Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2017

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of the issues mentioned in this discussion and I believe this list is ready to regain its former featured status. I updated the lead, introduced a clickable skyline image, created new tables with images and coordinates, removed unsourced entries and added properly formatted references where needed. If it's necessary, I can also add alttext for images. This is my first nomination on Wikipedia and I hope to update all the "List of tallest buildings in ..." articles and standardize their structure. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a bit of minor wording, featured lists don't start, or contain "This lists..." or "this is a list of..." or anything self-referential like that. It's somewhat tautological. A better way to start would be something like "There are x buildings over x height as of x year".

• Also errors in the very first sentence. "67 completed high-rises, 6 of which stand taller than 492 feet (150 m), and 46 are over 60m". But 46+6 does not equal 67....
• 33rd-tallest building in the United States needs a citaiton. So does "There are currently seven buildings under construction".
• "4th in the Southeast " I think you should reference that you mean united states. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I wanted to make it clear that the first list is a ranking while the others are just lists, but I guess that's redundant; fixed. There's no error - 6 high-rises are 150m+, 40 (46-6) are 60-150m, and 21 (67-46) are under 60m (and are not listed here). I added references for the "33rd-tallest" and "seven buildings under construction" claims, and clarified that I mean the Southeastern United States. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prob,

• however that number in the lead should really match the number in the list, otherwise it's quite confusing.
• Also "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings; they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be placed in a note, linking to notes section (since it's just instructions).
• as should " Any buildings that have been topped out but are not completed are also included."
• The paragraph at the beginning of each section needs a ref (even if it's just copied from the lead).
• Since 1909 needs an explanation (first building over x feet (x meters) tall?)
• Why does the 8th tallest have a note saying 9th tallest? Lots of little details like this need cleaning up. Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Details still need cleaning up. I checked the first link of the first note and it said Bank of America is the 234 Tallest in the World, but the article says 230.... Oppose for now until little issues are fixed.

I'm really not sure about the first sentence, I don't think it's confusing at all... I would like to hear a second opinion. I moved the instructions to notes, added references to the sections (except the timeline, which is self-evident), and clarified the year 1909. Indeed, the 8th-tallest building in Charlotte has a note saying it is the 9th-tallest building in North Carolina, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can try to reword my concern. You have a list of 47 buildings, but your opening sentence in the lead says "there are 67 completed high-rises". Since the lead summarizes the list, the numbers should match. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with this.
• Also you still have lots of little details to iron out before reaching featured list status. For example, the first link I clicked on was to check if the tallest was 228th-tallest building in the world, but the link said 230th tallest. Just for example. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed that part of the lead. The reason why the link says 230th tallest is because two buildings taller than the Bank of America Corporate Center have apparently been completed since I added that information (for example the Guangxi Finance Plaza as slightly evidenced here). I will try to keep everything up to date, but I hope some delays are allowed. Sandvich18 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem, it is looking better already. I clicked on all three refs in the first box to find a source for "tallest in North Carolina" but it wasn't there or I couldn't find it. Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Emporis page states that the BoACC "is the tallest building in both the Carolinas, and the tallest between Philadelphia and Atlanta." I changed "the Carolinas" to "North Carolina" to be consistent with other entries in the table. The rest of the buildings in the list are not ranked in North Carolina in their sources, though, so I will add this link to the general section of references. Sandvich18 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm actually not sure about that link since it already appears as a specific reference. Should I use it as a source in each row of the table (when it's appropriate) or would that clutter up the boxes too much? Sandvich18 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I don't think it's actually that big of a problem. It may as well be used both as a specific and as a general source. Sandvich18 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm maybe one of the few people who remembers the proposed Four First Union from 1999, which would have been the 5th tallest building in the country. Seeing as how the featured Chicago list includes canceled proposals, maybe that could be included here? [2] has some info. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• A note on the definition of high-rise and skyscraper would be helpful.
• "230th-tallest building in the world" I am dubious about this. You link it to an article about tallest buildings according to a different definition, and it is already out of date as the source now says 234th. I suggest deleting (and 454th below).
• Looks fine. Just a couple of minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

• I'd remove the piping of National Register of Historic Places to "Registered Historic Place" and just link to the full article title.
• "the construction of 101 Independence Center" - should this read "the construction of the 101 Independance Center"?
• As per MOS:REALTIME, don't use terms like "currently" on Wikipedia. Reword "There are currently seven buildings" to specify as of when your source states this was happening. I.e "As of April 2017, there were seven..."

That's all from me. Looks pretty good overall. Freikorp (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandvich18: You haven't responded to any of the reviews in the last month or so; if you aren't able to get to them soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 04:07, 20 September 2017 (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) 23:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Officially Mr X (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of work has gone into keeping this list up-to-date, and complimenting the main list with interesting prose and relevant images. Several editors have contributed significantly to this list, and it exemplifies lists of its type. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments'
  • Those two one-sentence paragraphs in the lead definitely need to be merged into the existing paragraphs somewhere rather than floating in glorious isolation
  • "For sponsorship reasons, since its inception it has been known as the Coca-Cola Manager of the Month award, with the company sponsoring the league from 2004–2010.[2] From the 2010–11 season, the league was sponsored by npower and the award has been known as the npower Manager of the Month.[3]" - loads wrong with this bit. The first sentence implies that it is still sponsored by Coca-Cola, which it isn't. The second sentence implies that it is still sponsored by nPower, which it isn't. You need to rework this whole bit into a grammatically correct and up-to-date record of what the award was called and when.
  • Any chance you could make the photo captions a bit more varied? At present they essentially all just say "X has won the award N times" over and over again
  • "The below table lists all the people that have won on more than one occasion" - maybe "all the managers" rather than "all the people".....?
  • First and third references under "general" are dead
  • Ref formatting is very inconsistent. Ref 3 has "The Football League" in italics but most others do not. Same with Sky Sports. Some refs have the source as "The Football League" and others just have "Football League", while the ones towards the end suddenly go more specific and have "EPL Championship" (which is wrong anyway - it's not the EPL Championship). Some of the Sky refs have "Sky Sports" but others have "skysports.com". Multiple different date formats are used, in some cases within the same reference! Basically the refs section is a bit of a mess.............

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, concerned about sourcing.

• Formatting of references needs to be consistent. Is it DD-MM-YY or YY-MM-DD? Some sources use 'Football League' others are 'www.football-league.co.uk'. BBC Sport uses the work parameter on some FNs, and in others the publisher.
• A few dead links
• guardian.co.uk → theguardian.com
• Why is there no mention of Football League First Division Manager of the Month, the precursor?
• Tables could do row and colscopes for accessibility, per MOS:DTT. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Officially Mr X: You haven't responded to any of the reviews from the past few weeks; if you aren't able to respond soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 04:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 01:56, 30 September 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ℯxplicit 02:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and should be promoted as such. 2010 marked the first year of South Korea's national singles chart Gaon Digital Chart. The article is structured more-or-less like the FL List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011, the 2011 album counterpart. I look forward to the forthcoming comments and improvements. ℯxplicit 02:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Compared to the other FL which deals with Gaon charts (List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011) has a larger lead, and talks about sales figures so that could be included here.
• "Upon its inception," this appears to be unnecessary given you go on to say "became the first song to top the Digital Chart"

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I added some year-end statistics in the second paragraph. For what it's worth, the lead currently has 255 words to the 278 in List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011. ℯxplicit 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The Gaon Digital Chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles of South Korea" => "The Gaon Digital Chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles in South Korea" (the former could be taken as meaning that the charts ranks the best performing singles by South Korean artists anywhere in the world

• Done. ℯxplicit 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "With the creation of the Gaon Digital Chart, it became the first time in South Korea's history for digital data for individual songs to be provided" => "With the creation of the Gaon Digital Chart, digital data for individual songs was provided for the first time"

• Done, with addition of 'in the country' in the sentence in order not make it sound like it happened for the first time in any music market. ℯxplicit 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some confusion: this article says the Gaon Music Chart was introduced in February 2010. The Gaon Digital Chart article says it started tracking sales in April 2010, so that contradicts the February date. And this article has number ones listed from January, which contradicts both?!?!?!?!

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: After looking at the edit history of Gaon Digital Chart, it appears that the article was originally created for the BGM Chart (Background Music Chart), which did start tracking sales on April 11, 2010 [5]. The page was hi-jacked two months later by an IP editor (who seems to have registered as Zmfltmxlsk some hours later to complete the job) and it became the Gaon Digital Chart article, but the April date remained. I've changed the information in that article accordingly.

After some digging, I found that the chart was introduced in February 2010, but the data started being tracked in 2009, which is why the chart begins in January. I've added this tidbit to the list article (and will add it to the Gaon Digital Chart article at a later time, as there is more background information to it). ℯxplicit 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the chart was only launched in February but they retrospectively published weekly charts for the earlier portion of the year? I have to confess I am still confused as to the exact situation...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Well, basically, yes? The chart was publicly launched in a ceremony on February 23, 2010, and the number-one singles from the first seven weeks (December 27, 2009 – February 13, 2010) were concurrently published. I have yet to come across an article which specifically states the first few weeks' of the chart were simultaneously published. There are only separate articles for each act that peaked at number one, which are all dated February 23, 2010, which is the day Gaon Digital Chart was launched (Gain and Jo Kwon, 2AM, Girls' Generation, 2NE1). ℯxplicit 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read those, but I will AGF on the quetion of the charts for weeks prior to February and give my support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Kingstoken

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the requirements, but also can be held as an example of how to format and organize any similar lists. Also, because of the diversity and number of award nominations received by Game of Thrones is not repeated with many other television programs. Kingstoken (talk) 11:55, 07 July 2017.

Comments by Mymis

Not sure if the article is not ready for FLC. Some observations:

• Most of the article is simply unsourced. For instance, the entire first paragraph of the introduction, or any sentence that describes the meaning of a specific award.

None of the awards(won or nom) are unsourced, But I will try to find sources for the introduction for specific award shows. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said. First paragraph in the lead is completely unsourced. Most of the sentences that introduce each awards are also unsourced, for instance, "The American Cinema Editors presents annual awards for outstanding achievements in film editing" would need to have a reference. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed, introductory paragraph now contains sources as do sentences describing each individual award Kingstoken (talk) 15:38, 09 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intro still largely unsourced, including the first paragraph. And the source you added does not talk about David Benioff. Mymis (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more soures to the first paragraph, also plot/story does not need to be sourced anyway. Other stuff in the lead are already sourced in the body of the article. - AffeL (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many and many inconsistencies. The names of the episodes should not be in italics. All episodes have separate articles, so all should be linked.

Will do, but shouldn't an article be just linked once? - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very few episodes are mentioned more than once though. They definitely must be linked in each table of each award. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been addressed and corrections made Kingstoken (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why there is so much attention given for Emmy awards? Why are they considered superior to any other award?? Almost the entire lead is about the Emmys. Fails MOS:LEAD.

The Emmys are considered as the Academy Awards/Oscars for Television. I would say close to 30 of lead is about the Emmys. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? Why are the Emmys listed first in the article? And not Golden Globes or SAG awards, for instance? They are very respectable awards too. And a third of article is not about the Emmys, so why should the lead be? The lead currently very poorly summarizes the article. Why only actors/acting categories are mentioned? Most of the awards the show received are not for acting. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Emmy Awards down so that it's in alphabetical order like the rest. Will try to improve the lead so that it summarizes more than just acting. - AffeL (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Way too much information in the Emmy Awards section. Two thirds of it are shown in the table already, so most of the prose is very repetitive and redundant.

Do you want us to remove the repetitive stuff in the Emmy section or just trim it down? - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most of it is in the table already. Could maybe leave some sentences about records that show set in specific years, as it is not shown in the table. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - AffeL (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of the awards are over-sourced? Why do we need three sources for one Emmy ceremony?

One source is for wins and one for the nominations. - AffeL (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it's three tho. Some awards shows websites show both winners and nominations. In such way the number of refs could be reduced as there are loads already. It is not a necessity tho. Mymis (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the over-sourced awards, some of the awards still have two or three sources, but that is only because it is necessary. - AffeL (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 10 September 2017 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the criterias, I have addressed all of the comments from the last failed FL nomination. - AffeL (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "He has been nominated for six Primetime Emmy Awards and eleven Screen Actor Guild Awards" => 11 Screen Actors Guild.

Should I change "eleven" to "11" or "Screen Actor Guild Awards" to "Screen Actors Guild", or both? - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just change eleven to 11 as MoS advises to spell numbers only less than ten. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dinklage received a nomination for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actor and he also garnered a Best Ensemble nomination for the same role" => "Dinklage received nominations for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actor and Best Ensemble".

Done. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The role earned him nominations for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award and Online Film Critics Society Award. He also won the New York Film Critics Circle Award for the film." - these can be made one sentence. "The role also earned him nominations ... and an award from the New York Film Critics Circle".

Done. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the highest-paid bit relevant in this article?

I removed that part. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dinklage played the character Bolivar Trask in the 2014 superhero film X-Men: Days of Future Past, a military scientist who creates a range of robots designed to find and destroy mutants" - after "the character Bolivar Trask", you should describe the character not after the film.

Done. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "93 members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA)" - I would cut (HFPA) since it is not really used elsewhere in the article.

Done. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Portal Awards are awarded annually to genre television and film" - this makes little sense to me.

Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously Dinklage is "Nominee" of the Special Achievement Award For Outstanding Talent (see the Satellite table).

Changed "-" to "Peter Dinklage". - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The SFX Awards are awarded annually to achievements" - awards are awarded to achievers or for achievements.

Changed it to "for..." - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 4 - remove Independent Print Limited per {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} stating, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work".

I think I removed all of those. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for similar instances.

Checked. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Looper a reliable source? – FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a reliable source, I will have another look later, if I can't find a good source, then I will remove the New York Film Critics Circle section. - AffeL (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if he actually won the award. I can't find it here, nor do they have that category, it seems. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I removed that award. - AffeL (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks better now. I made these changes to the list. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Brankestein (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note- this nomination was never actually added to WP:FLC until 5/25. --PresN 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein this FLC has received no comments in nearly two months, would you like to alert possibly some interested people or projects? Or review another list and ask for a quid pro quo review? Or would you like to withdraw the nom? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I would like to withdraw the nomination. Brankestein (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I still want to have this list nominated. Brankestein (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Oppose from Aoba47

• The infobox image is not exactly great. It is not the best quality and the subject's face is covered by a microphone. I would image that this image would be more acceptable as it is a clear image of the artist and it shows him getting an award so it is even more connected with this list.
• Please remove the reference to the artist's birthday in the first sentence as that is appropriate for the article on the artist, but not for this list.
• Please rephrase the first sentence to make it match other first sentences of award/nominations FLs. Again, the first list is appropriate for the article on the artist, but not for this list. See List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio and List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga. The first sentence should be about the artist's awards and not a general statement about who he is.
• Remove the statements about his birth and childhood as they are not relevant to this list. Also remove the final sentence of the first paragraph. This should be completely focused on the awards and nominations received by the artist and the sentences mentioned above are not connected to these ideas.
• Add a link to Gasolina.
• Add the years in which Gasolina and Barrio Fino were released. Same goes for Barrio Fino En Directo.
• The spelling of "No. 1" is too informal. Replace it with "number one".
• The entire second paragraph is focused on the commercial performance of the artist's music and seems more appropriate for the artist's main article and his discography. Remember that the lead should devoted to information on the awards/nominations.
• The third paragraph is the only part of the lead that directly talks about the awards/nominations, when the list itself is solely about the awards/nominations. The lead needs to be completely rewritten to focus on the content of the list.

I can see that a lot of good work has been put into this list, but I have to oppose this as the lead is not structured correctly for this type of list and there is not enough focus on the awards/nominations (which currently only takes up the third paragraph). I would suggest withdrawing this, and rewriting the lead completely. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks a lot for your comments. I will rewrite the lead. Brankestein (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment. I do not mean to sound too negative with my review as I can tell work has been put into the list, but the lead should be restructured to follow other FLs on similar topics and focus on the actual content of the list (i.e. the awards and nominations). Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: What do you think about the lead now? I have been doing some changes and I want to know if it is getting better. Brankestein (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work with the revisions. It looks a lot better now. Here are some of my comments below:

• I would recommend that you look closely at the descriptions for the award sections.
• I do not believe you need the shortened titles for the awards (i.e. (or ALMA Awards), (or AMAs), etc.)
• Change the "himself" in the table to "Daddy Yankee".
• Please add sources to support the descriptions for the awards. See List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga for an example of this.

Hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your advices. I changed every "Himself" to "Daddy Yankee", added sources for every award descriptions and removed the shortened titles, but I don't understand what you mean for "look closely at the descriptions for the award sections". Brankestein (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I meant that the descriptions for the awards should have sources, but you have added those. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Sorry to bother you again, but would you like (if you want) to review the list and determine if it should be promoted to featured list? Brankestein (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just finished my review with my last comment, and supported this for promotion. Remember that FLCs require multiple users to support the nomination and there needs to a lot of feedback before this is promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Brankestein (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can read about the process for the FLC at the top of the page. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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