Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2013

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...While some individual lists/articles discuss the history or background of a specific individual depicted on U.S. banknotes, a comprehensive summary and/or list covering the issue of federal notes (1861 to the present) does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. This was the impetus to create the list, my first entry for Wikipedia. All images in this list are cropped from scans made by me at the Smithsonian Institution. Also, I think it meets FLC... Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Extremely well formatted, meticulously referenced. And what a great idea! — Cirt (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments As a numismatist I really enjoyed this list, but there are several problems I have with it. In the lead, it's not WP's job to tell me what is surprising or familiar, so those sentences should be removed. In the table, there is too much information in the name column, which seems cluttered. Since this is about appearances on currency, I believe political party and religion are inappropriate to include. The places of birth and death are superfluous, with the date or just year being suffient. Is there a reason why some positions held are italicized? If you're trying to draw attention to them (and why those in particular?), honestly I would much prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter. For example, James Monroe's box is very long, listing his time in the state house twice, governor twice, and the undescriptive "American Revolutionary War". His dates for Secretary of War are also wrong. Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature. Stick to the stuff that made them worthy of being on a banknote, not state legislature, militia membership, or 'Commissioner of Mexican Claims'. Additionally, we know everything is American, so the "United States" in front of every position is repetitive.

Furthmore, sorry, but the content of the notes is ridiculous. Why does it matter that "Czolgosz was a socially inept, highly detached, and introverted person" to McKinley's appearance on a banknote? Or that he enlisted in the Army as a private? That Philip Sheridan was suspended from West Point and the 1800 election was a tie? Please carefully go through the article and only keep what is important to the article's topic of United States banknotes. The rest is what Wikilinks are for. This is a very well-developed article, but too developed. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Thanks for the detailed review. I too am a numismatist. However, I was not assembling this list as a purely numismatic endeavor. The goal of this list is not only to present who has been depicted on banknotes of the specified period, but to also look at their relevance and major contributions in history. Information like political and religious affiliation may be of interest and contain educational value when looking at the subset of historical figures.
• The italicized titles (as described in the intro) indicate positions that are a part of the chain of succession to the presidency. They are emphasized to denote the most senior elected office attained by any given individual (provided it was within the chain of succession).
• Words like “surprising” or “familiar” have been removed.
• Some of Monroe’s data could be better condensed (e.g., listing a position only once and putting all applicable dates behind it - done).
• Dates for Secretary of War have been fixed. The source was incorrect. Further digging also demonstrated that the WP article on Monroe also may have incorrectly cited the dates from the indicated source. New citation added.
• I respectfully disagree with your assessment that some of the note content is “ridiculous.” As I mentioned before, the goal of this FLC is multidimensional: to provide a very brief professional history of the individuals depicted on banknotes, and to provide some related contextual history; to bring these people to life. Listing all their achievements highlights why many of these people were in fact chosen to be on U.S. banknotes. The list is not primarily about banknotes, but that is the common denominator. Thank you. - Godot13 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure religious affiliation or place of birth has to do with major contributions in history. The line of succession that includes cabinet members was not created until 1886, so that is largely irrelevant to this article, with most people serving before then. Besides, it is not necessarily the most important position held. Clay was better known as a Congressman, not SecState, and Marshall's time as chief justice was much more important than as SecState. Winfield Scott was never SecWar (according to our article), nor would two months of it be more important than being General. Again, that "Booth was a chronically frustrated outcast, who sought acceptance, attention, and recognition from others", that the 1888 election was split, that McCulloch was a local bank director, and that "Guiteau had psychopathic traits" has absolutely nothing to do with banknotes, these people's inclusion on them, or even their contextual history, and the same goes for their religions. If I wanted minute details about births, deaths, and assassins' mental states, I would go to the relevant article, but this one is about banknotes. If McKinley enlisted as a private, what about McPherson and Meade right below him? Sheridan was suspended from West Point, but how did W.T. Sherman do while there? The notes just seem random and include little factoids rather than meaningful, relevant content. I respectfully <st>Oppose. Also, per WP:FLAGBIO, the flags should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 07:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you for the feedback. The flags have been removed.

• • • If this list was intended to focus solely on the banknotes themselves, the notes would be the centerpiece, versus the clipped portraits of those depicted. The goals for this list are stated above, so I won’t rehash them again.

• • • The footnote for Clay acknowledges that the line of succession was different at the time he (and others) served in office. I am not suggesting that attaining a position that falls within the line of succession for the Presidency is necessarily more important than another, or that a given individual may not have made significant historical impact in a position outside of this line. I am merely pointing it out as an educational tool about which positions fall within the line and which do not.

• • • I’m not sure which article you are referring to about Winfield Scott, but references to his serving as interim Secretary of War can be found here [3][4][5]

• • • McPherson and Meade both attended West Point and were career officers. McKinley may have been the only President on U.S. currency to have served as a private in the Armed Forces (i.e., started as a grunt). The information for each West Point graduate (rank in their graduating class) is available, but frankly that didn’t seem quite as interesting as what is included.

• • • The additional details are in the notes section so they do not interfere with the flow of the list but the (at least personally speaking) interesting additional facts are available to those who would avail themselves of it.

• • • This is my first work on WP, and I admit I do not have great experience with the process. If others concur with your feedback regarding an excessive number of irrelevant details then I will be happy revise. Thanks again for the feedback - Godot13 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: – The following have been removed or hidden from view in response to comments from Reywas92:

• References to participation in specific wars have been removed from all title/comment sections except for those individuals depicted in military uniform (i.e., career military). Due to his service as a Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Grant is included in this group.
• References/notes relating to the psychological autopsies of Presidential assassins or attempted assassins.
• Religious affiliation. Godot13 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: - The following changes have been made in response to comments from Reywas92:

• Reference to positions within the line of presidential succession have been de-emphasized (returned to plain text) and related notes removed.
• Reference to line of succession in the intro has been removed.
• Dates of birth and death have been moved into their own sortable columns.
• Places of birth and death have been removed.-Godot13 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, "United States" has been abbreviated as "U.S." (in the body of the list only) due to its frequent use. This is only for Cabinet positions and the House and Senate. For the latter two, some distinction is necessary between State and Federal legislature. President and Vice President, and some of the low frequency titles (e.g., Treasurer of the United States) have not been abbreviated. - Godot13 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, removal of several citations/notes suggested to be irrelevant to the list. -Godot13 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In reviewing the comments above, I believe I have addressed almost all of your concerns. Below may be a few stragglers:

• "prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter." —Except for career military, all references to wars have been removed. Eliminating all but the most important positions reduces the reader’s ability to see how outstanding, versatile, and accomplished these 53 people are in the context of history (i.e., why all statesmen are not created equally).
• "Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature." -- These two honors (and the descriptive notes that go with them) give insight into why those Generals depicted on U.S. Banknotes were in fact selected. Respectfully, -- Godot13 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro needs expansion, and I would like to have the table to be also sortable by the year the first time the person appeared on a banknote. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a particular aspect you would like to see further developed, or simply in general? Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• List can now be sorted by date of first appearance on the note. In addition, secondary/summary table at the end of the list is also sortable. - Godot13 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please provide some idea for a direction or scope of expanding the intro please? Thanks in advance - Godot13 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Third attempt (+1 on talk page) to clarify the type/direction of intro expansion suggested. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-promotion comment: I am happy with the intro now, and I love the new sorting feature. Congrats! Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Applied hidden key to allow sorting/re-sorting by last name. - Godot13 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And dates of birth and death - Godot13 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times is a work so should be in italics. Check other works are treated similarly.-- Done. Question: Do citations from electronic encyclopedias require italics?
  • I'm on the fence on that, but I'd probably say yes. It's a "virtual" publication, just like the NYT when it's "published" on the internet.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed - All comments resolved. Thank you. -- Godot13 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support my support is weak because while I find the notes interesting, they are off-topic. One suggestion: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress footnotes are not consistent with other reference. For example in "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" the title would be "Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" and the publisher "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Congressional Bio references have been changed per your suggestion. I understand the concern that you (and others) have expressed over some of the notes in the list. I have tried to reduce their scope. Many (but not all) of the notes contain information or details which are not found in the linked Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your support, regardless of the level. --Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review below has been copied from the FLC Talk page. The original can be seen there, with an intact log entry for each comment. It has been moved here for continuity. Only the opening word "Comments" has been added, the rest is verbatim. If such a move/copy is inappropriate, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments An FLC of the nature of this article is needed and I would be happy to support if a few changes were made ...

1) a lot of people ask questions about the worthiness of various individuals to appear on modern federal reserve notes ... the individuals were selected in the 1920's as images that would be considered distinctively "American" and give hand-to-hand currency users the confidence that this was the currency of the United States. Hunt down the relevant source for the info, and make the comment (just my solicited advice, value it for what you pay!) 2) Next, if you look on the back of the series 1976 two dollar bill, you will find scads of famous americans that you don't list here - please explain why not! And if you say it is because you don't refer to the reverse, then take Morse off the list! 3) the $5k and $10k united states notes certificates of deposits are omitted here, why? they were only banking pieces but, then again, so was the $100k gold certificate, how are the choices being made? 4) why start in 1861? President Buchanan appeared on the 1860 $1000 treasury note - why omit that? You include the 1861 2-year treasury note ...

Overall, an excellent article which is most def needed, but you gotta be clear about the rationale for what you include and exclude .... Happy to engage more if any of this is helpful ... --LondonYoung (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look over the FLC.

1) I agree, many people do wonder how the current group of people depicted on U.S. banknote was selected. What you suggest makes sense as a significant criteria for selection, which I would be happy to add, as soon as I can find at least one appropriate reference for such a statement. I am looking.

2) The 53 people included in the list each had their own individual portrait engraved and placed on U.S. Banknotes. This includes those individually depicted on the reverse of the notes (e.g., Morse, Fulton, etc.). The Trumbull painting engraved for the reverse of the Series 1976 $2 bill contains a laundry list of historically significant figures in American history. However, only Franklin, Jefferson, and Morris were individually featured on other bills. I did not list each founder depicted in the Trumbull painting because it is a group depiction.

3) The Series 1875 $5,000 and $10,000 Certificates of Deposit were more like checks (or receipts) than negotiable currency or banknotes. This was also true for the early (1862-1863) high denomination gold certificates, but by 1870-1875 they were redesigned to resemble negotiable currency. While the $100,000 gold certificate was not a negotiable instrument for the general public (along with the other high denomination 1934 gold certificates), the $100,000 note is designed in exactly the same style as its lower denomination counterparts. Also, while there are some flaws in every major reference book if you look hard enough, the central reference text for United States Banknotes (for collectors, not necessarily researchers) is Friedberg, who does not assign a catalog number to Certificates of Deposit.

4) I chose to start in 1861 because was the year of issue for the Demand Notes (greenbacks) and it was the time that Congress began to overhaul the system of currency. I also needed to select a cutoff date to limit the scope of this particular list.

The first line of the list/article states that the inclusion criteria are United States banknotes from 1861 to the present. This seemed like a fairly complete and manageable task. I do hope to create at least one or two more similar lists, possibly for Confederate Currency, and maybe for U.S. Bonds.

Again, thank you for your time and input. I am looking for support in the literature for the first point you raised. -- Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point raised: [Quote from the BEP website]It was determined that portraits of Presidents of the United States have a more permanent familiarity in the minds of the public than any others. This decision was somewhat altered by the Secretary of the Treasury to include Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Secretary of the Treasury; Salmon P. Chase, who was Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War and is credited with promoting our National Banking System; and Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence...Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence.[[6]]--Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More of me blathering on ... I think you need to change the opening sentence to refer to "individual portraits" as per your answer above ... this will deal with Trumbull's painting (and the like), and it will also deal with the image of Columbus, who appears individually, on the $1000 Legal Tender because "portrait" often implies an emphasis on the face ... I also think you have to mention that you are relying on Friedberg - at least in a footnote - because, if nothing else, Sherman never appeared on a U.S. banknote though he probably would have appeared on the never-issued $500 coin note to which Friedberg none-the-less assigned number 379 ... these two changes, and I will be happy to support

I will say nothing of the fact that the reverse of large size NBN's contained ovals at each side of the reverse which some states used for portraits of favorite sons ... we can only go so far! --LondonYoung (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and, to be clear, I would like the article to say that it relies on Friedberg for the definition of what counts as a U.S. Banknote ... this is a list, and what is on, or off, this list seems to have been determined by Friedberg (which is fine, but you need to say that)--LondonYoung (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your suggested clarification has been added to the first sentence of the list. There is already a footnote by the W.T. Sherman entry (in the far right column) indicating that he was depicted on the $500 Treasury Note which was designed, printed, but never issued. I am curious as to your reference to the reverse of NBN's. Only the Series 1882 Date Back and Value Back has an individual portrait on the reverse (William Fessenden)... unless you are referring to the individual content of the State Seals on the reverse of the 1882 Brown Backs.

Do you have any objection if I copy our discussion onto the FLC nomination page where other such discussions have taken place? Thanks again for your time and insightful comments.--Godot13 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. School-children are often asked to put together reports on famous Americans and those who have appeared on our currency are an important group of such. I think a list like this is important and should be featured since it will become one of the more referenced pages in the wikipedia. Featuring it not only helps people to find it, but also draws attention that will keep the content top-notch and accurate. Which of us (sorry non-Americans :-( ) has not looked upon the currency and wondered about the people appearing on it and why they were selected? --LondonYoung (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.Well done. I recently acquired a Gold Cert pre 34, and it was a joy to read this listing. I do collect exonumia and some odd paper from the US.Coal town guy (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to TRM's request I revisit my comments, I am still opposed to the MOS-violating material in the notes section. Notes in an article are to provide further clarification for material listed in the text (like note 3), to give details about citiations (like note 1 and 2), or to give important details relevant to context (like notes 4 and 5), not simply miscellanea. There is no pertinance of Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, Farragut's quotation, Stanton's suspension, or quotes of Thanks of Congress to appearances on currency. I consider this to be a WP:TRIVIA section, which goes against the manual of style. I am also disappointed that the incredibly irrelevant material of assassins' mental states was simply commented out, not actually removed. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Understanding how some of this material can come off as potentially trivial in the context of who/why these people appear on currency, and after reviewing WP:TRIVIA,
• 1) Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, 2) Farragut's quotation, and 3) Stanton's suspension have been Removed/Commented out, and 4) Assassins’ mental states has been Erased/Deleted.

• Thanks of Congress remain. The quotes do serve to “give important details relevant to context” in that many readers are likely to be unfamiliar with the term Thanks of Congress, or the specific nature of the content. The information provided is also historically pertinent, in part, to their selection to appear on U.S. banknotes. I do not think this is trivia (per WP:TRIVIA). Thank you for revisiting your comments. I hope you will find these changes satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • You don't seem to understand. The ones I mentioned are just examples I pointed out, but none of these are relevant. Yes, that "Decatur was fatally wounded in a duel by court-martialed former Naval Commodore James Barron on 22 March 1820", that "Hamilton began publishing the “Federalist” series on 27 October 1787", that "In 1794, Madison declined both U.S. Minister to France and Secretary of State posts offered by President Washington", and the other notes ARE WP:TRIVIA in the context of an article about appearances on currency. If they were relevant, they would go in the table or body of the article, but they are not. If you have sources actually describing the selection process, that would be great, but this is fluff (Manning surely wasn't honored for editing the Albany Atlas, and Jefferson wasn't chosen because his election was a tie). I doubt that when Congress or Treasury decided to put a person on a banknote decades later, they made that decision based on the flowery text of the TOC (not simply the same reason it was given). If readers don't know what a TOC is, that's what WP:WIKILINKs are for. The quotes are not "relevant to context" when context is appearance on banknotes, unless you can show the quotes or TOC itself were taken into consideration when put on the bills. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. I did not understand. Thank you for explaining it to me. The list has been edited to your exact specifications. If I missed anything please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support.--Godot13 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another fifers' list is ready to get nom at FLC. The list, with inclusion criteria, is now able to join the FL class (I guess). As always, Comments and suggestion will be appreciated. Cheers, Zia Khan 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if someone uploads Qadir's free image. Thanks, Zia Khan 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments - I have a couple of questions/comments:

• As there is no photo of Abdul Qadir himself, I was thinking that the image caption read "Qadir took five of his fifteen five-wicket hauls ..." because this adds a little context to the importance of the image. It may be a bad idea (feel free to dismiss it), but saying explicitly that it is five of fifteen makes it clear that the ground is quite significant.

• Yes, this is significant for him thats why I've added this to his fifers' list?! Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the 8-ball overs in his first fifer; does this influence the other statistics — so for example does it make his economy 1.37 per six balls, or per eight?

• This is according to the source (its per six balls but the source doesn't explain this!). Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it notable that he never lost a Test when taking a fifer?

• This is notable indeed. Added a sentence at the end of the second para. Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway great work with it; hope you can answer some of my questions, but regardless I believe the article meets the criteria. - Shudde ^talk 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments and support. Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the replies. Very happy to support. - Shudde ^talk 02:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, but instead of with another sci-fi/fantasy award list, it's with my other FLC favorite: increasingly obscure video game-related lists! Here we have a list of Square Enix companion books- covering the holy grails of artwork and article-development-section-source books, the Ultimania series (and it's predecessor, the Perfect Works series). Knew that there was a book for Final Fantasy XII, but not what other games had an Ultimania or three? Now you know, in one big, sortable table. --PresN 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Congrats, PresN, for cleaning up that mess of a table I left you back in July 2010. I haven't had a chance to look at it in-depth just yet so a few quick questions first. What happened to The Bouncer Perfect Works? Is it not a real thing? Also, are you not interested in including the older guide books? If not, that's fine, just curious about your reasoning. Finally, why do you use third-level headings instead of second-level headings for the sections? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bouncer book wasn't real- some editor added it to the DigiCube article back in 2008 and it never went away, and there's no source of any sort that proves it ever existed. I took out the game guide books because frankly, every game ever has them- they're not notable, they're not special, and I didn't feel that a big table of hundreds of them belonged in a list that was trying to focus on a unique set of books that have hundreds of pages of artwork and background information. It's hard to draw the line between game guides with a bit of development info and reference books with some game guide information, but it's easy and non-subjective to just limit it to Ultimanias and Perfect Works. Finally, level-3 headers are there because I forgot to change them back. Now done! --PresN 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha figures. That's how rumors start. It's a shame about the earlier books; some of them look interesting (e.g. FF7 True Script Dissection and FF Complete Works). I guess there's no good way to slice those out with a set of consistent criteria. I'll try to look into just how much dev info/artwork/etc. was in those books, but it's not critical to this FLC. I get the sense that they were at least a bit more notable than any old game guide since they were first-party published. Oh well. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nominator has worked hard to not only cite reliable sources and establish comprehensiveness, but to also work on uprooting misinformation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, list is well referenced and the lead is well written. Congrats! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• over 10 million in sales - 10 million dollars, yen? Copies sold? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Copies sold, ambiguity now removed. --PresN 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "written and published by the Square subsidiary DigiCube. DigiCube...". Try not to have this kind of repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
• The lead image could use alt text.
• All caps in ref 10 need removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All three done now. --PresN 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a thorough look at one of the most important film awards in Indonesia. This layout is based on the featured list Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look – Too many redlinks, can you reduce them? I'll have my comments when you sort out this one, ping me as you resolve this. Zia Khan 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See, this is why I just had black links for List of films of the Dutch East Indies; WP:REDLINK is a damned if you do, damned if you don't policy, since nobody can agree just how to apply it. I don't mind cutting the redlinks down to just the winners (in the morning, it's 2 am here), but technically under policy they are all notable and thus should all be linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All red links are now black except for winners (directors with one win and several nominations are also red outside of that one win) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – on prose, but 'm still not convinced with the redlinks. Zia Khan 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks quite good. I am pretty sure that soon there will only be blue links on that page :). Regards. --Tomcat (7) 09:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles the similar list of songs recorded by Fiona Apple, which I recently co-promoted to FL status. I appreciate those who take time to review this list and I am happy to address concerns as they arise. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just had a final look over, and there are no other issues that I can see (aside from "Martiniand" -> "Martini and"). Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work and does what is needs to do. Nicely balanced lead covers the main points and the table works well. The only suggestion I would make is for you to consider using {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} for the reference column, but that's entirely up to you (see List of works by H. C. McNeile for the result). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! I was not familiar with the abbr/tooltip template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find any problem in this one. Good work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great article; no issues! It's great to see song lists finally getting completion (for years, we've just had boring ugly ones that listed every song in bullet form.) Everytime I comment on one of these I always say the same thing, I need to finish mine. Zach 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I've come to expect, a very good list. I would only ask if you could crop the lead image to get rid of the distracting lower half of the crowd? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not familiar with uploading images taken by others, except if using the Flickr upload tool, so I replaced the image with a better one. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice choice! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the target demographic for this show, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe it's just because I have quite a thing for Helen George ;-) Anyway, I am nominating this for featured list because after a couple of days of work I think it meets the criteria. I'm going to be going on Wikibreak on March 29th, so hopefully things can be resolved by then..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all comments resolved, can't see any other issues that would prevent this from being promoted to FL. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to expand this one for a while and finally got around to it. This is my sixth colleges list, but there are inevitably things I usually overlook (hopefully nothing too major), so thanks in advance to FLC's sharp-eyed reviewers! Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - prose is good, everything that should be referenced is referenced, tables are clear and well-formatted with no accessibility problems that I can see. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose; sorry it took me so long to get back to you, this page somehow fell off my watchlist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing and supporting! Ruby 2010/2013 05:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit Ray is considered among greatest filmmakers of all time and I am planning to get this list to FL status on the centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May 2013. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe article satisfies FL criteria. It has gone thru a peer review with the comments from User:Tomcat7, User:Another Believer and User:Crisco 1492. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments at the PR. Image looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Tomcat (7) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appears to meet criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The references look a little odd, "general" and specific". I'd rather you use those general ones as citations and all in with the references and then the bibliography underneath.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the references layout per your suggestion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the beginning, Satyajit Ray should be unbolded as this isn't the parent article

Done

• The lead is not complete IMO. Apart from Pather Panchali, Apu Trilogy and Ashani Sanket I don't see other films being mentioned. The fact that three of his films submitted by India for Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film), the most by any director is not mentioned anywhere.

Three films were just submitted and not even nominated. Again, academy award submission does not add any value to his portfolio. so I don't think it needs any mention here or anywhere else for him. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah but still they are important from an Indian perspective. This has more significance than a film being named by a magazine such as TIME. When that fact is included this could well be accommodated. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies" -> His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies in 2005. A similar list was released just a few months ago. Also this fact should be come before the last para since the last one talks about awards won by himself.

Done. Changed the flow. Also, can you guide to me to the link for recent listing? Content can be then changed accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent listing I don't get what you actually mean —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "A similar list was released just a few months ago." I was considering that as a recent listing. Anyway, 2005 is added to the article for better clarity. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a link —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1984[23]"; Refs should come after punctuation

I don't see it.

• References should come only after punctuation —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the ref [23] should come at the end of the sentence like 1992.[23][24]? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mind you, last three FAs use that format. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Atlantic Monthly -> The Atlantic or The Atlantic (Monthly)

Done

• This being a magazine shouldn't it be in italics —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that. My bad! Done now. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #9 has no publisher

Done

• publisher=''[[The Hindu]]'' is totally wrong. It should be either work=[[The Hindu]] or newspaper=[[The Hindu]]

Done

• Ref #19 has no author

Done

• Time is a magazine; using {{cite news}} for quoting a material from it seems inappropriate to me
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• Support all my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

My concerns were addressed in the peer review process. Again, I am not terribly familiar with filmography standards, nor am I familiar with the subject, but I see no major problems with this list in terms of style, formatting, spelling, etc. I am not sure the languages need to be linked each time, both because of repetition and because commons languages do not need to be linked. I would support the promotion of this list as long as concerns raised by all other reviews are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support With all the concerns raised by other users have been resolved, I find no other imperfections in the list. The article meets all the criteria of a FL. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously promoted to FL status only to be demoted for failing to meet 3b. However, the list has since been expanded, and because I believe it still meets FL criteria I am happy to re-nominate. (Note: I currently have another list nominated for FL status, but since it has already received four support votes I believe my second nomination is acceptable.) I am happy to address any concerns that may arise during this nomination process. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How much weight should year-end lists be given? You'll notice that in the "Other recognitions" section, I have included some year-end list rankings for each of her albums. You'll also notice on the article for The Idler Wheel... that the album has actually been placed on many more year-end lists. Perhaps album-specific year-end rankings should be removed from this list of awards and nominations? This would leave other list rankings for select songs of Apple herself (Best Female Performer, etc.) Ideally, would these album-related rankings appear here or on the appropriate album articles? If removed, this would essentially leave the more generic list placements such as "Hottest Album Cover", Academy Award shortlist, etc.--Another Believer _(Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed year-end "best of" list rankings for her albums. What remains are recognitions spanning longer time frames (best of the 2000s, etc.) and other list rankings associated with Apple herself. Pardon me for using this page for my own inner dialogue! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruby. I added some chart statistics to the lead, along with a genre (pop rock, according to Allmusic). Her albums have been placed on so many lists, that I think it would be almost arbitrary to select some listings but leave out others... and perhaps those details would be better off in the album articles themselves? Two paragraphs remain in the lead, but they are more evenly weighted, if that helps! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I support the promotion of this list. The content and prose are solid, and the citations are reliable and correctly formatted. Ruby 2010/2013 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments Support

• Other than these small things, the article is well referenced and written. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support because issues were fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All of the above issues are fixed. All the best and Good Job! - Vivvt (Talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My very minor concerns all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated a list related to the South Africa women's cricket team, so here we go! I have another nomination open Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut/archive1, but it has two supports, and few remaining concerns. I hope that the community will trust in me to cope with the two nominations adequately. This list is based on similar lists from the football world, such as Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent and Malmö FF league record by opponent. As always, all comments, thoughts and issues appreciated! Harrias ^talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, South Africa women did not compete again until 1997". "the" would be helpful before South Africa here. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see this in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I intended to reply, but forgot to. I don't think the suggestion would make grammatical sense, at least in (cricketing) British English. In internationals, the South African women's team is generally referred to simply as "South Africa women", in the same way as the men's team is generally referred to as "South Africa". If this jars too much grammatically as it is, I think it would need rewriting to something like "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, the women's team did not compete again until 1997.." Which although slightly repetitive, should satisfy us both? Harrias ^talk 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would satisfy me. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideal. Done. Harrias ^talk 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good work —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is very well-done. Twelve months and 25 days ago, my friend Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote a comprehensive list on storms that affect a place when you think hurricane will not go, New Mexico. Shortly after its publication, the author told me on IRC that he was impressed with how much info he found (who IIRC thought about making this article as early as Fall 2011) and thus pressured me into making List of Nevada hurricanes. In April of last year, he offered me a collab of this fine list, which due to lack of interest I declined. Earlier this year, he made a similar proposal of such nomination, of which we nearly got to FLC. However, I got a bit busy in early February and the whole project died of until tonight when it occurred to me I never sent this list to FLC. So, here goes nothing, and yes Hurricanehink is co-noming and yes this is a WP:CUP nomination. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yerp. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as well.--Tomcat (7) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]