Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2014

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 SchroCat 20:54, 29 April 2014 [1].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman

[edit]
Nominator(s): S.G.(GH) ping! 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it covers all the aspects of the topic, is an interesting provision of statistical data for a popular cricket player, one whose statistical achievements are of note (leading wicket taker, first to 300 wickets etc.) not to mention a colourful character. I think that the technical side of things should be to the level required, and the prose in the lead is suitable enough (this FLC should help iron out any issues). This is my first FLC, so am happy to address any issues people have. I've based the content on other Featured Lists like List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping) 15:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
  • Lead image needs alt text
  • "a skilled fast pace bowler" – skilled is non-neutral best to have it in quotes supported with a ref. Also remove pace from Bowling (cricket) since you've placed Fast bowler (pipe link) as a prefix.
  • "Fiery Fred" and the following sentence needs to be sourced
  • Ref #2 is dead
  • Wickets linked twice in the lede. Perhaps you could link "bowler to take 300 wickets in a Test career" to List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket.
  • "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls" – To date, 41 bowlers have taken 15+ fifers
  • "three instances of him taking five wickets in each innings" –> three instances of him taking five or more wickets in each innings
  • His first five-for came on July 17, 1953" – If you check the scorecard, the year seems to be 1952 and he did not take a fifer on the very first day of the match. Better to remove the date
  • "8/31" needs an explanation like he conceded 31 runs while taking 8 wickets.
  • "successful innings bowling" –> successful bowling figures
  • Not sure what you mean by "in which he took a career-best 34 wickets". Did he take 34 wickets in the tournament?
  • I disagree with the last sentence in the lead. Without a source this looks like a POV. He never played ODIs as he last played a Test match in 1964, which is seven years before the introduction of ODIs.

—Vensatry (Ping) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my eyes that's what it says: he retired prior to the rise of ODI cricket so did not have an opportunity to take five-wicket hauls in it, though he did play List-A cricket. I've reworded it a bit. Thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could say he never got an opportunity to play One-day cricket as the format came came into being only in 1971. He may nor may not have picked up fifers if he had played ODIs. The present structure is unsourced and looks like a POV. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended everything else you've suggested. Please let me know your thoughts on my two comments. Many thanks. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Any further thoughts @Vensatry:? --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence needs a source —Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done all of the above now. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • "Trueman's seventeen five-wicket hauls places him joint-third in a list of most five-wicket hauls by England Test players, behind Sydney Barnes and Ian Botham" – Mention Botham first as he is leading the list.
  • "eight wickets at a cost of 31 runs" – Cost doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Rewrite the text it in simple words
  • "career best" probably needs to be hyphenated
Done and done. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key only complete sentences should have a full-stop
Okay. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man of the match awards did not enter Test cricket until the 1980s, after Trueman had retired" The source doesn't exactly convey the text. "Player of the match" titles were given occasionally even during the 1960s although under a different name as "Bowler/Batsman of the match".
  • Any reason for not including row scopes?
I don't know what that is. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at other lists —Vensatry (Ping) 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Harris or myself fixed this. Is it right? S.G.(GH) ping! 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that for you! —Vensatry (Ping) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could use the "asterisk" inside the date column instead of wickets shaded with a color.
That key is the same for all the other five-wicket haul featured lists. Will you insist on the change? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the explanation for "Result" in the key as it's too obvious to anyone. Perhaps include a description for Draw.
That key is the same for all the other five-wicket haul featured lists, with the result caption the same in each one. Will you insist on the change? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it has a point to stay. However, a description for "Drawn" matches should be included in the key; it's highly useful to the readers though others don't have it. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a description. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol (asterisk) is too small. A color might be helpful in easily identifying it. I'm not forcing you on this and it's upto you. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at other examples and see if anything better is used. --S.G.(GH) ping! 11:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as we aren't using the spade symbol for MotM - shall I swap them around? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can! —Vensatry (Ping) 03:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so. Still trying to find a better citation for the MotM comment. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wickets col. needs a secondary sort corresponding to the number of runs conceded.
I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. I did not come across it in the other featured lists. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look up how to do this - did you see if Harrias had done it with his edits? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "ESPN Cricinfo" italicized in ref #11 alone? Also you've used just "Cricinfo" in some references.
This is an inconsistency resulting from copying references from other Featured Lists on the same topic, I'll make them all consistent. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ESPN Cricinfo" –> "ESPNcricinfo"

—Vensatry (Ping) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. It matches ESPNcricinfo. --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Addressed some more, though I've a couple of questions regarding one or two of them. Thank you for your help thus far if I forget to say later. Appreciated. --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and thanks for your help. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! —Vensatry (Ping) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Harrias talk 17
11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Like this? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13
27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I made some minor changes: Removed the stray commas after each town, corrected the location of the first match in the list and linked to the 1952 series against India in the lead. I'll have another look at this list later. Nice work! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments to be made? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any further thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 20:54, 29 April 2014 [2].

World Fantasy Award for Best Short Story

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another month goes by, and the pendulum swings back from video game lists to speculative fiction award lists. For your reviewing pleasure we have the World Fantasy Award for Best Short Story - the short story equivalent to the recently featured novel and novella lists of award winners as presented by the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. As always, I've replicated the points brought up in prior World Fantasy Award list nominations, as well as older nominations in the Hugo and Nebula award list series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Aamir Khan filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Khan is one of the most prolific and well-known figures of Indian cinema, and has contributed to some of the landmark films of Bollywood history. This listing of his screen appearances is well-sourced and thoroughly researched. Look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: on prose. Very good work, keep it up! —Zia Khan 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Redtigerxyz:. I have modelled this list after several FLs such as Jake Gyllenhaal filmography, Christian Bale filmography, Jennifer Lopez filmography. Rani Mukerji filmography etc., all of which mention TV and music video appearances. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk)
Comments by Vivvt
  • The source for "Manzil Manzil" and "Zabardast" does not mention about these two films.
The TOI ref mentions the two films.
The lead provides two references, however table entry refers to only one reference and that one does not mention the required.
Changed. Thanks. :)
  • Also, if he was an assistant director, no need to mention "N/A" for the role column.
I did that so it would be easier to sort out the films in which he acted. I can remove it if you want though. :)
Yes. Please.
Removed.
  • Role column in "Music video appearances" seem redundant to me.
Removed.
  • I would recommend putting "Year" as the first column, followed by "Title".
Almost all filmography FAC's follow the format of putting title before year. I think it's fair enough.
  • For footnotes, wouldn't it be nice to say "Khan played/performed" than "He"?
True. Changed.

-- Vivvt (Talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns @Vivvt:. Thanks for the comments. :)-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice job and Good luck! - Vivvt (Talk) 14:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping) 12:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
  • "His performance in the film and in the thriller Raakh (1989) earned him a Special Jury Award at the National Film Awards ceremony" – year needed.
Mentioned the ceremony.
  • In the succeeding sentence, "the highest-grossing Hindi film of 1990" is not verified by the source.
Tweaked.
  • "The 871 million (US$15 million)-grossing romance Raja Hindustani" – This needs clarification, was it was a life-time grosser? Further it needs "as of" and the exchange rate needs to be adjusted to the corresponding year.
I am not sure how this works. Could you give me an example on how to change the exchange rate? There is no such adjustment on other featured articles on Indian actors. Do you think this is essential? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because this film was released 18 years ago and exchange rates change drastically from time to time, we need to have some adjustments. Have a look at this article to see how this is explained. Having said that, I'm not very keen to have box-office figures for Indian films as they are highly subjective. —Vensatry (Ping) 08:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I adjusted the exchange rate for Raja Hindustani and removed them for 3 Idiots. Thanks for the link. :)-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if a common reader would be able to comprehend "playing against type". Consider linking it appropriately if needed.
Wikilinked.
  • "In 2001, Khan started a production company, Aamir Khan Productions" is not verified by the source.
Changed and added source.
  • "he played a man suffering from anterograde amnesia" – ditto.
Sourced.
  • "3.92 billion (US$65 million)" – Conversion needs to be adjusted according to the exchange rate that year.
  • Adjust the syntax for row scopes in the "Films" table so that the field containing it appears in a single row
Done.
Not done. When you look at the page there is an obvious difference between columns (such as Title, Year, etc., where you've used column scopes) and the rows (Film titles). As I said earlier, the field containing the row scopes should appear in a single row. Besides, the pipe symbol appearing before it should be replaced by an exclamation mark! I can do the adjustments, but it looks very tedious for the whole list. —Vensatry (Ping) 13:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite lost here, as I don't understand what needs to be done. Could you give me an example @Vensatry:. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a sample edit for Yaadon Ki Baaraat. The syntax is right for the "Television" and "Music video appearances" tables. —Vensatry (Ping) 07:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on! —Vensatry (Ping) 07:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Finally! Thanks for the help. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he "co-write" Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak? The title cards show that he only assisted Hussain.
Yeah, the title card mentions that he assisted Hussain in writing the story, though the Bollywood Hungama source mentions him as a writer? What should I write? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt the credibility of Bollywood Hungama at least in this. The page looks like an IMDb entry. It would be nice to have some other third-party sources. —Vensatry (Ping) 08:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Used another source. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth mentioning the songs he recorded in the "Notes" column
Do we really need to name the songs in the notes column? How about mentioning them in a footnote? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion —Vensatry (Ping) 08:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think naming the songs will make the list look cluttered, so I will pass on this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #1 is missing date and author
Added.
  • Why is "Bollywood Hungama" linked in refs #5 and #6 alone?
Linked only first occurrence.
  • Ref #11 needs date
Added.
  • Ref #18 needs publisher. If it's a magazine it needs other essential parameters as well
for this magazine these are the publisher name has been included. What other parameters do we need when it is an offline source? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if "lulu" is a reliable publisher.
this book by Fuad Omar looks quite reliable to me. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem here is "Lulu" is a self-publishing company. So I think using it here won't be a good idea. —Vensatry (Ping) 08:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the source. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #33 in incomplete
Added.
  • Author for ref #44 should be Naman Ramachandran and not Nama Ramachandran
Added.
  • Ref #46 is missing date
Added.
  • Ref #48 needs date and author
Added.

—Vensatry (Ping) 07:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed most of your concerns @Vensatry:. Thanks for the comments once again. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The only thing I would suggest is to centre all the references in the Films section, like how you did with the Television section (style="text-align: center;" |) <-- that's what I mean. Other than that, this is a nice article. Goooood work!! :D AB01 I'M A POTATO 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I tried putting it in the centre, but it still shows up the same way. No clue why; not very good at formatting tables. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might give it a try then :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, many thanks. :) KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries..did I just thanks your thanks? :P AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Yeah, you did! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Virat Kohli

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping) 07:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virat Kohli, a highly-talented upcoming cricketer, needs no introduction among the cricket circles. Aged 25, he already holds multiple records in ODIs. In all probability, I think he is the fastest cricketer to join the elite club of "25 international centuries" in the modern era. Look forward to your suggestions —Vensatry (Ping) 07:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sufur222

Huge fan of Kohli, so I'll happily leave a few comments.

  • "at the Eden Gardens" → are you sure? I've only ever heard referred to as "Eden Gardens", without the "the".
  • "Making his Test cricket debut against the West Indies" → when? I'd also rephrase this to "After making his Test cricket debut against the West Indies in xxxx,...".
  • "described Kohli's innings to be" → "described Kohli's innings as" makes more grammatical sense.
  • "six Test cricket" → "six in Test cricket", surely?
  • "The first of the two, 100 not out was scored" → "The first of the two, 100 not out, was scored"
  • "He followed that with a 61-ball century in another match of the same series." → seeing as you've already referred to both centuries in the previous sentence, the second one more indirectly, I'd reword this as it seems to be introducing it as a completely new century when you've already mentioned it, i.e. "in another match of the same series", when you've already stated exactly which series both centuries were scored in.
  • "India had lost only two matches" → when what happened? When Kolhi scored a century, or when he got one in the second innings? Make this clearer.
  • "Between his debut Twenty20 International match in 2010 and his latest in 2013" → seeing as he played in the game today against Pakistan (and still hasn't scored a century), the end of this sentence should be changed to "his latest in 2014".

That's all – just a few grammar fixes, as the tables look fine. A future legend of the game, one hopes, that I'm happy to offer suggestions on improving their Wikipedia content towards. Any queries on my comments, don't hesitate to ask me – I'll support when everything is sorted. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sufur222: Thanks a lot for visiting the page. Hope I've addressed your comments! —Vensatry (Ping) 07:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Crisco 1492 07:12, 20 April 2014 [5].

List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for featured article because I've worked on this article from scratch, and I am satisfied that it meets FL standards and think it shows a good representation of the progression of football into a pass-oriented league. This article is a list of the NFL's season-by-season receiving yards leaders - that is, the players who had recorded the most yardage from forward passes. The list also notes which players are current players, which ones are in the Hall of Fame, and which ones received a major league award. Toa Nidhiki05 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Why is it that the only references in the list refer to the first three years? The rest of the years (1935-2013) aren't referenced, and if they are, its unclear. The whole "Other receiving yards leaders" doesn't appear to have a single citation. I haven't read the article or anything just noticed this and thought I'd bring it up. CrowzRSA 04:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any information that is not directly cited in the article is cited in the general references section. The first three years are cited specifically because the league did not set a number of games for each team to play, so some teams played more games than others. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intuitive to me that "Games" was not the number of games played by the players, but the number of games their team played (players miss games due to injuries, coaching decisions, etc). I know its in the key, but I would have expected it to be the games actually played like in FL List of National Basketball Association season scoring leaders (yeah, it's basketball and not football, but its a sport).—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean here... I'll toy around with putting a note on each player that played less than the number of games in a season. Toa Nidhiki05 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would alternatively suggest that the historical number of games in an NFL season can be described in the lead, and leave the list to the player's actual number of games.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified it per your request. Toa Nidhiki05 03:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my resolved comments. Content of the Games column is fine now. I don't plan on doing a more thorough review at this time, but it looks promising. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk)
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Incredibly meticulously referenced throughout, most impressive. Only a couple minor points: (1) Not sure why the Notes section then says in bold below it Notes and Footnotes; both could be removed with just the main subsection header remaining. (2) General references sect should just be renamed References, per WP:LAYOUT. Otherwise, very very well done! — Cirt (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly on prose issues

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was an accidental mistake, I must have removed it when I was fixing an issue noted here. It's back now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

1st Magritte Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The only suggestion I have for the list is to make a table for the multiple nominees and winners (see: 84th Academy Awards). Otherwise, fantastic work.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those tables are so useful. That section is easier to read without tables.--Earthh (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few recommendations to improve the page: (1) Strongly recommend removing the sect Films with multiple nominations and awards, as it seems unencyclopedic, but also it's redundant to the infobox and elsewhere higher on the page which has similar info. (2) Suggest adding Portal:Belgium to the other portals in the See also section. (3) Might want to wikilink the director and producer in the infobox. (4) Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award -- not sure which citations are confirming this info. That's it for now, otherwise nicely done overall. I particularly like the Background sect. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Cirt. I'm not sure about removing that section, every FL about award ceremonies has a "Films with multiple nominations and awards" section. I don't think Portal:Belgium is so useful when we have already Portal:Brussels, what do you think? I didn't find so many information about the director and producer to have separate articles. Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced by ref 13.--Earthh (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, well I've thought it over, again, and I respectfully stand by my comments above. The section may be in other pages but it doesn't look encyclopedic, and it's unsourced, and it's redundant to multiple places higher up on the same page, including the infobox and other subsections. Please let me know if you care to respond to my comments, above, and I'll consider changing to support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave that section per convention. Portal:Belgium would be redundant since we have already Portal:Brussels. Director and producer of the show did not even have a profile on IMDb, there's no encyclopedic content about them.--Earthh (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to your judgment about the portal placement, and director and producer info. Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award still appear to be unsourced. Keep me posted if you change your mind about the unsourced and unencyclopedic section Films with multiple nominations and awards and I'll gladly consider switching to support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've given it some more thought and I actually wish to change my position and state that I don't think I should hold back from supporting based on the section Films with multiple nominations and awards. So the only thing left to do would be to make sure the reader can easily understand that subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced to that ref, best to make that more clear please, as at the moment it is only apparent that this ref is citing the subsection Awards, and not the others. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are subsections to Awards now, in this way the reader can easily understand that they are sourced to that ref.--Earthh (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cirt, for your support and helpful comments.--Earthh (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome! Sorry if there was confusion after I re-thought out my position regarding above. I'm certainly glad my comments were helpful. — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a lot of overlinks in the list, and you shouldn't list Maggrite Award and Académie André Delvaux per WP:ALSO. Except for these concerns, it's excellent! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Gabriel Yuji. I've removed some links and fixed the See also section.--Earthh (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! You have my Support now. However, I think the links on the image captions are also unnecessary since they are linked on the table. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Best films of 2010 - yet there is a 2008 film here...?
By that we mean best films released in Belgium in 2010.
It is written in the lead.
  • Académie André Delvaux, - can we avoid repeating this twice in quick succession?
Where? Currently it is not repeated twice in quick succession.
Sorry, could you be more specific so I can fix it?
The Joseph Plateau Award info is presented only there.
Could you be more specific?
  • their works during the 2009–2010 period. - in the led you just say 2010
The Academy considered films released in the previous calendar year (2010) which, according to their rules, run from September 2009 to September 2010.
"their works during the 2009–2010 period" is not enough for you?
  • (the first film to garner that many nominations), - well, obviously, this is the first award ceremony for these awards. Should probably be removed
Removed.
  • the first film to receive six awards: - per above
Reworded.
I added the images.--Earthh (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one has done this yet.--Earthh (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, what happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the images, everything is fine.--Earthh (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check the images so that we can close the nomination?--Earthh (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the images, and they seem to comply to fair usage standards. I also added alt captions to the photos. So it seems to be all fine.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, except that there should be no fair use images in this article except for the poster. I'll check, so this can be closed.
Sadly, these are the only available images.--Earthh (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that questionable image.--Earthh (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [7]].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Bill william compton, as I modeled this page after List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries which was promoted to WP:FL quality in January 2013. After creation the page had helpful contributions from Josve05a and Vegaswikian. At a recent List Peer Review, RexxS provided helpful feedback and also graciously helped with formatting to make sure this list meets our standards for accessibility. I made certain the list is now complete and meticulously sourced throughout. Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: User talk:RexxS, User talk:Vegaswikian, User talk:Josve05a, Talk:Penn & Teller, Talk:Penn Jillette, Talk:Teller (magician), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Las Vegas, Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, Talk:List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes, Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nevada, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Circus, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

[edit]
Accessibility check from RexxS
Accessibility is good. All of the tables (including the infobox) meet MOS:DTAB; the image has sensible alternative text; the colours used meet WCAG 2.0 AAA standard; and the text sizes throughout are above the recommended 85% of normal.

From the point-of-view of accessibilty, I'm happy to Support this nomination. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support - and the accessibility review. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Josve05a

[edit]

Prose size: (text only): 2037 characters (307 words) "readable prose size". (not counting tables and templates etc.). This is good for a list article, and since it passed the accessibility-standards, and that I have now found anything wrong with the list, I will !vote Support. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your Support - and for your prior helpful edits to the article. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bloom6132

[edit]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Not sure about this, but would it be helpful if the "Primetime Emmy Awards" and "Writers Guild of America Awards" tables have sort functions on the column headings (except for the Ref section)?
  • For "Independent Investigations Group Awards" table, the references column heading should be "Refs", since there's more than one.
  • For "Primetime Emmy Awards" and "Writers Guild of America Awards" tables, the references column heading should read "Ref(s)", since some entries have one ref while others have more than one.
  • Everything else looks great and meets FL criteria standards.
  • Could you please review my FLC nomination. Cheers!

—Bloom6132 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these comments, will get on addressing them soon and note back here. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all now done. I'd rather leave the current table formatting as is, because I modeled it after FL quality page, List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Other than that, Bloom6132, all your above suggestions were most helpful. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK – I understand. Using recently-passed FLs as a format guide for this one is perfectly fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the Support - much appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mediran

[edit]
  • Some comments before I support...
    • Link "documentary television series" to "television documentary"
    • Change "twenty-one" to "21" for consistency. Other numbers greater than nine are in figures (eg. 13 Primetime...). (See WP:NUMERAL)
    • Change the ampersand in "Awards & nominations" to "and" for consistency and per MOS:AMP.
    • Italicize "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" in "List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes".

Other than that, the article is excellent. Thanks :) Mediran (t • c) 04:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, will get on responding to these soon, they all look like quite helpful comments. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Mediran, I totally agreed with all these, so they're all now done. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Support - and the helpful fixes! — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [8]].[reply]

List of Billboard number-one rap singles of the 1980s and 1990s

[edit]
Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on it extensively for the past few months, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. As the Billboard rap chart was only in existence for 10 months in the 1980s, it seems more appropriate to merge both decades into a single list. Holiday56 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "173 singles topped the Hot Rap Singles chart from 1989 to 1999," - don't start a sentence with a numeral, maybe go with "Between 1989 and 1999, 173 singles......"
  • I presume "Year-end number-one single" refers to the biggest-selling single of the year? If so, is there an alternate way to word it, because at first I thought it meant the single that was at number 1 at the end of the year, and couldn't figure out why none of them seemed to have been hits in December......
  • Some of the refs show the publisher of Billboard as Prometheus Global Media and others as Nielsen Business Media - which is correct?
    • Prometheus Global Media only started publishing Billboard in 2009; prior to that Nielsen published it. Nielsen is listed as the publisher for pre-2009 Billboard print sources. Holiday56 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your comments are appreciated. Holiday56 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [9]].[reply]

Ricky Martin albums discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) & — Status (talk · contribs) 07:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... me and Status (talk · contribs) think this list satisfies the criteria. We cut it from the original, Ricky Martin discography and totally re-worked the tables which were a mess and wrote a fully new lead. To everyone who opposes please state some comments so we can improve the list. Thank you:) — Tomíca(T2ME) 07:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add a note that we also plan on doing Ricky Martin singles discography after this FLC has been completed. Ricky Martin discography will then just contain a link to both pages. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]
  • Please add alternate text to the picture of Ricky Martin in the infobox.
  • Toolserver seems to be down right now, so I will come back to check if there are any disambiguation/external links that need work.

Everything else looks to be in order; you have a nice collection of reliable sources, and the introduction is well-written. I'll come back to leave my final comments after Toolserver is up and running again. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erick

[edit]
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comment.*"Despite both albums failing to enter any national charts, they pushed Martin towards superstar status in many Latin American countries." Well, Ricky Martin did rank at number 5 on the Latin Pop Albums chart. The album came out before the overall Top Latin Albums chart was established on June 1993. Maybe mention this on the prose and, if necessary, put a footnote on the table?
  • "The album features a "harder rock edge style" than his previous efforts, while being mixed with Latin music references such as flamenco and cumbia." Link "Latin music" as well.
  • Maybe mention Vuelve being the highest-selling Latin album of 1999 in the US? Source on page 72
  • No mention of the chart performance for La Historia or The Best of Ricky Martin? If they're not needed for FLCs, then ignore this.
  • "and received a platinum Latin certification by RIAA, indicating shipments of over 100,000 copies in the country" How about "and received a platinum certification in the Latin field by RIAA"? I also think you should link "Latin field" to RIAA certification#Spanish as done with the table.
I made a small mistake, I forgot to put "the" before RIAA. My bad!
  • "Worldwide, Ricky Martin has sold over 22 million copies," as of when?

Comments from IndianBio

[edit]

Starting comments: By IndianBio

  • Why are there inconsistencies between the sales representation? Some of them have the decimal representation and some of them the whole expansion, like 287,000 versus 6.9 million. Ideally it should either be 287,000 vs 6,900,000 or 0.287m vs 6.9 m. Please follow this.

—Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Thank you for your comments. Went with the former. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that @Status:, the article now has my support in getting promoted to Featured status. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks IndianBio! — Status (talk · contribs) 19:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query why can't you have both albums and singles in one article? This one just has 23 items.—indopug (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Mariah Carey albums discography, for example, has the same amount of entries. Tomica and I are developing a singles discography in his sandbox, which has ~50 entries. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [10]].[reply]

List of plantations in West Virginia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for Featured List status because it gives an exhaustive listing of former plantations once operational in the present-day U.S. state of West Virginia, and it provides a comprehensive introduction. The list also features images of the majority of the plantations accounted for within this listing. I am also nominating this list because I feel it meets most FL criteria and can easily be improved to meet the criteria not already achieved. Please note, I had previously nominated this list, during which time it received two supports. I withdrew the article due to the fact that I had more than the two allowed nominations for FL at the same time. Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plantations in West Virginia/archive1 for the previously addressed comments and previous votes of support. -- Caponer (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [11]].[reply]

85th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2013 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Minor, but the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award winner could use a bullet point, like the honorary winners have.
  • Presenters and performers: "Annual" is improperly capitalized again in the first note.
  • Ceremony information: "an nationwide bus tour promoting the event...". "an" → "a".
  • Introduction of electronic voting system: "amongst" → "among"?
  • "but technical errors and glitches promoted the Academy to move the deadline one day later." "promoted" → "prompted"?
  • Box office performance of nominated films: Again minor, but a serial comma would be helpful after Flight, since you use it elsewhere in this section.
  • Note A: "the" is needed before "awards gala." Giants2008 (Talk) 19:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have fixed everything you requested above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [12]].[reply]

Premier League Golden Boot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly since January and now meets all 6 FL criteria. This is my 12th FLC nomination, but first non-baseball nom and first one on football, so please be understanding if I get anything "football-specific" wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arsenal.com article under the general ref sources every entry in the table. That was the only reliable source I could find that has a record of every goal and game played by the winner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soccerbase would have them all, I would have thought. Here is RvP's record for 2011/12, which if used as a source would remove the need for the note at the bottom indicating that Arsenal have their own player's stats wrong! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would still need the note, since the article will still be used to source his winning the award that year. If you want, I'll add the Soccerbase source for RVP's 2011–12 stats, but only for that year as I'm not very keen on having to produce individual Soccerbase sources for all the other years. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (sorry for the delay)
  • "annual .. presented each season..." do you really need both?
  • "In addition to the award..." what exactly is the award?
  • Don't overlink £.
  • Link sponsor first time round.
  • "the most times out of all players" a bit American. Maybe, "Henry has won the award four times, more than any other player."
  • "Carlos Tévez" our article seems to omit the diacritic...
  • Sorting by player name, I get Henry, Henry 4, Henry 2, Henry 3...
  • Sorry, but I'm not really sure how to fix this. It appears the problem lies with the orange colour utilized for European Golden Shoe winners, since the cells are grouped together as coloured v. no fill. I'm guessing this is the case given the fact that none of the other multiple award winners have the same sorting problem, and all the other EGS winners won the PL Golden Boot only once. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect you can use trickery, such as the {{ntsh}} template, which provides an invisible sort. You may need to do something odd like add {{ntsh|Henry 1}} etc, but have an experiment, and do check out the template documentation, it's reasonably helpful. If all else fails, ping me and I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed it. However, it leaves an ugly space in between the player's name and the double-dagger. Without the space, the ntsh won't work. Do you know how I could keep the space in the wikitext, while hiding it in the article itself? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt (resolved) — Cirt (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments from Cirt

[edit]
  1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Image review: One major problem: File:AlanShearer2004.png depends on File:Fung Ka Ki and Alan Shearer at friendly opening 2004.jpg which was deleted for no permission, so that one has to be deleted as well. All other images check out okay. So not done for now.  Not done
  3. Notes - Please change title of sect to "Footnotes".
  4. References - Please break out to 2 separate sects, one for "Notes", then one for "References". Notes are the inline cites, References are the general references those cites refer back to.
  5. Notes - Please add inline cites to back up the assertions for each of these footnotes.
  6. See also - Consider adding a few more entries here. Suggest adding also a couple more relevant portals.
  7. Otherwise, all looks great, quite high quality.
  8. Please feel free to update me or drop me a note once above is responded to, and after that I'll have another look over to see if I'm ready to Support at that point in time.
  9. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cirt – Replaced Alan Shearer's pic with a free one.
  • Regarding the "Notes" and "References" comments, I modelled it after recently-passed FL Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award, List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning, etc. For consistency sake, I'd rather leave it in its current, FLC-approved format.
  • Regarding "Notes" and inline cites, all but one of my notes have inline citations already. And the only one that doesn't (note 2) doesn't need a citation, since it is giving common knowledge and not asserting a claim (i.e. it's common knowledge that players usually don't play every game in the season. But I'm trying to make it clear that this relates to the number of games the player played in, not the number of games in a season).
  • Added List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals to "See also" section. It was the only relevant one I could find (hat-trick list has iffy relation at best).

—Bloom6132 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [13]].[reply]

Lorde discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a year since she commercially released her first piece of work, Lorde has come a long way, and is arguably the biggest Kiwi musician ever. Happy to hear any constructive criticism on the list. Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet
There may be other issues that I missed, since I'm not an expert on reviewing. However, I noticed those issues and I would be more than happy to support this article when they are resolved. Overall, you've done a good job in here! :) decodet. (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After all those issues being addressed, I support this nomination now. Everything looks good in here for me, congrats :) decodet. (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - could you clarify what exactly a "promotional single" is? I ask particularly in the case of "Royals/White Noise" - if this was available to purchase singly (and it must have been to have charted in the UK, where the charts are based solely on sales), in what way was it different from a "normal" single? My understanding of a promo single is that it is one that is given away for free to DJs, etc, but maybe the term's usage has changed and I'm just not down with the kids ;-) ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the term is well-defined and it confuses the hell out of me. "Royals/White Noise" has been moved to the singles table. Per WP:PROMOSINGLE and promotional single, songs that were released via digital retailers for a short amount of time as part of the album build-up are deemed "promotional" (most of those songs listed here fall under this category, and have actually been delete from the iTunes Store website). "Bravado" is a bit contentious, but there is some sort of consensus that since it was released only digitally in a few of the more minor markets, it is not a "full" single. I hope this helps a bit... Adabow (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey, it certainly was easier back in the good old days when if a hunk of vinyl was present on the shelves of the local Woolworths then it was a single and that's all you needed to know. The explanation above makes sense, though, so I support the nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image could use some alt text.
  • Any reason why "chart positions" is wikilinked in the singles table but not the albums tables?
  • Same goes for why the year, title and director columns are sortable in the music videos section – seems inconsistent with the other tables in the article.
  • Perhaps some table captions could be added? I've seen them being included in most featured discographies.

And that's about it, I guess. I'd argue that "Bravado" should be listed as a single rather than a promotional single, but keeping it there won't stop me from supporting the list. Good work, overall. Holiday56 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Holiday. I suck at writing alt text, and it's not part of the FL criteria. I have unlinked chart positions; people aren't stupid. I have made the 'Other appearances' table sortable, but the more complex layout of the other tables means that even when made "sortable", they won't sort properly (try for yourself to see what I mean). Most discography table captions I have seen just repeat the section and column titles, and don't actually serve any purpose; from [14], "A data table needs a table caption that roughly describes what the table is about." In my opinion, these would be redundant and clunky in this situation. Adabow (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll support, then. Holiday56 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment: In the references section, all content derived from Billboard should cite Prometheus Global Media as the publisher since it is the owner of the website and magazine. Otherwise, it's a solid support from me.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{cite news}}, the publisher field is "not normally used for periodicals." Editorial oversight and fact-checking make a source reliable, not which company makes the money from it. Adabow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 04:48, 05 April 2014 (UTC) [15]].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira

[edit]
Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have based much of List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira on my first nomination List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus, which has received unanimous support after undergoing several revisions and allows me to nominate a second project. It is a fully-comprehensive list of Ferreira's published tracks, including those on her studio albums and extended plays, and those in which she is featured in. Writing credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, with additional citations from reliable sources including Billboard and Spin. Assuming that Ferreira will continue to release new songs in some form as her career continues, this list will be able to be easily updated with its simple, straight-forward internal formatting, and will become a great companion to an eventual Sky Ferreira discography page. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

[edit]
  • Is there any better source you can find than The Lynx?
  • Done
  • Which of the two refs mention that Ghost deviated from electropop to synthpop since I can't see any of that mentioning. Also do note that the WP page of Synthpop (which is a good article) mentions that the genre is also known as electropop, so aren't both one and the same thing?
  • Done
  • Done

Other than these points this is a fairly well-made list. I will support once these issues are addressed successfully. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not sure of No Ripcord too, I will still support since the publication is being used by Metacritic in its aggregates. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

[edit]
  • The key has the green color and the symbol to indicate a single release, though the latter isn't used to indicate a single release?
  • Done
  • You probably should list "Boys" as a promotional single or even an official one as it was reported by Idolator and other RSs. However Sky wrote on Twitter this, so it's probably just promotional.

:* I was thinking about that, although since Sky herself said that it wasn't the official second single (yet), I think that should be left out, at least for now.

  • Actually, scratch that, it's been officially released in the UK, so I guess it can be considered a single.
  • The list shouldn't have 1 and 2 categorized as such, maybe just as a number sign which is cleaner. Could you change it on the contents box and anchors?
  • Done
  • Per WP:CAPWORD, incomplete sentences shouldn't close with a full stop, such as the first caption.
  • Done

Everything else is excellent. I support the nomination, as it is concise and meticulously referenced. :) Prism △ 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is an interesting read. I don't see any major or glaring issues here. Very well written and supported by strong sources. I support this nom. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [16]].[reply]

Timeline of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to predictions, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season featured below-average tropical cyclone activity. Fifteen tropical cyclones formed, but only two became hurricanes, and none became major hurricanes. Following the completion of all National Hurricane Center post-season storm reports, all information on the timeline has been updated; as a whole, I believe the article now meets FLC status. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination.--12george1 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, this one is like other timelines that are featured, with no problems that I can see. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [17]].[reply]

Rani Mukerji filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I feel that it meets the criteria for being a featured list. After taking her biography to FA-status, I feel proud to have worked on her filmography as well. I look forward to a lot of constructive comments. Thank you. KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping) 12:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
  • "star Aamir Khan" are you referring to him as star or I'm missing something here?
Removed "star".
  • "In 1998 she received public recognition ..." sentence looks too long. Consider splitting them
Done.
  • I'd like to see a mention of Hey Ram and Paheli in the lead as both were critical successes. This being a filmography page, I think there is no harm in mentioning films that were critically acclaimed irrespective of Mukherjee's performance in these films.
I agree. Mentioned both the films.
  • You could add the names of directors of Bombay Talkies, probably as a foot note.
Added footnote.
  • Doesn't she portray herself as Neetu Singh in "Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte"?
She doesn't exactly portray Neetu Singh. The song was meant as a tribute to the yesteryear actors and her look was just based on Singh's.
Thank you so much for the comments Vensatry. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The issues I could see previously seem to have all been identified by Vensatry and addressed. A good clean looking list which should quite rightly be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Blofeld. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's been a while since the last support. Does anyone else have any other comments? Thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite surprising that this Bollywood list hasn't attracted many reviewers. Perhaps, you should invite editors to comment here. —Vensatry (Ping) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No other problems found. Great work!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Birdienest.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Bollywood Dreamz. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I seriously looked for the last two hours, scrutinizing and analyzing the sources, the content and the validations, however, nada. Couldn't find anything that needs changing, tweaking etc. All around exceptional work. Congratulations and I would be happy to see this list being promoted. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton Indian Bio. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.