Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2016

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Fritzmann2002 13:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked hard to make List of Hypericum Species a comprehensive and helpful list. the genus Hypericum has over 450 species and many more subspecies, and almost all catalogued species are in this list. It is also divided by genus sections, with descriptions for each of the 40-odd sections of Hypericum. Fritzmann2002 13:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • The lead is too short for a such comprehensive list as this one. See List of Armillaria species for an example of how the lead should be.
  • Point 5a of the criteria states "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." Here you have majority of the items redlinked.
  • Only one image for a list of this length is not enough. There should be more.
  • The references are poorly formatted.

--Cheetah (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and closing as not promoted- I agree with Crzycheetah; this is a good enough "list of species names", but in terms of a "featured list of species", I'd expect to see a sortable, structured table with at minimum the species' names, discoverers and when, and general distribution. More pictures would also be a plus. I think the List of Armillaria species is a good example of a "species-in-genus" list, even if it only has one section so you'd need to adapt it in some way for this list. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow after successfully taking her biography and awards list to featured status, I am nominating her film work for FL status. Feel free to pick up on any of its aspects. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally it takes three supports to count as substantial support for an FLC, your previous nomination only has two supports so far, so I wonder if this second nomination is too early? Cowlibob (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cowlibob! Normally I also wait until my other nom has gained at least three supports before I submit another one. I guess I was in a bit of hurry to make it a featured topic before I request for her biography's main page appearance on November 6 on her birthday. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob:, do you have any thoughts about the list itself? - FrB.TG (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The film, television ad theatre lists are presented in tables. To keep the article uniform you should do the same for the video game and music video lists. Jimknut (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut:, do you have any further thoughts? - FrB.TG (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: I withdraw this nomination since I don't think I will contribute here. I will still resume my other nomination, however. - FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 23:32, 24 September 2016 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following my last successful nomination with Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, I worked on another article for a Latin Grammy special award, this time one that focuses on honoring historic Latin recordings. Just like the other article, I have the table set up to the same format. I look forward to your comments! Erick (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that my concerns were addressed and clarified, I now support this list's nomination. Best – jona ✉ 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this list has been open for over 2 months without a lot of comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the queue moving. --PresN 21:28, 21 September 2016 (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.

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE ^X 11:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another tilt at the windmill for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its first candidacy. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE ^X 11:54, 15 July 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Mediran [talk] 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Nominating this because this former featured list is no longer a former featured list (by standards). This complete list of presidents of the Philippines from 1899 up to the present has seen great improvements. (I'd like to thank Corinne of WP:GOCE for doing an excellent copy-edit.) I believe the issues that were brought to light in the removal discussion almost eight years ago have been addressed and resolved. I'm hoping this will be re-promoted and get its place in WP:FL back again. This is my third FL nomination, in case you're wondering. I'm really looking forward to your feedback (and support, hehe). Thanks in advance — Mediran [talk] 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The WP:LEDE section is much too cluttered. Sections of the article are still facing content disputes. It is too early for this to be a featured article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sections have the content disputes? I can't see anything tagged in the article at the moment, and there's nothing on the talk page that looks like a current dispute. For that part of your oppose to be actionable, we need to some some evidence of disputes that make the article unstable, per FL criterion 6, and I don't see proof of that here. Perhaps you could elaborate, for the benefit of the nominator and those of us who are FLC closers. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Giants2008. @Shhhhwwww!!: The lead is as concise yet comprehensive as it could be. The sections are well-sourced and verifiable either, so I don't know where's the dispute. I'd like to hear more from you so that I'll know what else needs work. Cheers — Mediran [talk] 06:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• I do not like the colour coding for party. For president it duplicates the party column, and for VP it forces you to go back to the list of parties to find out which one is the correct colour - which is not always easy for someone like me who is colour blind. It would be much better just to have the party under the name and dates of the president and VP.
  • The party or the party color under the names and dates?

• The name of the party. I would get rid of the colour coding completely, although that is my personal preference, not a requirement. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Election or re-election to the presidency is barred if the person "has succeeded as [p]resident and has served as such for more than four years"." I do not understand what is meant by "succeeded" here. Every president (apart from the first) must have succeeded a previous one.
  • Yes. The "succeeded" there simply means what it means, but it may also mean "become" or any other word that describes the assumption of an office, which in this case is the presidency. I think what is leaving us confused here is the "has served as such for more than four years". The constitution states "The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time." A person who had been a president may run for the office again if he or she only served for less than four years. Joseph Estrada was able to run again in 2010 because his term, which began in 1998, was cut short 3 years later in 2001. It is like the same with his vice president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who was intended to serve out Estrada's remaining 3 years in office. Arroyo was allowed to run for the presidency in 2004 even if she had already served as such from 2001 to 2004 because she had only spent 3 years at the time. Generally, the constitution doesn't allow any re-election to the office. But it gives a special pass to those who were not able to finish their term (Estrada) and those whose first term's less than 4 years (Arroyo). I hope this made it clear to you.

• So how about "Anyone who serves as president for more than four years is barred from standing in the next presidential election." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Better, but it's not necessarily "in the next presidential election". It could be any. — Mediran [talk] 03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• died "on an aircraft disaster". "in a plane crash" would be better.
  • Thanks!
• This is a good list, but the structure of notes and sub-notes is over-complex. I would merge and shorten them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of that too. Could you point specific notes that need shortening or merging? Thanks! — Mediran [talk] 16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would delete the sub-notes completely and merge them with the notes. I have never seen notes to notes before and I do not see the point of it. It is just confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it's because it's not used that much in our articles but I added the subnotes because they provide additional explanatory and informational details about the note. We're not required to always open and see it, it's just added info to have a clearer understanding. I'll try to shorten them and if possible merge them with their notes. — Mediran [talk] 03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened during the US occupation? Was there a governor equivlent to the presidential positions? Also, why not have a merged single table? Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the governor-general is actually the chief executive of the islands during that time before the Commonwealth was inaugurated. I'll add that in the lead, but it's also detailed in a subnote. The Philippines has many republics, and I thought it would be easier to follow the flow of the succession of the presidents if they're cut by republics. Some presidents overlap, which may confuse the readers because of unmatched dates, that's why I decided to split them. — Mediran [talk] 03:41, 11 September 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This lists all of the detachments formed by the Yugoslav Partisans to resist the Axis occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina during World War II. It leans heavily on the comprehensive 1982 source in Serbo-Croat on the Partisan forces by Anić, Joksimović & Gutić, but with important context provided by other sources. Partisan detachments in Bosnia-Herzegovina ranged in size from 16 to 3,000 fighters, and a total of 108 such detachments were established during the war. Some detachments were established, disestablished and re-established on a number of occasions as the fortunes of war waxed and waned in their particular corner of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It recently went through a Milhist A-Class list review, and while I believe it meets the criteria, I am keen to get feedback on areas for improvement. Thanks in advance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Dudley

• This list has far more than the usual maximum four paragraph lead. I am not sure of the rules, but does not some of the text belong in an article about the partisans rather than this list? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It has a one para lead and a couple of sections of what I consider is necessary context. I don't think it is excessive. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 5 September 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): U990467 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because other editors and I have spent a lot of time collecting information in the hope of making the page more complete. I think that it has already been a FL-quality list. Thank You. U990467 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• U990467, this article is a list, so it will never go through to FAC. FLC (where you are) is the right place for it, as long as it is ready for the final polishing that the nomination process can provide. In other words, this is not the right place to look for feedback: this is where you come after feedback, or if you think that page is at the right level to become part of our featured content. Are you sure you want to put this though the FL process at this stage? - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I just made an edit on the refs, but that's about it. Also, most of the ref URLs in this article were probably crawled by the Wayback Machine by now so you won't have that much of a hard time archiving them here. Chihciboy (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It's inconsistent with the rest of this page to have one instance of "U.S." in prose, but then in columns to have "US", without full stops. Usually little instances like these are picked up or noted as being inconsistent by reviewers; I don't know why this hasn't. The page is not perfect yet, sure, but inconsistency over things like this are usually noticed before now. (Wikipedia discographies are moving away from including "U.S." in columns, as this is inconsistent with the naming scheme of UK and other acronyms, so I don't think that's the solution.) Ss112 06:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the MOS:U.S., since Grande is an American, it is probably recommended that the American variety of English be used for the whole article (per MOS:TIES). Chihciboy (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what style of English should be used on which page. However, nobody uses "U.S." in chart columns anymore, and this is not done on any featured discography I can find. I don't know why this page would or should be an exception, considering most modern American artists' discographies do not use "U.S." Why "U.S." and not "U.K."? Why "U.S." and not "R.I.A.A."? We get it's an acronym; the periods are pointless, regardless of MOS. I'm sure even if you "recommended" such a change, it would be removed by another editor. One form should be consistent across the entire article, and currently "U.S." at the top of the article is the inconsistent use. The "probably recommended" part is very disregarded in modern music usage. Ss112 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "US" in the columns should be kept without the periods and a consistency must be used. Seeing that the first abbreviation was used prior to any mention of the words "United States" in the article (and using US/U.S. may be too informal as other countries are consistently mentioned throughout the article without abbreviation per the MOS), U990467 may consider changing "... debut on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100" to "... debut on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States" and "... managed to reach the top ten in the US" to "... managed to reach the top ten on the Billboard Hot 100" as well as rephrasing "... simultaneously on the Billboard Hot 100" to "... simultaneously on the chart". Chihciboy (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I noticed a few inconsistencies. In the top section, when song chartings are mentioned, there was mention of one of Grande's songs reaching number one, but instead of it being typed out in full syntax as with the other mentions of her song chartings, it was stylized as No. 1. Also the datings in the references aren't all in the same formatting, which may effect it going to FLC. FanofMusic ^{(Talk to Me!)} 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done --U990467 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I see major issues with the Lead section here. Its at a whopping 648 words, which is too much for an artist who has been around for just a few years now, and is going to release many more records to come. This needs to be streamlined right now else we are looking at corruption of quality if ever the page was listed as a FL. The current lead delves too much into specifics, especially with the para for My Everything. Please reduce it and check FLs like Lady Gaga discography to understand how to streamline the prose, so that it does not include too many detail, but still presents Grande's discography. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:58, 7 September 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2016 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This videography covers rock musician Jimi Hendrix's appearances in films and videos. It was created by combining the relevant sections from the featured list Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Besides convenience, it helps to reduce size problems with the discographies (WP:Article size). Since the last FLC, it has been updated with a public domain image of a television broadcast from Commons and the source links have been verified. Looking forward to your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open almost 2 months without a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because since I asked for the peer review in 2012, the show has continued to attract viewers and gather more coverage in not just industry press, but popular press as well. The page for the current seasons of Game of Thrones is among our highest-viewed articles, and inspired me to continue with the push to get all our episode articles to GA. This is my first FL nomination in years, so I apologize in advance for newbie errors and easily correctable oversights. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the show's nature, I wonder if there should be a table of recurring characters killed. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to that if there were a call for it. Are other popular TV shows with a lot of character deaths getting such sub-lists to make FLC? I don't want to check any I haven't already seen, in case I do someday... Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please add scope="row" parameters for the Tables. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens: please see this change. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please bear with me as I am working through understanding the feedback and applying it correctly. Wikitable markup has not previously been one of my competencies. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @IndianBio:, @Jclemens: I am willing to help and I have added the "scope="row"" parameters for the tables and also fixed the references. What else should I do to make this a featured article? Affel (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016

Obvious problems:

• lead too short/poorly written
  • In process... Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• guest: starring + also starring????
  • I'm not sure about that one. If I can't find out why Khal Drogo/Momoa are separated out, I'll move them back. Investigated, and I cannot find any official list of him as "only" also starring cast in HBO, RT, or IMDB sites, so I integrated his entry.
  • Update: Had my change reverted by another editor, here. I do not have the DVDs of the first season nor current access to HBO Now to verify this. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• cast has 0 refs
  • I know IMDB is not an RS, but RT appears to have substantially all of the the S1 cast listed. Would that be an adequate ref?
• seems to me that a few locations arent wikilinked at all
  • I fixed The Paint Hall, but it looks like substantially all the first instances a location is mentioned are now wikilinked. Have I missed any?
• serve as main writers => past?
  • Fixed.
• when was the show initially announced for filming? that is productions seems a bit short
  • In process. You're right, it needs more. Done.
• 97% episode average => other seasons have achieved this recently?
  • S4 tied it, nothing has exceeded it. Added.
• image and table ratings seems redundant
  • That's just Template:Game of Thrones ratings, which is common to all the series' articles. If desired, we could extract just the season 1 ratings, but this seems to put them in context with later series.
• were the ratings among the highest for HBO?
  • Yes, they were good, but didn't surpass ratings for The Sopranos until S4: [10]
• any reason not to put the Emmys separate from the table?
  • We've got a little bit called out in text. How would you prefer this presentation to be improved?
• broadcast section seems rather short
  • Not really sure how to address this; since HBO is not a traditional broadcaster, there's a lot less monkeying around with the schedule. What else would you like to see here?

Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be addressing these over the next 48 hours. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's enough work for now--I will hit the ones I've identified as needing more work later, to include this upcoming weekend. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any further feedback from anyone? Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Hi, I just realized that you have nominated this article for a Wikipedia:Featured lists. When you really should have nominated it for a Wikipedia:Featured articles. Am I wrong? - AffeL (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV season articles go through the FL process, not the FA process. See WP:Featured Lists#Media. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open almost 2 months without a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), —Vensatry _(talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth is probably the biggest 'Superstar' in Indian cinema. His body of work encompasses 170-odd films in seven languages. He has been in the industry for 40 years and has been the highest paid actor in India for the last two decades. I joined Wikipedia with the sole intent of taking the actor's bio to GA. I've been working on this list, one of my long-pending tasks, for more than a month. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

A note to the nominator(s) and the delegates before starting the review. Though being a fan of Rajinikanth, i am not really aware of a major portion of his works. Though this is a filmography list, please do try to answer those queries where his characterisations are concerned. And, my affection for the actor is not going to show any sort of impact on my review of this candidate. Thank you.

• Considering that he seldom worked in the technical crew and writing, i think the word "film career" can be replaced with "acting career".
  • He worked in theatre even before doing his diploma from the Madras Film Institute. So, 'film career' would be the best option to go with. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify your earlier comment, it's already mentioned in the opening line of the second para. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "While performing in a stage play at the institute, he got noticed by the Tamil film director K. Balachander, who signed him for four films". -- two things. First, i think it can be simplified as "...at the institute, Tamil filmmaker K. Balachander noticed him and signed the actor for four films". Second, were the four films written by him, directed by him, or produced by him? If it is the second and third, i suggest you to mention it as "four of his films". If it is the first, mention it as "four films he wrote".
  • Rephrased the former. I don't think the latter needs clarification because it clearly says 'Tamil film director Balachander'. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm okay with the current sentence there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rajinikanth made his debut with the director's 1975 Tamil drama -- acting debut?
  • Reworded as 'cinematic debut'. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "He secured his first major role in Balachander's Telugu drama film Anthuleni Katha (1976). Later that year, he was cast in a negative role in Moondru Mudichu, which marked his first full-fledged role in Tamil." -- This statement can be simplified as "Balachander's Anthuleni Katha and Moondru Mudichu—both released in 1976— offered Rajinikanth his first full fledged roles in Telugu and Tamil films." He played the villain in both the films, so mentioning that isn't too important. The continuing sentence "It was through this film that his style and mannerisms got noticed by the audience" can be rewritten as "His style and mannerisms in the latter earned recognition from the audience."
  • There's a difference between 'major' and 'full-fledged'. And, he was not a 'villain' in either of them. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "The success of the film brought the actor-director duo..." -- "Its success brought..."
  • Rephrased as 'The film's success', because we're talking about his role/performance in the previous sentence.

Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow... Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Look forward for a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming...

• "Rajinikanth played a dual role for the first time in his career in the "action thriller" Billa (1980), which was a remake of the Bollywood film Don (1978)." -- Is Kailash really the co-nominator? ;-)

I'd prefer to call the film a "gangster thriller". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terrible in this area. Will leave it to Kailash. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: What makes you call Billa a thriller in the first place? Care to explain by giving a small example? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition: Thrillers are characterized and defined by the moods they elicit, giving viewers heightened feelings of suspense, excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety. I'm now confident that Billa fits the bill. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the original calls it an action film, not a thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that the same book which you found a case of WP:MIRROR in the past? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? —Vensatry _(talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it advisable to use such a source for verifying a claim, for a featured standard article? Please give it a thought. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The author is clearly an expert in the field. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I found another reliable source which calls it an action thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the fate of his 100th film, considering that it is a landmark one? If information is available about it, please add it.

All I know is that it failed commercially, and may be one reason why Rajinikanth does not often appear in arthouse-like films. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's a flop. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the latter half of the 80s" -- 1980s. It is better to pronouce it completely, though the actor was born in 1950.
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "He made his debut as a screenwriter in the commercial failure Valli (1993)." -- i suggest you to rephrase it as "He made his debut as a screenwriter with Valli (1993), a commercial failure." Release first, fate next.

Yes, I go with what you say. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Fate' is predetermined. :) Nevertheless, rephrased as suggested. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his character in Baashha can be described as a crime boss instead of a gangster. He leads a team of henchmen in the film and stands on a level par with the villain who influences the system. Give it a thought, gangster is too small to describe him. BTW, isn't it important to mention its director?

Yep, he was a crime boss. "Gangster", IMHO, means a lower-level criminal. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks 'crime boss' (I know our article has this title) is a bit informal? —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crime boss is not an informal word. I hope that you too would feel the same after reading this article by Federal Bureau of Investigation on the Italian Organized Crime. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rajinikanth himself compensated for the losses by repaying them with money" -- "...compensated for the monetary losses". Rather than money, i don't think so that they lost something else which could've been compensated by the actor.
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Chandramukhi a horror "comedy"?

This source describes it as one. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really pity the writer. What made him consider Chandramukhi a comedy is not something i can understand. Anyways, the source is reliable and i am okay with it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Its actually the hilarious scenes between Rajinikanth and Vadivelu dominating the film, the exorcist bit with Nassar, Vadivelu and Manobala, Vadivelu himself too, that makes Chandramukhi a horror comedy than just plain horror. IMHO, if the film were just plain horror, it wouldn't have given Rajinikanth the comeback he desperately needed. Look at the article's "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections and you'll know what I mean.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the original calls it a horror-comedy. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let the readers know about the commercial failure of Kochadaiiyaan.
  • I'll leave it to Kailash. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I await your response. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is Paparayudu not "Paapparayudu" in Pedarayudu. (PS: Really strange name for a male, phew! :))
  • Gosh. I, too, was wondering. Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref no. 27, titled "Brand Rajinikanth", is changing its sub-domain. Please fix it.
  • Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto with ref no. 15 and 29. Both are related to The Hindu.
  • Not sure what's the problem here. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please provide a better alt text for the only image being used?
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- For an actor whom i arguably call the last Indian superstar existing, this is a well detailed list. Hardwork put in by the people is visible. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not keen on the repetitive opening line "...film actor who has acted in more than 150 films..." but not able to come up with a suitable alternative, perhaps replace the "acted in more than 150 films" with "whose career started in X when he starred in Y. He has gone on to act in more than ... films..."?
  • Replaced 'acted' with 'appeared'. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " antagonistic and supporting" these aren't comparable, do you mean he played supporting roles in which his characters were antagonistic?
  • He played supporting roles in some films and was the prime antagonist in others. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "o a lead actor.[2] " in which film and when?
  • Is it necessary in the opening para? The film is mentioned in the succeeding para. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 1980s and 90s -> 1980s and 1990s
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "erstwhile " is this necessary?
  • You mean the word or the sentence? —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "he got noticed " moderately clumsy, why not "he was noticed" or "he attracted the attention of"
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "them—Avargal, 16 Vayathinile, Aadu Puli Attam and Gaayathri" missing something like "including" here because you list only four movies having just said he acted in 15, playing a negative character in most of them.
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " a dual role" I'm not sure what this means and its not expanded upon, do you mean he played two characters in the same movie?
  • Wikilinked —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article on 2.0 says it's slated for release in 2017 so you could replace that TBA.
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure how the "roles" column sorts, "Inspector" comes before Aarumugam, I guess because of the quote mark.
  • You're right, but what do you suggest? —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the film titles are slightly different from the Wikipedia articles, e.g. Nyayam Mere Cheppalli vs Nyayam Meere Cheppali, Netrikan vs Netrikann etc
  • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. I've resolved most of them. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I think the list part of the filmography is immaculate job, but the lead portion is TOOLONG. Rajnikanth from my knowledge is a prolific and an Indian superstar, but four mega paragraphs is stretching it. I would advise a bit of reduction to bring it down to three paras if possible. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IndianBio: I'm afraid, that's a difficult one to do. If we were to bring down the size of the lead, we may have to do away with certain (important) films or compromise on the details that accompany others. The former would result in an incoherent prose (considering his 4-decade-old-career), while the latter would make the prose a bit monotonous. The prose size of the article currently stands at 964 words. The FLs of less prolific actors—Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Aamir Khan filmography, Salman Khan filmography—are sized at over 500 words each. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vensatry: in that case can we use a vertical image of Rajnikanth which would encompass the prose space? Currently mainly from a look perspective the lead looks larger than it actually is because of the image having two more paras underneath it. If you understood what I meant just let me know. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @IndianBio: This is the only 'vertical' image that we have. It's not a great choice for the lead; however, I don't mind changing the current one. Also, looping in Kailash29792. —Vensatry <support the artcilub> (talk) 17:59, .August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The main text has been well written and many relevant suggestions made by other users have been addressed. I support the article for FLC. However, I have the following minor suggestions for consideration.Nvvchar. 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.In the last sentence of the first section United States sounds a little odd. May be better to use "Cinema of the United States".

2.In the sentence “The 1978 film Bairavi was the first Tamil film in which he was cast as the main lead” could be changed to "The 1978 film Bairavi was the first Tamil film in which he was cast in the lead role”

3. This “During this time, he made his American cinema debut …."could be changed to “During this time, he made his debut in American cinema..."

4. This “and was highly instrumental in creating a large fan-base for him in the country” could be changed to “and was largely instrumental in creating a large fan-base for him in the country”

5.In “Rajinikanth himself compensated for the monetary losses” the word “himself” could be dropped

6.You may like to add the following about the last two films in the table

a)The film Lingaa (2014), in which he played the lead role as Raja Lingeswaran, King of Kodaiyur/ K.Lingeswaran (Lingaa) though an above average grosser at the box office, failed to recover its high distribution cost.

Although directed by K. S. Ravikumar (who also directed two other Rajinikanth milestones: Padayappa and Muthu), I think Lingaa isn't significant enough to include in the lead, considering its relatively low budget and quickly completed production schedule. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

b) The Kabali (film) released in 2016, in which he played the lead role of Kabaleeswaran, had the largest opening weekend for any Indian film worldwide and became the second highest grossing Tamil film ever.

• 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. – Gavin (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I created the article and think its on par with similar lists. I am a relatively new editor. This is my first nomination. Please excuse my inexperience. I would appreciate any assistance. Please note I cannot find any detailed ridership figures besides those in the lead with inline citations. Please note I cannot find any distance figures; the article previously included figures that were original research but I removed them. New9374 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007

Lede

• Just my opinion, but I would bold sixteen stations in the G:link, not just sixteen stations.
  • done difference. Emboldened. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph has a lot of short, choppy sentences (specifically "There are no park and ride lots.") and a lot of them start similarly (i.e. Eight stations... , fifteen of the stations..., etc.). If you could go through it, copyedit and merge some of those sentence it would help the flow of the lede.
  • done difference. Copyedited by yourself. New9374 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a comma after "2018 Commonwealth Games" in the third paragraph.
  • done difference. Added. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite "It is planned to have three station:..." to something like "Current plans call for three new stations:...". "It is planned" sounds off.
  • done difference. Re-wrote to "Three new stations are planned". New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite "It is expected to take 11 minutes to travel the extension" to something like "The new extension will add approximately 11 minutes to the total travel time."
  • done difference. Re-wrote to "The new extension will add 11 minutes to the total travel time." New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Add "of the new" to "Two of the new stations will have free park and ride lots with a total of 1,400 new parking spaces."
  • done difference. Added. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a comma after "public consultation" in the last paragraph.
  • done difference. Added. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tables and Key

• I am not sure the paragraph in the Key section is needed. All of the info in this paragraph is readily stated in the tables, and thus seems repetitive. I would recommend removing.
  • done difference. Removed. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend using different symbols for each transfer station, like † or the {{Rint}} template.
  • done difference. Using † and the {{Rint}} template. New9374 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the Park and Ride column in the main table, as it doesn't provide any useful info (all of the stations have 0 park and ride spaces).
  • done difference. Removed. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Zones are mentioned in the table but not explained in the lede. I would recommend explaining what zones are, how many zones there are and how many stations are in each zone.
  • done difference. Explained in the lede what zones are, how many zones there are and how many zones the stations are located within. New9374 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend removing the Time column. If you want to keep it, you need to mention the time is in minutes [i.e. the column name could be Time (in minutes)] and include a {{Note}} explaining it (i.e. that the time builds up from the first station at Gold Coast University Hospital). Also, the Time column should be unsortable {i.e. !class="unsortable"|Time).
  • done difference. Mentioned the time is in minutes. Included a note. Made the Time column unsortable. New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • difference. I think it's unnecessary to mention "(in minutes)" in the column heading and it's "enough" to just mention "in minutes" in the note. Plus I don't like how it widens the column. Hope that's okay with you. New9374 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Have the future stations been designed enough to include their Grade and Platform Layout (similar to the main table)?
  • done difference. Added, sourced from Moore, Tony (20 July 2014). "All aboard – GC light rail takes off". Brisbane Times. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 10 June 2016.. New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to consider adding a See Also section and linking Public transport in Australia (note the piped link to the section) to help readers.
  • done difference. Added a See Also section. Linked Transport on the Gold Coast, Queensland. Should I instead link Public transport on the Gold Coast, Queensland? Should I also link Public transport in Australia? New9374 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You may to consider adding {{South East Queensland public transport}} to the article (and maybe linking this article in the template).
  • done difference. Added. Linking this article in the template. New9374 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• All sources look good and are reliable.

Files

• All images look good, freely licensed and include alt text and descriptions.
  • Stale difference. Now that the "Coordinates" and "Tourist attractions nearby" columns are added, I thought it'd be best for the table to be full width so I removed the photo thumbnails to increase the available space and instead added photos to the table in a new column and systematically wrote new alt text. Just like the featured list List of London Underground stations. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend adding a system map to the article (check-in with the Graphics Lab for requesting a map be made. You can see my request here for how easy it was). It wouldn't hold back my support, but system maps really help the reader understand where the stations and system are located.
  • Partly done requested. New9374 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • done difference. New9374 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small copyedit here, fyi. Hope you don't mind! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good! Nice work. I am fine with your responses regarding the minutes and the see also section. Good luck with the map request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Really appreciate your feedback and copyediting. Could you please explain why the Time column should be unsortable? Also I noticed that Shiftchange made a recent edit. They added a wikilink to Cavill Avenue but that article covers the pedestrian mall and not the G:link station. I have reverted the edit and asked for an explaination. While I await their response, do you think Cavill Avenue (and other stations) should be wikilink'd or not? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only Shiftchange will know for certain, but what would the likely reader of this list be wanting to know? While some of the readers will be train spotters and fascinated by the G:link stations themselves, I suspect the bulk of readers will be people planning on catching the G:link and wondering where they should get off. I suspect many tourists will want to get off at Cavill Avenue being the heart of Surfers Paradise. And I imagine both the hospital and the GU campus will probably be popular destination for some folks. And if I wanted to go to GCEC or the casino, I'd want to get off at North Broadbeach. If I wanted to go to Pacific Fair, I should go to South Broadbeach. Maybe you want to create a separate column for Local Attractions to avoid linking the station name itself (and there might be multiple things to link, e.g. casino and GCEC). Given the Gold Coast's status as a holiday destination, I think local attractions are more important for this list than if this was a list of suburban tram stations in a non-holiday town. Kerry (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done difference. Added, sourced from "Stations Archive". RideTheG. Keolis Downer. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016. New9374 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some of the tourist attractions from the list because I don't think they're sufficiently notable and are tangential to the subject of the list, and because Wikipedia is not Wikivoyage. Thanks, New9374 - you've done a good job improving this list! Gareth (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undone difference. Hi Gareth, unfortunately you cannot delete some of the tourist attractions just because you don't think they are sufficiently notable. That selection criteria is ambiguous, subjective, and unsupported by reliable sources. Kerry asked me to add tourist attractions to the article and so I objectively added all the tourist attractions from the official G:link website. If you would like to remove them all from the article though, for the reasons you mentioned, then that's fine, please discuss it with Kerry. And once you two reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think selection criteria applies to this discussion; the list is of the G-link stations and their selection should conform to the criteria. I don't think it applies the column on attractions (I wouldn't call them "tourist attractions" as hospitals and universities aren't really tourist attractions). I agree with Gareth that using all of the things in the official G:link guide is maybe too much (out of proportion). I'd had been thinking more in terms of a smaller set of local "attractions" that would attract significant numbers of people (readers). It's not unusual for Wikipedia articles to limit lists to things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability ("if it's that important, why hasn't someone written the article?") and I think that criteria would prune it down to a more manageable list. I note too that you can pipe the wikilinks to reduce some of the length of the names, e.g. "Sea World" instead of "Sea World Resort & Water Park", and you could probably reduce "shopping centre" and "shopping complex" to "shops". And I think the one uncited sentence about ghost tours in the Southport article probably fails the notability test. And finally I would point to the fifth of Wikipedia's pillars, no matter what a rule says, improving the article is what matters, which is imprecise but generally resolves itself through discussion and hopefully consensus. I sense you are frustrated that you cannot move quickly to a "final version" for FL status but this to-ing and fro-ing is normal and does take time. This is very new article which therefore won't have many watchers yet, so it may take some time before people who might have an opinion come forward. Remember too that a lot of Wikipedians are not active on a daily basis. Given it's a very new article, maybe you want to draw it to people's attention at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Getting just a few opinions might not really represent consensus. Kerry (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

difference. I have re-named the column "Attractions nearby" as per the official G:link website. Why don't you think selection criteria applies to the column "Attractions nearby"? They are still lists even if they are lists within a list. Using things-that-have-Wikipedia articles as a basis for judging notability is unacceptable because there are notable things that do not have articles yet. Please provide an example of a featured list that uses this as a basis. Using your example, Sea World Resort & Water Park is a resort that adjoins the theme park Sea World, and the official G:link website states that the resort is an attraction - not the theme park - so you are arguing for including attractions that are not supported by reliable sources. There really is no need to seek many opinions from noticeboards, etc, when precedents have already been established in the nineteen already featured lists of stations and this nomination has already recieved support. Please don't guess my feelings. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have invited Shiftchange, Gareth and Mcz7 to discuss the inclusion criteria with you Kerry. And once you four reach consensus, I will edit the article accordingly. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the attractions from the article. I have instead created a new Route section within the main G:link article which details the line, its stops and the attractions served. This is similar to the nineteen already featured lists of stations and the good article Bergen Light Rail. Please share your thoughts. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kerry Raymond

Could the table have the lat/long coordinates for the stations restored please; they appear to be in this version of the G:link article. Could look at adding a {{GeoGroup}}to show the set of locations on Google Maps, Open Street Map etc. Thanks Kerry (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• done difference. Added, sourced from "G:link". TransLink. Queensland Government. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016. New9374 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • difference. I noticed that the G:link's official RideTheG website and the TransLink website have different coordinates. Changed, sourced from "Stations Archive". RideTheG. Keolis Downer. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016. New9374 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need worry too much about minor differences in lat/long especially once you are at 4 decimal places and beyond; it makes little difference in practice. And the techtonic plates can move at up to 10cm or so a year (although generally less so here in Australia), so all lat/longs become less accurate over time anyway. Kerry (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, New9374 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - there are a few issues with the list, but shouldn't be hard to address

• 13-kilometre (8.1 mi)... you can't go from 0 decimals to 1 decimal, this is a significant figure error.
  • done difference. Changed to 0 decimals. New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Source for the transit time?
  • done difference. Sourced by "G:link". TransLink. Queensland Government. 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016. New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• northern extension is scheduled to open in 2018. No source provided, or if the sources are from the end of the paragraph should be divided into which fact comes from which source.
  • done difference. The sources are were from near the end of the paragraph. Divided sources. New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • done difference. The northern extensions is now under construction so added a new source to the lede to verify "Commonwealth Games; under construction; and planned opening" facts. Moved the other two references to the table to verify "station name; suburb; grade; platform layout; park and ride spaces" facts. New9374 (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Future stations is completely unsourecd
  • Sourced by the same two sources from near the end of the paragraph. Should I add a Refs column to the table with the same two references for every row? Should I do this for the other/main table aswell? New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • done difference Added a Refs column to the tables. New9374 (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: thank you very much for reviewing this list. It has been gone without reviews for a while now and I almost gave up (hence the delay in my response). Hope I've addressed your concerns. I'm very open to changes. New9374 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I don;t have time right now to review again but I will strike my oppose. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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