "of" is correct here, and this should simply read "51% newly recorded". This applies to the lead and the infobox.
• "Two-time winner Julieta Venegas, the first and so far only performer to do so." -> Given that the first clause doesn't contain an active verb, "to do so" isn't right here. Alternative constructions might be "Two-time winner Julieta Venegas, the first and so far only performer to win multiple times" or "Julieta Venegas has won two awards, the first and so far only performer to do so".
• "Mexican artists have received this award more than any other nationality thought it has also been presented to artists originating from Colombia, the United States, and Venezuela" -> "thought" should be "though", and I would recommend either a comma or a dash to break up this sentence after "nationality".
• Similarly, the following sentence ("The award was first earned...") could do with a comma or two as it seems very run-on.
• "Mexican performer Julieta Venegas is the only artist to have won this category more than once" -> If I'm not mistaken, you win in a category.
• I would consider merging the last two sentences of the lead, having it read as "Mexican performer Julieta Venegas is the only artist to have won in this category more than once, while Argentine band Babasónicos hold the record for most nominations, with four." This is wholly optional though.
• Given the sortable nature of the table, I would probably link entries at each mention in the table, as the opening order is not necessarily the reading order; as I see it this applies only to the second mention of "Carla Morrison" and could probably just be an oversight.

  The 2013 nominees still need to be added as well; I expect the general ref to be updated when this happens too. We're quite close to the November 21 date for the actual announcement but if the nominees are listed it's simply housekeeping to add the winner and update any counts at that stage. GRAPPLE X 02:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grapple X: My gosh... We have been so busy we completely forgot about this FLC. We will get to the issues this weekend. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hahc21: & @Status: I added the 2013 recipients for you guys. Erick (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I fixed a brief typo in the introductory paragraphs. I changed what read as 'thought' to 'though' for comprehensiveness. Additionally, is the table able to be updated? I searched for for the 56th Annual GRAMMY Awards nominees, and found that the nominees have been updated. I was looking under the ' BEST LATIN ROCK, URBAN OR ALTERNATIVE ALBUM' category. This information can be found here: ^[1] This is my first time contributing to a discussion, so please let me know if there is anything I can do better for next time! - Mewhho18 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up. Anyways, this list deals with the Alternative Music from the Latin Grammys, not the regular Grammys. Erick (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page a second time for featured list because I am seeking a standard that other "List of People from..." pages can aspire to. These types of pages are all over the place and I think the work put into this particular list is exemplary. I have done a lot of the work myself and have previously taken the list through Peer Review, and an earlier failed Featured List Nomination. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jodie25 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it forms a comprehensive and complete account of all AFC Wimbledon seasons to date Jodie25 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a justifiably reason for the table not to be sortable? Almost all other recent examples of FL "List of XXX seasons" for football teams are sortable, and while it would take a fair amount of technical fiddling, I can't really see why this list wouldn't be? Harrias ^talk 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Has User:Jodie25 addressed the above comments? If so, please make a note accordingly, and then I may be tempted to make a review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of comments have been addressed, with only improving the references to be done which will be completed by the end of the weekend. As for the suggestion that the table should be sortable, I am afraid that I would not know how to go about doing this. In any case, this appears not to be essential as the featured List of Gillingham F.C. seasons suggests. kind regards, Jodie25 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you could respond inline to the comments made so the rest of us know how it's going. Regarding other lists, it may be that consensus has changed since it was made a featured list, so be aware of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have made all of the changes which you suggested, except the one which stated that the table should be made sortable. I have attempted it but am afraid that I lack the technical knowledge to be able to make the change successfully. However, as all other changes have been made I hope you will be able to give a positive review. with kind regards, --Jodie25 (Jodie25) 23:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead image should be cropped to remove that brick wall from the right-hand side.
• Spell out FA before using the abbreviation.
• "for their first season" -> "that season".
• "The Dons have also..." not really encyclopedic, and actually confusing to people who don't know who the Dons are.
• What is "senior football"? How does a non-expert understand the significance of this?
• "by some distance." be precise.
• " to make it into the " be more encyclopedic, so "to be promoted into" or similar.
• Is the football symbol you use for "goals" accessible?
• Why is Round 1 of the FA Trophy in the 04/05 season worthy of a link while the 6th round of the FA Vase in the 03/04 season not?
• Prelim in the key, Prelim. in the table.
• "Average Home Attendance" no need for the overcapitalisation.
• " who, it transpired, had " no need for "it transpired"
• You don't need AFC Wimbledon as a category.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): 五代 (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the article from an unreferenced "ghosts" list to the current state. I believe it meets the criteria for an FL now, so I am nominating it. Thank you, 五代 (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

Sourcing seems reliable. For future reviewers, Web-Japan is backed up by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs so I think that's reliable. I have issues with the article though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe the prose is strong enough to meet the criteria. I can't really pinpoint why though.

The prose was copyedited by a member of the GOCE, but if you think it's still not FL level, I'll ask someone else to take a look at it.

• Only the first two episodes have their airdates sourced.

Added sources.

• Lead is structured weakly. First paragraph talks about what the series is. Second paragraph covers airdates and release dates. Third paragraph includes Animax's release, the episode that was snubbed in both releases, and theme songs. The third paragraph seems to be jumping around.

I have rearranged the lead and the prose has been slightly copyedited.

• Episode 10 has two summaries?

Merged the two summaries.

Currently, I am neutral to this list leaning towards oppose. If other reviewers disagree with what I pointed out, consider my arguments null. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments DragonZero. 五代 (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been too long. You should notify the wikiproject for views. I'll go through the grammar again when I can. You should add in a media release section to expand the broadness in coverage. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am thinking of withdrawing this nomination. My exams are coming up, so I think I won't be able to keep an eye on this. I will nominate it later. Thanks DragonZero. ごだい (会話) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Shuttle Orbiter was the orbital spacecraft of the Space Shuttle program operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the space agency of the United States. The orbiter was a reusable winged "space-plane", a mixture of rockets, spacecraft, and aircraft. A total of six Orbiters were built for flight, and all were built by Rockwell International. The first Orbiter to fly, Enterprise, took its maiden voyage in 1977. The service life of the Space Shuttle was extended several times until 2011 when it was finally retired. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it's nice, but I can't see why it can't be merged back to Space Shuttle Orbiter since most of the prose would be repeated, and the main article is hardly supersized. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but I sort of disagree. Were Space Shuttle Orbiter be at GA or FA level, there would definitely not be space for this table in there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they're not, and until such a time, there's no reason why this couldn't be merged into the "Fleet" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer not to merge it, but I see your point. I am withdrawing this for the time being. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:26, 29 September 2013 (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.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been extensively worked for the past year, using List of One Piece characters as a model. Before I edited this page, it looked a little messy, but thanks to the efforts of editors like User:AngusWOOF, User:Immblueversion and myself, we managed to help improve the list using the aforementioned One Piece character list, as well as the Naruto character list. I think it's suitable enough to cover all of the aspects here on Wikipedia, such as the reception, and chapter references. Therefore, I think it meets the FL standards. I am open to suggestions anyone has to improve this list. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This nomination remained untranscluded until 21:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC). Goodraise 21:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

• I don't remember the reason why, but the amazon links need to be trimmed down. Ex: http://www.amazon.com/FAIRY-TAIL-GE6312-KEYART-NOTEBOOK/dp/B007N54QVE/ref=sr_1_13?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1340127702&sr=1-13&keywords=%22Fairy+Tail%22 becomes http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007N54QVE/ I plan on going over this list more thoroughly later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Going through the sourcing now. Ref 4 is supposed to backup the statement "Mashima based the titular guild on a local bar he was visiting at the time.". However the source states the bar helped him conceive the series, not the guild or characters.
• Why is Fairy Tail capitalized in the volume references?
• The statement about Todd Haberkorn should be more precise. I was under the impression the author was worried that Todd would not meet up to standards.
• I'm concerned about the focus in the conception and reception section. These seem to focus mostly on individual characters; the Naruto character list was more broad and focused on all the characters in general. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and remove immediately nominator is indef-blocked as a result of a self-request. Suggest this is quick-failed unless someone else is prepared to co-nominate, no point in wasting the community's precious time making comments which won't be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can co-nominate, or help address concerns, although I've never done one of those before. ;) -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could also co-nominate, but there are some sections of the article I think could and should be rewritten first. I will address my concerns with AngusWOOF. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if I see you as nominators above in the nominee section, and I see you addressing issues, I'll reconsider my oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC), Ratemonth 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC), Nicklegends 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following close on the heels of the promotion of List of Regular Show episodes, I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the requirements. Modeled after the aforementioned article and List of The X-Files episodes, this list features all of the episodes of Adventure Time that have aired, complete with references for production codes and Nielsen Ratings (where available). In addition, the article features a lede that has been tailored to give a brief summary of the article, as well as other information about the series. I feel it is ready for this promotion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment seems to be subject to an edit war at the moment, any ideas why or if this can be resolved? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a random vandal who keeps deleting information for no reason. The page now has pending semi-protection.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this list is superior to similar lists of country subdivisions in several aspects. It is well organized and informative and I think it meets the FL criteria. Felipe Menegaz 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting list but I almost want to see the global index for Brazil in the middle of the table (asides from the average one at the bottom). Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I didn't add it to the list is that the figures for Brazil on the local report (the average) are different from the global report. So I decided to just mention the global index on the lead, while leaving a footnote explaining the discrepancy. Felipe Menegaz 06:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good list well presented. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• you should clarify. When you say that in 1991, Piaul's HDI was comparable to Bangladesh, is it the Bangladesh HDI of 1991 or today?—indopug (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was compared to the 1990 figures provided by the 2013 Human Development Report. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment, this list appears to be a significant distance from being featured:

• The separate "Rank" table doesn't line up with the main table, rendering it useless.
  • In my browser it lines up perfectly, but I made little adjustments. Could you confirm if it is still not lined-up? Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still doesn't line up for me. Harrias ^talk 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rank should be one column of the whole table, not a separate table. You can make that one column non-sortable.-Godot13 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. It's done. Felipe Menegaz 01:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The table uses a flag without the name of the country, in contravention of MOS:FLAG, and tool-tips to provide information, in contravention of MOS:ACCESS.

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The three maps, and all of the flags are lacking alt text, per WP:ALT.

See below. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:NUM, use commas, not periods to group digits in large number (5,565 Brazilian municipalities, rather than 5.565 Brazilian municipalities, for example.)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How the comparable country selected? Harrias ^talk 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were so many problems and controversy regarding the comparison with countries, I decided to remove it. Tool-tips were used due to width issues. The comparison was made in the selected years according to the 2013 Human Development Report, which provides updated numbers for a historical series beginning in 1980. The countries with the closest HDI value to the Federative unit in case was displayed. Felipe Menegaz 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk · contribs), CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs), and Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

One day after reading the List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, I noticed we did not have an article for the off-season tropical cyclones in the EPAC (East Pacific) basin. Therefore, I decided to create this article in December 2010, when Tropical Storm Omeka was active. This is also the last article needed to be upgraded before the off-season Pacific hurricanes can become a good topic. Because of improvements by myself and several other editors, I believe this article should be considered a Featured List. I will be co-noming this with two other editors – CycloneIsaac and YE. Finally, I would like to note that this will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wonderful piece of list. Upon the formation of Tropical Storm Omeka, GC was bored one day and decided to create a sandbox, little did he know it would turn out to be on FLC today. Therefore, Hink was bored and started checking user cotribs, and the two later did a collab; however, after a few edits my me in January, it was largely ignored before being moved to the mainspace in October, playing a small role in my WP:CUP epic run to the bronze medal in 2011. Then, my new friend, Cy10 discovered this listed and dabbed it with edit. Now, all three of us, here we are today. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Omekas dates need tweaking to reflect the heavily delayed Tropical Cyclone Report issued on it by the CPHC.

• Should the dates start when the subtropical depression developed or when it crossed the International Dateline?--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it the latter. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a better source than the whole of the Eastern Pacific Database to prove that Omeka is indeed the latest TC in the EPAC.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you list the correct publisher for the Monthly Weather Review journals you cite, it should be the USWB and not AMS.

I think it would be better if you were too put 01E or One-E in rather than just #1.

• The latter would probably be better.--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using advisories to prove that Aletta 2012 existed and not the TCR.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are not told what category the TC's are is the line "The category refers to the intensity on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale; TS stands for tropical storm, TD for tropical depression, and SS for subtropical cyclone" and the colours really needed?. If so please either add the categories back in and add the space needed between subtropical cyclone.

Eventually fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more comments later.Jason Rees (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheAustinMan

Perhaps you should link tropical cyclone and subtropical cyclone in the lead, this is pretty common with WP:WPTC lists and shouldn't be a problem here.

• This was fixed by either CycloneIsaac or YE.--12george1 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cy10 fixed this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per a press release from the NOAA, the region and tropical cyclone basin defined as the "East Pacific" stretches from North America westward to 140W, and is strictly north of the equator. Latin America, as stated in the lead, includes South America, but the official definition of the basin does not include areas south of the equator, so this would be confusing.

Changed to north. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Dateline does not strictly follow longitudinal paths in the coordinate system, so it curves around 180W to include some islands and countries. It only roughly follows the 180th meridian, so it's either the International Dateline or 180W as the CPAC's western boundary, not both.

I honeslty don't know here. It's not a major issues probs, it's not like Alaska gets cyclones. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still incorrect. They aren't the same line, so it's one or the other, not both. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the dateline IIRC, fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph, after the first reference, does not appear anywhere in the rest of the article and is unsourced. Where did you get that 99% of Pacific hurricanes form during the season limits, for example?

Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The strongest hurricane between December to May was Hurricane Ekeka in 1992, which reached winds of 115 miles per hour (185 km/h). " → Since you use 'between' it should be 'December and May', not 'December to May'. You should also link Hurricane Ekeka, just like you did with Nina.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The off-season represents about 1% of the storm recorded in the Pacific." → Make 'storm' plural.

Done.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...reports seven off-season storms during the period 1900–1952..." → It's the period of 1900–1952.

Done.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...SS for subtropical cyclone." → This does not appear on the chart nor does it appear in the article itself, so I don't know why this is here.

Removed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Nina in 1957 prompted evacuations and caused $100,000 (1957 USD) in damage." → Thre words. ^{[to whom?] [where?]}

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The unnamed tropical storm of 1996 killed two people when it sank a trimaran called the Solar Wind." → You should be specific and state that it was 'assumed' to have killed two people, since you say that in the data table.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Of all cyclones during the off-season, the "Froc Cyclone" lasted longest;^{(References redacted)} though reliable records indicate that Hurricane Alma in 1990 had the longest duration." → The way you word this sentence makes it seem like reliable records dispute that the Froc Cyclone lasted longest. You should indicate that Hurricane Alma had the longest duration after the inception of the Pacific HURDAT.

Reworded.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The year with the most off-season storms was tied between 1904 and 1992..." → These seasons should be linked if possible.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, I will likely support when these qualms are fixed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 17:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One issue I forgot to make note of. The table does not comply with WP:ACCESS for one reason in particular – a screen reader would not be able to tell the intensity-classification of a storm via the table alone. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAustinMan and Jason Rees: It's been thirty days and you didn't give a comment since. Are you still doing the review?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments (since I have a hurricane-related FLC up).

• The intro shouldn't say it's a list. Wikipedia isn't meant to be self-referential. I'd personally say "There have been X tropical cyclones" outside of the currently defined hurricane season.
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you mention subtropical cyclones in the lede?
  • I don't season any reason not to. Omeka had a subtropical origin. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't say as such though. If you're including subtropical, then Omeka's date should be December 18th, per the CPHC report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about it? :P Tweaked Omeka's date. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yea, that's what I was referring to. I also think you should add a note that Omeka began as subtropical, so that first sentence of the article makes sense. In addition, I think you should have two listings for the dates, since Omeka exited the basin. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added a note.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now it implies it was subtropical in the WPAC on those dates. Can you go for something simpler? That it was subtropical from 18-20 in the CPAC, was in the WPAC from 20-22, then tropical from 22 onward in the CPAC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I added that, but I think that would make it even more confusing.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is "East" capitalized throughout the lede?
  • Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
• "Pacific hurricane season" - I'd link this.
  • Sure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't mention anything about the EPAC being limited to areas north of the equator.
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...no you didn't. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. I said it's excluding the Southern Hemisphere. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. Why not just write it normally? (as I said, just saying north of the equator). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see anything wrong with it no. Ill change it if you really want me to. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yea, I think you should. "excluding the southern hemisphere" is an odd way to clarify that it's for storms north of the equator. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "defines the season as occurring between May 15 (June 1 for the Central Pacific) and November 30 each calendar year" - since the lede is so short, you could afford to write this out.
  • Better to be concise. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
    • Disagreed, better to have flow and explain properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Only Hurricane Nina caused both property damage and fatalities, while remaining just offshore of the Hawaiian Islands. " - why comma?
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hurricane Ekeka in 1992 - link? Or did you avoid it because that was in the caption of the top-right image?
  • Linked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Category 5 hurricane" - you never mention anything about SSHS in the lede...
  • I do now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The off-season represents about 1% of storms recorded in the Pacific. - this is too WP:OR for my taste.
  • Removed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
• Fix the link for ref 3.
  • Is anyone gonna get this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Were any of the storms in "Chronology" in the eastern Pacific proper?
  • Of course, but how is it worth mentioning really? The border between the two AOR's is just some arbitrary line. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because some are mentioned by CPHC and some aren't. You have a notes section for a reason. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as of this writing, Beryl 12 was monitored by the WPC, and not mentioned in the ATL one? Are you implying that should be noted in the ATL pages of well? Honestly, I don't think it's important. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WPC? The CPAC and EPAC are two sub-basins. The ATL has no such distinction. And as I said, you have a notes section for a reason.--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weather Prediction Center. We don't mention whether it formed in EPAC/CPAC in the List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes or the List of Category 4 Pacific hurricane either. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither of those have a notes section like this one does, and neither feature storms before the start of HURDAT. My confusion about WPC was its relevancy. Here, it'd make sense to note. For the January 1938 one, the MWR says "there were some evidences of the formation of a tropical LOW between the Revillagigedo Islands and Lower California" - so perhaps note the uncertainty? The MWR didn't definitively say it was a TC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Noted uncertainty.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you should say that the MWR noted the uncertainty. And again, I think it should say it was in the eastern Pacific, not central. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Noted MWR.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "A handful of these off-season cyclones have had impact on land or on people' - weak way to start the sentence.
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the "handful" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, tweaked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "35 feet" --> "35 foot", or just "35 ft"
  • Changed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There is inconsistency how you handle USD, between Nina and Paka.
  • Should be fixed now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Overall, Paka caused US$580 million in damage; enough to warrant retirement of the name "Paka"." - the last bit isn't a sentence, so the semicolon is inappropriate.
  • Yep, fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
    • "Overall, Paka caused $580 million (1997 USD) in damage, enough to warrant retirement of the name "Paka"" - no need to say the name twice. You can say "enough to warrant retirement of the name". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Only one cyclone was reported in the two months of March and April." - you should say "one cyclone each" or something, since right now it implies just one from March to April.
  • Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
• In the third "Impact and records" paragraph, I'd love some durations in dates.
  • Added a few. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you? I see no length of days for any off-season storm now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any need for length of days in an off-season article. I added some months a few days ago. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, it'd be helpful to see that the Froc cyclone lasted 12 days. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call, added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " However, no off-season tropical cyclones in the East Pacific have made landfall" - this was stated a few sentences prior.
  • Removed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
• "The year with the most off-season storms was tied between 1904 and 1992, with a total of two tropical cyclones forming in the off-season."
  • Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
    • Can you merge any of the paragraphs together in that section? Looks rather dumpy now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, worse, or the same? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Generally a decent list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The article refers to cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms. I would like to see explanations of these terms and how they relate to each other.

• All of these are simply various terms used to describe a tropical cyclone, depending on which region(s) of the world that storm takes place in.--12george1 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference to an 1823 cyclone appears to be a typo for 1832.

• Good catch. I fixed it--12george1 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it seems to me a good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

Firstly, I will openly admit I know nothing about hurricanes, so I apologise if any of my comments are silly, or I'm asking for an explanation of the seemingly obvious.

• The title of the article is "List of off-season Pacific hurricanes", but the first sentence states, "There have been 20 recorded tropical and subtropical cyclones that existed in the east Pacific basin outside of the official Pacific hurricane season." Does this article only refer to off-season hurricanes in the "east Pacific basin"? There is some discussion of a "Central Pacific", but no mention of a western or southern pacific. Are they beyond the scope of the article, or is it simply that all off-season hurricanes just happen to have occurred in the east?
  • Neither, they are not called "hurricanes" in the western and south pacific. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article should make this clear then, because it seems a glaring omission otherwise. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a bit overboard, but I added a wikilink that goes into this more detailed.
        • Following the wikilink provided, I reached the article Pacific hurricane, which states that "A Pacific hurricane, then, is a tropical cyclone in the northern Pacific Ocean east of 180°, or in the southern Pacific Ocean east of 160°E." Which seems to contradict the claim that they are not called "hurricanes" in the south Pacific. Also, to clarify, did all of the twenty exist in the "east Pacific basin", in which case, why is the "central Pacific" mentioned? I'm sorry to say that the links have just confused me more. Harrias ^talk 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • At times TC's are called hurricanes within South Pacific by various agencies (eg NOAA), however they are not included in this list because their mainly known as cyclones. Another reason is because the season in the Southern Hemisphere is the exact opposite to the Northern Hemisphere and thus would be better included in a List of off-season Southern hemisphere tropical cyclones than EPAC TCs. Also your other point basically boils down to the definition of the "Eastern Pacific basin" in the Northern Hemisphere which has a double meaning thanks to the US - the first meaning is the Americas to 140W, which is the one commonly used rather than the other one which is the Americas - 180.Jason Rees (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "central Pacific" is often considered a sub-set of the "eastern Pacific" (and wiki articles do that same), I tweaked the article slightly. Any better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some inconsistency in capitalisation: "east Pacific", "Central Pacific", "Eastern Pacific"
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "..outside of the official.." "of" is redundant and should be removed.
  • Good call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Only Hurricane Nina caused both property damage and fatalities while remaining just offshore of the Hawaiian Islands." The way this is currently phrased creates a very specific set of rules: Hurricane Nina is the only tropical cyclone to: cause property damage AND fatalities AND remain just offshore of the Hawaiian Islands. I'm guessing it should be rephrased to state that it was the only tropical cyclone to do both of those things, and it did them while remaining offshore..
  • Removed Hawaii mention. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Monthly stats section, I would personally list December before January, given that is the order it runs in each "off-season". Harrias ^talk 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed, since storms that form in December count for the previous year total. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable. —Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much better this time round and the intervening work on both text and table has moved it from a straight fail into a strong list. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schrod and Crisco for your input and support. But on the quotes and critical acclaim thing Crisco, that was largely why it failed before because it was overcooked on that front. A filmography in my opinion does not need to have quotes from reviews but should be purely focused on providing a very basic overview..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • The subway from Overcooked to Zero should have at least one station in between. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: List is always gonna be great and almost perfect, but here, the lead section adds to the quality. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The simplified list looks much better.—indopug (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Before I proceed are you sure that all the works of Chopra including documentaries, TV films apart from the regular feature films have been included.

Yes, all her films are listed here.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list is complete. I cannot find Girl Rising (documentary) and a few TV series. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Added. Also, I was knowing about the documentary.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The budget and box-office figures are unwanted. It's good to avoid them when for a majority of the films the figures are "unknown". Even most of the Hollywood artists' filmography pages don't have them.

Done: Removed.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Foot notes should be sourced wherever necessary.
• In FNs, only complete sentences should have a period at the end.

Removed.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Role name required for Apuroopam
• Why are "Deewangi Deewangi" and "Rockin & Reeling" italicized?

Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong claims like Chopra portraying twelve distinct characters in a single film needs multiple RS.

FYI, It appeared at the DYK with that only source.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that this list appeared in the DYK column is irrelevant here. DYK looks every critieria at the basic level whereas at the FLC level something is expected beyond that. Anyways, sources should be easy to find. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Cited another source.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A cameo appearance and a guest role may not be exactly the same.

• The budget and box-office are either incomplete or erroneous as pointed out by Indopug. If you can't find complete information, it's better to remove them altogether. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed already.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anybody invite you to comment in the peer review on this? Thanks for your comments anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited, but was quite busy at the time. Apologies for not responding then.

Additional comments (re-visit)

• Why is "breakthrough" linked in the lead.

Because everyone don't understand what it means much like those figures which were removed.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple English word for which I'm sure most of us would know the meaning. BTW, what it has got to do with those removed figures. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "becoming the second and final woman to win the award". Final woman to win the award is not verified buy the source.

Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to explain Pooja (Mitali). Is it a dual role or a single role portraying two different characters. Likewise, "Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes" in 7 Khoon Maaf

Done: Tweaked and FYI, "Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes" is one name.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Things link "Double role", "Triple role", etc., need not be repeated in the "Notes" column since you have a separate column dedicated for that.

What?.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat that she has performed dual/triple roles in another column since that is obvious from the Role(s) col. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest you not to sort the "Notes" column as the table will be messed up; others might have different views. If you want it sortable be sure to link all the awards in the column.

Done: Unsorted.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link all the director's since that column is sortable too. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that she made her Bollywood debut through The Hero, but she got a "Best Debutant" award for Andaaz which is her second film according to the filmography.

It's a senseless point.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense for someone who behaves in a sensible way —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "To be released" is not necessary in the table since you've defined that in the key using a symbol and colour.

Done: Removed.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not satisfied with the list as it looks like not fulfilling criterion 3(a). It appears that the contributor hasn't made a comprehensive research in developing this list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness? What? I have written her featured article. I know better. What you want should I list her films which she rejected or turned down. This is getting frustrating.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point about mentioning things like television appearances, TV adverts etc. The Bale filmography does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay So, Bale's filmography also has Budgets and box-office. It means I should add it back again? It's getting tired now. There is nothing in India called Saturday Night Live. So, please let's not get there. As, she has done around thousands appearences in some reality shows. It's not that she has done a fiction or a miniseries. Also, for advertisements she has done many and then, if we can't give full detail why including them? This is a filmography page. Better stick to films and television.—Prashant 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't care whether you wrote a FA on her or not. The process won't be smooth as frustration will lead you no where. I suggest you better read the FLC criteria once again before responding here. The figures on box-office and budget are not necessary that too for an Indian artist, but to make sure that the 3(a) criterion is met all her works should be included. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures have been removed and from what I can see your points have been addressed. I'm uncertain as to what you think is still stopping this from being promoted. In my opinion it is unfeasible to add every trivial appearance she ever made but some of the major TV shows and adverts which have been documented might be worthy of inclusion, although the main article only mentions one TV show. Indian actors have tons of endorsements and most are not really notable. Priyanka Chopra is a film actress and the list should primarily be a fully comprehensive list of films which she appeared in (which it is). What exactly do you think is really needed? Every chat show appearance and advert?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like the nom is not interested in the candidate anymore. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much interested as I'm the main contributor and nominator of the list. I was busy for sometime that's all.—Prashant 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Much improved from the last FAC.----Jionpedia ✉ 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. Of course you are aware this is not a FAC, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC he means of course...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course he does. Just a demonstration of how well considered the review he made was against the FLC criteria, I'm sure.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on a really quick read-through, there are still too many issues.

• "Priyanka Chopra, an Indian actress, " why not "Indian actress Priyanka Chopra..."?
• "Tamil film" you link only Tamil in the lead but both Tamil and film in the table. Be consistent.
• It would have been nicer to have a film-based image of Chopra (for this, her filmography) rather than a promo shot advertising Nikon.
• You mention her surname three times in three sentences in the opening para of the lead, repetitive.
• "of a seductress (Sonia Roy) earned" I don't see any need for the character name here.
• "earned her wide critical acclaim" I don't see that (easily) in reference 3.
• "Chopra starred in six films in 2005..." the list has seven films, am I to guess which of those seven she didn't "star" in?
• Not sure of the use of "blockbuster" in an encyclopedic article.
• "in the hit action-thriller" reads like a tabloid newspaper.
• "commercial and critical " ... " critical and commercial "... tiresome prose.
• "performance and appearance in the film " are both needed, surely the first assumes the second?
• I see no real evidence that a film in 2009 has become a "cult classic", I see a caption on a single website which says it was one of the "cult action movies of the 2000s", and I would guess this doesn't extend far outside the world of Indian cinema unless you can prove me wrong.
• "a television host with the reality show" on the reality show? Or "for" it?
• "critical appreciation for her portrayal of serial killer Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes in the critically acclaimed" too much criticality.
• I would advocate linking black comedy.
• "Critics Award for Best Actress.[14][4] " please place references in numerical order.
• " of The Telegraph noted " perhaps worth telling the reader it's the Calcutta Telegraph, not the Daily Telegraph for instance (I know it's wikilinked but it's better to be upfront about it...)
• "noted Chopra turned in one of the finest performances seen on the Indian screen" if this is a quote then it should be in quote marks. If not, it needs neutralising.
• Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked every time.
• Why is the role in Alag blank?
• "Multiple Directors" why the capital D?
• "K.C. Bokadia" -> "K. C. Bokadia"
• "Vishal Bharadwaj" -> "Vishal Bhardwaj"
• "Ashutosh Gowarikar" -> "Ashutosh Gowariker"
• Why is the documentary table sortable when it has only one entry?
• Why all the (s) in columns which don't have multiple entries, yet not (s) in columns which do have multiple entries?
• You don't need Category:Filmographies as Category:Indian filmographies is more refined.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Corrected and resolved all your comments.—Prashant 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

• "Indian actress Priyanka Chopra has appeared in many motion pictures and one television program..." if you're going to lead like that then you need to mention the documentary she's been in as well.

Done: Added.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " in 2003 in the patriotic drama film The Hero.[1] In 2003 Chopra" -> "in 2003" repetitive.

Done: Removed.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick glance, but in the first couple of paras of the lead I'm seeing "patriotic", "highly successful", "vivacious", "critically acclaimed", "seductress", "wide critical acclaim", " blockbuster superhero film", "successful action-thriller", "successful year" followed by a single sentence confessing that she hasn't been brilliant, but then subsequent sentences saying "a critical and commercial success", " performance and look in the film drew a positive reaction", " starred in the hit caper thriller", "received highly positive reviews", "a cult classic", "which surpassed the opening ratings of the previous two seasons" ..... etc etc. I know this is all fine and dandy and that Chopra is clearly well thought of in India, but seriously, this is an article about her filmography, not a heavily (and positively) biased pseudo-biography here to praise her every minute on film.

It's strange to hear this, Bale filmography has same kind of treatment and if a film is cult, highly successful and critically acclaimed, then it's not my fault. I have to show exact things. Everything is true. If you want then I'll add other unsuccessful film descriptions in the lead. It was earlier in that way but, was removed by an established editor saying: "we should only talk about her important films".—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked every time.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had already linked everything. The unlinked names don't have any page on Wikipedia.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Man. I did actually remove a lot of it but Prashant has restored a lot of the comments after a reviewer here asked why there wasn't any critical commentary. Frustrating. IMO you don't need to keep saying something earned acclaim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Blofeld, a nominator's work is to resolve issues of every reviewer and I juat did that by re-adding important facts, which were missing.—Prashant 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't important facts Prashant, it amounted to excessive, monotonous praise, not facts, which I had originally moved before the start of this FLC to make it a neutral article. You really don't need to mention acclaim for anything other than those which she won awards for. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an issue with tone here, and I can't support until it's resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality work I did on this was sadly undone. I strongly agree with you that a filmography should not mention critical acclaim and highly successful movies in every sentence and I have removed this now. You can imply critical acclaim anyway by wording it as "won a Filmfare Award for her performance in xxx" which I've now done and the article reads much better for it. I've reedited this now anyway, which is closer to the version which had the original supports here, not the version which you saw. Is that better now RM?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blofeld for improving the tone. I appreciate it. But, all the supports came on my version and not yours version. Above discussion is enough to prove it.—Prashant 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the version Schrod and Crisco supported was the toned down version and the sugary and monotonous prose was the reason why it failed first time around. I'm sure if you asked some of the others they'd prefer a sugarless filmography. Next to nobody wants to visit a filmography and to be told if every film was a commercial success or failure, they can read this in the main article, people primarily are visiting it to get a comprehensive list of films. Documenting the major awards won alongside particularly notable roles is all that is needed and infers success anyway without the sugar. Naturally we try to be as responsive as possible to FA input, but it doesn't necessarily mean that every point a reviewer brings up or "answering to critical acclaim" is right or an improvement. Given the choice I'd rather somebody opposed this on the grounds that it doesn't state if every film was a critical or commercial success than somebody as experienced as Rambling Man opposing it because of sugary, monotonous prose (which was why it failed first time). I think the current version is the best it has ever looked on top of the constructive input already put into this and the addressing of tone again and I can't see any major outstanding issue as to why this shouldn't be passed now. I'd like some further input here from User:SchroCat, User:Crisco 1492, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man and User:Jionpedia in particular as to whether they agree that the toned down version is indeed the way forward. We seemed to almost go back to square one for a moment.. This should at least make it clearer to the delegates as to whether we're getting anywhere..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was about to change the tone of the article as per The Rambling Man. But, you did and I agree the article is at it's best. So, thank you. There is no need for more discussion please stop it—Prashant 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion is needed, because if I was one of the delegates reading this FLC I'd find it difficult to keep track of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "toned down" version is superior to what was there before and should be kept. It's important to note that the three supports also came before the two opposes (if I'm reading the FLC right), and less flowery prose may help in addressing the opposers' concerns. I also agree with Blofeld that the excess reception information is better off only being in the main article on Chopra. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the current version is superior. I think it's great.—Prashant 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would re-start the nomination. The previous comments and supports are really no longer valid based on the fact they were made on an historic and no longer relevant version of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any delegate watching this who has the power to pass or fail, I'd fail it based on the incivility of the nominator. This was a most disgusting message which I received earlier from Prashant and he's dismissed Rambling Man's comments as a joke. If one of the delegates had seen this abuse of one of the reviewers here it would have failed long ago anyway. I did nothing here but to act in good faith and to try to stop it failing yet according to Prashant I'm out for self-glorification (as if a filmography of an Indian actress is the way to go about that). I'd ban him from FAC and FLC based on his past and current behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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