Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC) and Tom^(T2ME)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive list of every song recorded by the English singer Olly Murs. He has released four albums and appeared on other songs, and there is a good sized list of his songs here.  — Calvin999 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo I'm willing to take a look at this

General Comments

• Every picture is lacking an alt text
• I am a little concerned about the length of the lead. While it was fine with the Little Mix list as they had recently released a new album, Murs said he was going to be doing a new album this year (or at least that's what I found from a quick Google search). With a new batch of songs, the lead may be too long to handle it. So while it may be fine for now, the lead will need to be condensed quite a bit with the next album.
  • I'm not worried about that. Until an album is actually released, it's not worth thinking about. Albums can be delayed, and they are more often than not, not released when they are originally slated for. When an album is released, the lead can be condensed down.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A bit in conjunction with the previous point, the lead seems a bit sporadic, jumping from talking about lyrical content, composition, and co-writers at random. However, I don't see as a problem, since the list is about the songs themselves.
  • That's because it's per album, not all together.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The singer came to prominence after he came second on the sixth series of The X Factor in 2009, losing to Joe McElderry. Reword to "after he finished in second place..."
• Despite being the runner up, Simon Cowell's record label Syco revealed that they had signed Murs as a joint-venture with Epic following the show in February 2010. link joint-venture, as some people might not know what that is.
• Written by Adam Argyle and Martin Brammer, "I Blame Hollywood" draws influence from pop-rock. Link pop rock
• "Dance with Me Tonight" is a 50s saxophone style record with elements of Doo-wop,[11][12] while the track "Just Smile" is reminiscent of the work of Burt Bacharach.[12]The disco-pop Add a space after ref 12
• Murs co-wrote the track "Let Me In" with Paul Weller, which was described by Neil McCormick of The Daily Telegraph as "unexpected". Can you go into more detail about why the reviewer found it to be unexpected?
  • The reviewer doesn't say, and I can't speculate on what why myself.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Digital Spy writer Amy Davison likened the disco track "Did You Miss Me?" to Justin Timberlake's song "Take Back the Night". Link disco, and the sentence is missing a ref

Songs

• I believe "Inner Ninja" should be below "In Case You Didn't Know"
  • It is?  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Instead of just BBC, Ref 1 should be BBC News, Ref 4 should be Newsbeat, and Ref 7 and 12 should be BBC Music
• The name in Ref 10 is messed up
• In Ref 22, it should be The Daily Telegraph, not just The Telegraph
  • I'd piped it to omit 'Daily'.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see, nice list as always. In exchange for this review, would you mind taking a look at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you Famous Hobo. Yes I will.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies for letting this sit for so long. It appears that every issue I had was at least addressed, so I do feel comfortable giving this my Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated

List

• "The one" sorts by like it comes after "Y"?? Not sure how
• The ref columns are usually not sortable
• The reference for "you are not alone" should use the previously defined refernece "You Are Not Alone".

The text

• "runner up" should be "runner-up"

Other stuff

• first image needs alt text
• The link in reference 1 and 25 have changed, they still redirect but it may be worth updating the link to the current version to prevent future link rot.

• @Calvin999: - That's all I got, not really a lot of issues, good work so far. MPJ-US  11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done all.  — Calvin999 15:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well shoot I totally forgot about this one. Yes everything I pointed out was addressed - Support  MPJ-US  00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I needs supports for this to be promoted despite everything being done thus far Giants2008 ?  — Calvin999 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will need supports soon. We clearly can't promote something without any support, as there's no way we can say that a consensus was achieved. I don't want to see this archived unsuccessfully, but if support doesn't come soon that will most likely happen. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've accrued four supports now Giants2008.  — Calvin999 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

• "English singer-songwriter Olly Murs" -- Since this is for a British guy, the article should really be written in British English. This opening line is the American English way of introducing a person. Using the definite article is certainly BrEng and should be used here and from herein.
  • Really? What was American about it?  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry this nomination is not going to trash. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a couple of minor tweaks (which I now see FrB.TG picked up on too). Solid work otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work on yet another songs list. FrB.TG (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spot checks on five refs are good - information supported and no copyvios seen
• Formatting and linking appears good

- SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 01:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my obsession towards cricket lists, I'd like to nominate this for FLC. I've modeled this based on the existing FLs. This is my first FLC in three months, so I'd like to have a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• "India's Gundappa Viswanath and Mohammed Azharuddin had scored the most centuries at the venue with three each." "had" → "have"?
• "As of February 2016, 35 Test centuries have been scored at the stadium." The list and lead photo caption both give a figure of 32 centuries.
• In the Azharuddin photo caption, "had" can be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Fixed all. Thanks —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Really poorly written article with non reliable sources. 213.205.251.56 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck vote of a vandal only IP which has been blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @FLC director and delegates: The page has been constantly vandalised by a sock. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This page, or the list? This page has been edited by an anonymous editor four times, most of that edit warring within a short period of time. Disruptive, but not at "protect the nomination" levels — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant this page. Just wanted to leave a note - it's a vandal (possibly a sock). —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Feel free to revert the vandal IP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: - The edits are becoming very disruptive. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some facts in the lead need "As of".
• "The record for the highest score by an overseas player" --> "The record for the highest ODI score by an overseas player"
• "is the highest score by a batsman at this ground" --> "is the highest ODI score by a batsman at this ground"

Good work! Bharatiya29 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. Thanks! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bharatiya29 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I'll recuse myself from closing the list to provide a needed source check. All of the references appear reliable, work properly, and are well-formatted. Spot-checks of some citations (numbers 4, 8, 12, 19, and 31) revealed no issues with verification or close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: - note that we decided that you can still close nominations if you give a source review (assuming you feel comfortable with it); that said, I'll close it while I'm here. --PresN 01:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a wider effort on improving Wikipedia coverage around F.C. United of Manchester. The list has been significantly improved by myself and @Delusion23, and has been kept updated ever since it was split out from the main article by @Sloclops in November 2015. We have modelled the list after other English football clubs' seasons lists, and I believe it meets all the criteria. Over the past few days, the list has had the lead added, and I have verified and referenced all data included in the list, and archived all references used to ensure stability of information. This is my first nomination for a featured list, so apologies if I got anything wrong. Suggestions and corrections are welcome, and either @Delusion23 or myself will be quite happy to implement them. Thanks for reviewing! odder (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • A couple of quick drive-by comments, mainly to remind me to come back later and do more :-)
    • Seasons which are in progress are never normally included in lists of this type, suggest you remove it until the end of the season. If it is left in, change the league name to just National League North, rather than the odd-looking "National League National League North" as it is at the moment
      •  Done Removed the current season but moved the info to the talk page as it would be a shame to lose the work done. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • We need to amend the lead a little bit, then... odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • … and this is now done. odder (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The club is owned and democratically run by their supporters" - you are referring to the club as both singular and plural in the same sentence, this is a grammatical nightmare :-P

      • In my defence, I couldn't decide on either form and apparently left it in mid-state :) Thanks for spotting this, Chris! odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      •  Done For consistency within the sentence I have changed "their" to "its". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back with more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers Chris, looking forward to more help getting this work to FL status :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose How is this nota fork? This club is semiprofessional with 10 seasons and gets a separate list???? Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: While F.C. United is indeed a semi-professional football club, there is no doubt about their notability, despite the club only being founded in 2005. F.C. United consistently draw the highest home attendance at this level of English football, beating many clubs in the National League (level 5) as well as many clubs in Leage Two (level 4); they also consistently draw (relatively high) away attendances. The club is also immensely popular with the media, and has been the subject of books, short documentaries, and an uncountable number of press articles, reports and mentions. So that's it for the notability aspect; I don't think it's ever been debatable.

• As for this list being a fork: I am aware that it includes some information that is already present in the main article, however I have modelled the introduction after similar season lists for other English football clubs, and thought it was necessary that the introduction provide a short summary of the club's main achievements (I think the articles that I got this from were List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons, perhaps also others). As this is my first nomination for a featured list, I realise I might have gotten things wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm very open and happy to fix them. If you have any particular suggestions in mind, please share them so I can improve the list. Thank you, odder (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not saying the club is not notable. What I am saying is splitting a 10-entry list on such a low notability item is a fork. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - happy with changes, feels this now meets the criteria based on sourcing, structure and style. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm happy that this meets the FL criteria. I don't have any concerns about the content split, as the main article is reaching the size where such splits should be expected. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • "F.C. United are owned and democratically run by their supporters and operate" - you're still referring to FCUM as both singular and plural within the same sentence
    • Uhm, unless I'm missing something, these verbs are all in the plural... odder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there, feel free to disregard that one :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "F.C. United reached the Second Round of the FA Cup " - no reason for capitals on second round, these are not proper nouns, likewise first round shortly afterwards and fourth round a bit further on, etc
    •  Done 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In the key the football is shown to indicate "league goals". Are the figures in the table definitely league only? If so, change the heading in the table to "top league goalscorer"
    •  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a Russian fan site (bit random :-)) really the only source for (presumably) the top scorer in the first season?
    •  Done The same data are available to download on F.C. United's own website in the form of a spreadsheet (see bottom of this page). I have added this to the article to supplement the Russian fan page version. I kept the fan page version as I believe it shows the same information in a more "user friendly" form. I have also added the references to the other rows as they are used for the source of all the top scorer stats. Hope this makes it less ambiguous. Thanks for the feedback. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sorry I'm late to this, a few comments

• I think the sentence about the multiple stadiums should be referenced.

• Reworded to mention the Tameside Stadium instead of Moss Lane, and  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The table really ought to be sortable, see here for an example

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It also shouldn't be less than 100% font size, as readers who are visually impaired may struggle to read it

•  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 30 needs an en dash

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks in good shape! NapHit (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the article in such detail, @NapHit! Everything appears to have been taken care of now. odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The position column isn't sorting properly, otherwise everything looks in order. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Whoops! Fixed. odder (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a few things to comply with accessibility guidelines, but happy to support now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! odder (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: Checked 6, 31, 45, 63; all clean
• Formatting: Every cite with "Pitch Hero Ltd" should just be "Pitch Hero"; wikipedia typically does not use incorporation statuses in company names
  •  Done odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comprehensive: Well, nothing is missing, but... www.tonykempster.co.uk/? Looks like someone's personal site. How is it an RS? --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Kempster, (…) a pioneer of online news for the grassroots game. Tony was a very well-known, and highly respected figure, due to his website www.tonykempster.co.uk. To say that [Tony's website] was an invaluable resource to fans of the non-league game is no understatement. Tony’s website provides unmatched information on results, gates, tables, fixtures and even distances to grounds, from the Premier League right down to step seven of the football pyramid. The site is an invaluable source of information for thousands of football fans each week and carries a huge amount of information which no other site can match. … and that's why it's an RS. odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allright then, source review passed, and promoting. --PresN 12:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roald Dahl was a superb writer and story teller. Depending on your taste and age, he was either the man who gave your childhood reading matter a dark and macabre twist, or he was the man who gave some adult short stories a dark and macabre twist, which translated well into television viewing too. This new bibliography of his work has been split off from the main article, and has been much expanded, updated and provided with citations—which were sadly lacking in the original. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahl is of course one of my favorite writers, looking through this reminded me of my childhood favorites that I read numerous times. This looks great, though I'd love to see Roald Dahl short stories bibliography merged into this article. It's not that long and would fit into the main list well to be comprehensive. Reywas92^Talk 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Reywas92. I think the reason the short stories bibliography is so short is that it's not complete, as far as I can see. I think there would be a lot of work to do to ensure it is a full and accurate record, and to bring it up to scratch. I have plans to do that in the future, but I think it may possibly be better as a separate list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well short stories are still part of his bibliography, so the main list is simply not complete without them; you can't just leave those on another page and only include the full books. The sublist does say it's comprehensive with two books cited but that would have to checked. Also, it mentions two compilations the main list misses: The Great Automatic Grammatizator and Skin and Other Stories, plus the navbox has Roald Dahl: Collected Stories, The Roald Dahl Omnibus, and The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl. These and whatever they include all need to be added. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, as the bibliography is complete with the full books, and the short stories can just as easily be separate (there are other FLs that follow this pattern). I've looked at the sources again on this, and none try to include full lists of short stories (two have a "selected stories" section, but they consist of only a handful of books): te remainder list only the books. As to the other books you have listed, they are re-hashes of material already published in book form, but collected in a different order. As they contain previously published material, and as they were collected and published post-mortem, they do not need to be included (they represent ways forthe publishers and estate to try and extract more money from "new editions"). Again this is a fairly common practice and there are several other FLs that follow this pattern. – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though the biographical detail is probably slightly more than I would have expected, this looks a sound list well worthy of promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can now gladly support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

• This infobox violates two style guidelines:
• "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" (Purpose of an infobox).
• "infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative" (Style, color and formatting) – the colors serve no purpose.

• The guidelines on the three comments above are not binding on any article, and this IB format is used in several lists, including a number of FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this kind of design was also used before in artists' discographies but was changed per the aforementioned guidelines. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The format is used in numerous lists, including several FLs; it may not fit with one dubious guideline from elsewhere, but that's for a wider audience than one FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding alt text for the image and make sure it offers something different than the caption otherwise what's the point
• File:Roald Dahl (1982).jpg - ditto.

• I could taken them out, but that serves no purpose either, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case it unnecessarily increases bytes. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I'll consider the alt text point, and probably add some description shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FrB.TG: I've now added alts to the images. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Clearly to be supported – an excellent piece of work, but I have few small queries first:

• There is a comma splice in the first sentence of the second para of the preamble; a semicolon would put it right.
• "The following year he edited a book on ghost stories" - did you mean "on" rather than "of" here?
• In the short story collections table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is wrong, as the column includes three New York firms.
• In the non-fiction table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is also wrong: the column includes Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
• Is the publisher variously called "M Joseph" and "Joseph" in fact Michael Joseph? They printed the full name in the volumes on my shelves.
• "Puffin Books, London" in the third table is just "Puffin Books" in the the sixth
• Similarly, "Jonathan Cape" sometimes has "London" after it and sometimes doesn't.
• On a point of purely personal preference, I wouldn't give each section both a header and an immediately-following title for the table: e.g. "Novels" followed by "Dahl's novels", but I don't strongly object, and if that's the usual form then I'm happy to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 08:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim: I've addressed all your points bar the last. I'm not too keen on the duplication either, but it's the way we're supposed to do things (or so I'm told!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough on the last point. The "All London" is still in place in the non-fiction table. Tim riley talk 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding my support now. This page certainly meets the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 12:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Solid list. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Passed

• Spotchecks: checked 13, 14, 16, 18; all clean
• Formatting: I see that you're not linking publishers that are linked in the main text (The Times); not a fan, but consistent. You have a couple cite errors, but I've fixed them since they're hard to see unless you turn on the big red messages
• Comprehensive: Looks good, nothing striking me as an obvious missing source. --PresN 20:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC) and GagaNutella (talk)[reply]

I and the co-nominator have worked tirelessly on this newly created list for a couple of weeks. With some assistance from fellow editors, IndianBio and SNUGGUMS, I believe we are finally ready to present the final list from Lady Gaga at FLC. I think this would sit quite happily with the other four lists. Thank you. Note: It has sources from publishers like Daily Mail, which is often considered unreliable but it should be noted that they are only for her live performances and not other controversial information. -- Frankie _talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the lead mentions that she was the support on two tours before her first headline tour, but there is no sign of these in the tables. These may not have been her own headline shows, but they were still live performances by her, so surely they should be included.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes they they were still live performances by her that's why they are mentioned in the lead and in the table under the The Fame Ball Tour entry. It is not known on how many shows did she accompany them so it is difficult to create a table for those performances. I think just the lead is sufficient. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  MPJ-US  20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just a question, but does this article even need to exist? It just feels like a fork of every album and single/song article, where all of this info is available on much more informative level. I don't see the relevance of it.  — Calvin999 18:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: yes, it does. There are already many lists about tours and live performances from other artists on Wikipedia, and Gaga is a tour force and her live performances are one of her identity. This list is cohesive, well sourced and complete. GagaNutella^talk 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't think it's that necessary, regardless of who it is for. It's nothing that isn't included in the respective articles as I mentioned previously, and in more details. I'm not denying that is cohesive, well sourced and complete; I wasn't and am not commenting on those aspects, just it's relevance. The article hasn't existed long enough to even view it's daily totals either to see if anyone is actually reading it. Also, I would have made the title read List of live performances by Lady Gaga, so that is matches that of the songs list.  — Calvin999 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By no means is this list or any other live performances list cfork of anything (live performances promote albums and songs). Her tours do exist but where did those last two sections exist before? If it is a cfork anyway, where should it be merged? If this list does not say anything new that her existing tours don't, artists' videographies do not either so I don't see the point of those lists. Besides, readership and age of this article got nothing to do with cfork. -- Frankie _talk 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Calvin999, but I believe this list will grow on Wiki. Also, there are many "bad" sourced and written lists here, like List of Selena concert tours, List of Shakira concert tours, List of David Bowie concert tours, but they are still active to people read. Lastly, the name we followed the "standard", which is "List of name of the artist tours/concert tours/live performances". GagaNutella^talk 19:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Gaga is a notable artist and has performed on many occasions, I think this list may be incomplete. Why don't we change the title to "List of concert tours by Lady Gaga" (can include residency show and promotional concert as well)? As far as I can see, the title "live performances" may be not fully exploited as Gaga had performed "live" in bars or clubs prior to her debut. Simon (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think it is impossible to keep track of her live performances before she was an established artist. This is as comprehensive as possible list of live performances by Lady Gaga at her concerts and notable events. -- Frankie _talk 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think this list should change to List of concert tours by Lady Gaga to make sure that it is fully comprehensive. I once nominated List of Christina Aguilera concert tours a FL but it did not get promoted because of the section "Notable live performances". Simon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I move it to concert tours, there will be little left, making it a pure CFORK. We have added performances that have been reported in the media, and like I said above, it is impossible to have her pre-fame performances. -- Frankie _talk 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this list is exhaustive for all the live performances Gaga has done and pretty much a good indication of it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree; this article would have a very limited scope with only five tours if moved to that title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: and @HĐ:, can I request for your assessment now? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it does meet all of the criteria, it's well put together and sourced, so I guess I Support.  — Calvin999 09:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very well written article, but all of Gaga's articles are.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, both of you. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest I am still reluctant to vote per my comment above. Perhaps I'd keep neutral in this discussion and let others vote instead. Great list anyway, Simon (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you @HĐ:, we would be glad to hear if you have any other comment for betterment of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to all of you for the support!!! GagaNutella^talk 19:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The above comments say this list is exhaustive but I disagree. According to this list Applause only had one televised performance, a quick youtube search reveals many more. There are many radio performances which have not been included. I presumed festival performances are intentionally not included as they are considered a tour date, however what about the likes of radio ones big weekend, the capital ball, itunes festival etc which are slightly more unique? What about the Christmas and Thanksgiving specials she did? What about performances at night clubs? Performances on the Alan Carr show? I have limited knowledge of her live performances and can quickly identify these gaps so I'm sure a more thorough investigation would discover more.

• I was also thinking about the festivals. Maybe creat a new section. I will add more performances too. GagaNutella^talk 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: why the only mention of the touring locations is in the Born This Way description and the Promotional concert subsection? Every other tour FL (even this less detailed approach) says where the performers went! igordebraga ≠ 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is because her concert tours were worldwide, which will read repetitive if I add. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that Michael Jackson article I linked there also put it. Anyway, included, and am willing to Support this list (like other pop singers, Gaga has a really dedicated fanbase on the wiki). igordebraga ≠ 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, that she does and count me among those. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: checked 3, 23, 72, 124; all clean
• Formatting: good, but consider archiving your references so that they don't get taken out by website closures or changes.
• Comprehensive: The sources used seem comprehensive. --PresN 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going ahead and promoting- I reviewed through the newer changes by GagaNutella, which were just adding a few minor performances. --PresN 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selma is a 2014 historical drama directed by Ava DuVernay. It received many awards and nominations for its direction, David Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr. and the song "Glory" by John Legend and Common. As always looks forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vivvt

• There's one dead link.
• Need to mention if its a Hollywood/French/Russian movie. Not clear by name. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: Sorted the above points. Please continue the review. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention "As of XXXX" for Rotten Tomatoes as number may change in the future.

@Vivvt: Done. Cowlibob (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well-written, well-organized, comprehensive, and solidly referenced. I can find no issues with it. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek/archive1. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• Oprah Winfrey is wikilinked twice.
• Since it's mentioned that Common won a Supporting Actor award for the film, it will be wise to mention him in the cast listing in the first paragraph.

Just these two minor issues. Good work! Happy to support. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Made the fixes. Cowlibob (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spotchecks: checked refs 3, 9, 20, 36, 44, all clean
• Formatting: uses "link the first" for work/publishers, seems to be all correct; all dates appear to be mdy, all clean
• Sources: all sources appear to be reliable; nothing is striking me as an obvious missing source

Source review: Passed --PresN 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are a bit short, but nothing jumped out at me when I looked through the list, so I suppose it was just that solid to start with. Going ahead and promoting. --PresN 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 20:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, almost done with this latest article group: at #10 out of 10 in the World Fantasy Awards, and #36 overall in my perpetual sci-fi/fantasy awards list FLC series, we have here the World Fantasy Convention Award. Why is there a special convention award, separate from the general "did neat stuff in the past year" professional/non-professional awards, or the life achievement award? Unclear, since the WFAs seem to be allergic to writing down their own rules; which is perhaps why it has only been given out 11 times, the last in 1997. It's still an official category, though, and long enough to be the final WFA list to come to FLC. As always, the formatting is identical to other WFA/sci-fi awards lists, and I've brought forward comments from prior FLCs in the series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So since you broke the ice with your review of the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am returning the favor with your nomination.

• Is there no images at all? Not even an award winner?

• Not at present; I'm still working on getting a free-use photo of the trophy to put in these lists.

• "More regular special awards are given out for professional or non-professional work in the prior year in" - I assume that since you worded it like this that the Convention Award does not follow that pattern? It is an assumption though, not actually stated in the article.

• Reworded to "Other, annually-given special awards"; it's meant to contrast with the "in some years" from the prior sentence.

• "Less than half of the winners are primarily known for their writing, as opposed to editing work or artwork." Since we have a definitive number perhaps it would better to say that X out of the 11 winners are primarily known for their writing, while the remaining are known for editing or artwork" or words to that effect.

• Changed to be explicitly "five". I was trying to fudge because Wollheim did write things, eve if he's much better known for founding DAW and being an editor, but I agree it's awkwardly worded.

• "In some cases the winner is well-known for their non-fantasy works," - Looking at Stephen King being on the list perhaps "best known" is a better term than "well-known"?

• Eh, because the WFAs consider horror as a subgenre of fantasy he wouldn't be better known for non-fantasy, just also known; and besides, Norton wrote sci-fi and Brennan wrote poetry, but both were better known for fantasy.

• While all awards in the list are sourced, the "work(s)" column seems to be totally unsourced and the award source does not list it.

• Yes; this is based on the precedent from World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement (and several other similar FLs). The works are explicitly not meant to be a "reason" for the award, and are composed only of works that are plainly and uncontestably written/done by the person in question before the award was given, and are only there to provide some context and are not primary parts of the list or the award.

• Sources. During a previous fantasy ward FLC I commented on it was established that the Science Fiction Awards Darabase is considered a reliable souce. Looking at the rest they look reliable too. Dates are consistent etc So sources check out.

A good list with just a couple of adjustments.  MPJ-US  01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: responded inline. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: remindin you of this; have I addressed all of your concerns? --PresN 18:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i believe it's all covered, great work. Support  MPJ-US  18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a couple of comments from me - is there any information on why the award was given so intermittently?
• Does the column need to be "Winner(s)" since there is only a single winner each year? I guess Arkham House might warrant the plural but even then its a single entity. Miyagawa (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa:

• None in the slightest. The WFAs are annoying at the best of times about actually publishing information about the awards, but there's nothing about this one anywhere- not why the conventions themselves decided to give out an award that entirely duplicates the existing ones, not why the WFAs have it as an official category instead of ignoring it, and not why it's still listed as an official category, nearly 20 years after the last time it was given.
• It's there because 1982 had 2 winners. --PresN 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough - I hadn't spotted the two winners! In that case, I can Support. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• One too many given in "Other, annually-given special awards are given out...".
• Another couple of givens in the next sentence as well. More variety would be nice if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Cleaned out some givens; sorry for taking so long. --PresN 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Aside from those little complaints, the rest of the list looked fine to me. It's another great sci-fi award entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spot-check: ref 9–19; all of the sources cite the winners.
• Formatting: for consistency, add the publishers for The Guardian et al. Though the date format is somewhat outdated and not something I prefer, previous lists by World Fantasy Awards with this format have been promoted and so is fine. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: it's been brought up at previous FLCs, but with the review asking for the removal of the publishers - The Guardian's publisher is Guardian Media Group, The Star's is Star Media Group, Chicago Tribune is Tribune Publishing, and Locus publishes itself, so the "publishers" are excluded for being roughly the same as the "works". --PresN 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} also advise to ignore publishers that are basically the same just with "Ltd", "Inc" and such. Anyway, source review passed. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the format and level of quality of several other Mexican wrestling championship lists that I have brought through the FLC process. This version benefitted from ever single piece of feedback I have receieved so far, ensuring that it is consistent with previous submissions and deal with certain issues up front. ...  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Doffing my delegate hat to review.

• "From its creation in 1943 it was not promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions among others Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..." -> "Since its creation in 1943 it has not been promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions. Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..."

• Fixed

• "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately" -> "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately"

• Fixed

• "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre but they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship." -> "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre, though they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship."

• Fixed

• "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns, Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign with no more than 11 days." -> "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns; Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign at no more than 11 days."

• Fixed

• Note 6 says that the date when the championship was "vacated" is not known, but is that the right word? Wasn't it won by Guzman from Anaya? Vacated to me implies that there was a champion, then there wasn't.

• Fixed, quite a few of the notes were apparently copied and just had the dates updated, but some bonehead (that would be me) forgot to adjust the text. I believe I have made each not more specific to the champion it is associated with.

• Notes 7 and 8 have the same problem, except more so- 7 is about a reign that ended on an ambiguous date, while 8 is about one that started on an ambiguous date; they can't both be "vacated". This goes on for the next few notes- please come up with standardized wording.

• Fixed. As above

• In the Reigns by combined length table, reusing the same notes doesn't make sense because now the context is lacking as to which reign you're talking about out of several.

• I will take a look at the approach to notes for combined reigns, see if I can come up with a good solution to this.

• The 1951 vacation has a hyphen in the reign number column, instead of a dash like the others

• Fixed

• That's about it, since references is it's own review type now; didn't look closely at them. If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: - Thank you for your feedback, I will get to your list once I figure out the best way to tackle the notes for the combined reigns list. I appreciate your input and help to make this a better article.
• I think I got it figured out, simply list the figures used whenever there is a question of how long the reign really was.  MPJ-US  22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, Support. --PresN 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list on a lesser known topic. One minor point, the PDF refs should have a page number listed where the information is found. Also that I have not performed a source check as the majority of the sources are in Spanish so I couldn't be confident that it would be valid but I accept them in good faith. Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input and I have added the page number.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thank you for responding to my comments in a timely fashion. As a QPQ, I would appreciate it if you comment in my nomination. Not mandatory though. -- Frankie _talk 13:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and I will look at your FL in the next day or two.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miyagawa

• There's a bit of repetition between the first and second paragraphs in that you explain that the title is shared across promotions including Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre. Would it be possible to rephrase the lines in the second paragraph simply to state that Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre was the main promotion using the title during the first few years, although not exclusively. I don't think you need to reiterate the shared nature so quickly after doing it the first time.

• You are right, especially since it's that close together. I have tried to reword it, is that better?  MPJ-US  22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licences appear to be good. There's one which is own use rather than grabbed from Flickr, but it's such a close crop that I'm inclined to believe it.
• No issues with the table, all appears to be good. Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Godot13

• Initial comments (more to follow)
  • Table sort functionality looks good.
  • When you refer to promotion, do you mean the match promoters/organizers?
    • The company that the match promoters/organizers work for - like WWE is the promotion, short for Professional wrestling promotion.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Days held column, would it make sense to put the actual range in the column (along with the note), but keeping the sort parameter the same as it is now?
    • I have never thought of doing that, the version used is the general format used for wrestling championships. I believe the choice was to use a note because the date ranges are so uncertain and not to lead credence to a specific number. This is the version used for all the 15 FLs I have produced and I'd hate to be inconsistent between them.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In location, both Mexico and Mexico City are used. Do you have the city or state location for those listed only as Mexico?--Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the entries that just list "Mexico" do not have a mores specific location listed in the sources, primarily due to limited documentation of title change itself - often newspapers would report "Luchador I defeated Luchador II on January 1, 1901" when the champion would come to town to defend the title.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Godot13: - I hope I have answered your concerns.  MPJ-US  04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am out of town until Saturday evening. I will go over it again by Sunday. Sorry for the delay...--Godot13 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the content of the other reviews, and your responses to my comments immediately above, I can Support this for FL.--Godot13 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd only complain about an unreferenced sentence in the lead, but fixed that myself with something from later in the article. igordebraga ≠ 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: no issues as far as I could see, so:

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because last nomination was archived, mainly because of the delays in resolving comments due to my wiki-inactivity. This time I hope to get it to its desired status. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per my resolved comments at its previous nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the nomination. -- Frankie _talk 19:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My two cents were incorporated in the earlier nom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 13 needs spaces after each comma. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done. Please let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MPJ

So I will be looking specifically at the sources to help ensure it's meeting the FL criteria.

• The "External Links" tool shows that everything is live and well so that's good.
• I am seeing official sources, news sources ,books etc. nothing that is not a Reliable source
• Formatting is okay, dates consistent etc.
• Generally the recipients are sourced, all spot checks confirm this.
• The only statements made in the article I do not see are the "Posthumous honors" part prior to 2015 - the sources confirm they were awarded the Padma, but not posthumous? No sources on their death listed.

• The date of death sources seems to be the only issue I can find, otherwise it all looks good to me.  MPJ-US  13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Progress Done @MPJ-DK: Please check now. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All deaths do look sufficiently sources, reliable and well formatted. I figure it would not be hard to get the sources since the subject articles most likely had them already. Good work. From a Source standpoint I can give this my Support Y  MPJ-US  19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal. Having checked the names, nationalities, and numbers, I feel this meets the criteria, hence the nom (hopefully someone here will cross check for any clangers). Again, I've modelled this on lists which have been promoted, and used the same database source for players as the main list. Welcome any sort of feedback, cheers...Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick comments, will return later.....

1. The article says "Since Arsenal's first competitive match, more than 500 players have made a competitive first-team appearance for the club", but above you say "Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal". So which is it?

The latter, corrected now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. In "They became the first southern member admitted into the Football League in 1893", why do the words "southern member" link to Southern Football League, a competition Arsenal have never played in or been associated with ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it; wanted to link Arsenal's southern ties to the 'Football in the south of England' section, but that might just be confusing altogether. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is there are a particular reason for the omission of the goals column? This is standard in all lists of this type. Seems strange to me. NapHit (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly me, have added them now! Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The list is ordered first by number of appearances in total, then if necessary by date of debut." It appears to be ordered by date of debut first to me
• Shouldn't all defenders prior to 1960, have FB as their position instead of DF? Seeing as that is what the position key states.

• Changed. Done the same for midfielders.

• "and defunct competitions the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." this doesn't seem right to me. Need a better way of introducing the defunct competitions

• I removed the defunct bit as it reads better just listing the competitions.

• I think the position key should be sorted by position. So GK, FB, HB etc, would be more beneficial to the reader in my opinion

• Done, feel free to change the table if something's wrong.

• link for 1893–94 season in note 1?

NapHit (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit:, cheers for your comments as ever, think I've addressed all your points now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thank for persisting, I feel this now now meets the criteria. One minor comment though: are wingers not generally regarded as midfielders rather than forwards? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! For reasons of consistency I've decided to class wingers as forwards, given their role in the team pre 1960s was forward-like; I feel it would be wrong to class them as half-backs. Plus there are players like (Alex Iwobi), who have been positioned as a wide forward, and not like a wide midfielder. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: Checked sources 2, 7, 12, 16 - all clear
• Formatting: formatting is fine, though I personally would use links for publishers. Consider archiving your refs, just so you don't have to deal with it if any of the websites ever change the way they structure their pages. --PresN 21:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I decided to take off my director hat to review this one and didn't find any real points of concern. Looks like a very nice list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a long hiatus from Wikipedia, I am back with my 19th FLC nomination on the lovely Jessica Chastain. Hope to receive constructive criticism, as before. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - based on comprehensiveness and coverage. I don't find it very detailed, and that's partly because each table is quite short because of her comparatively few film appearances compared to others. I don't think it represents the best of Wikipedia, and it's quite premature in my opinion. I would rather see a longer list. I don't see why it's not just called "Jessica Chastain filmography" either. The wording of the current title sounds more like it should be a prose article, not a list, and that's actually what I was expecting to see when I clicked on the Wikilink. I find the lead a bit choppy too. it's just short, successive sentences that aren't that interesting to read, and it's more like a chronological re-telling of what we can gather ourselves from the list. I'd rather see more about the characters she has played and critical responses, awards and nominations, not just what year she was in each film.  — Calvin999 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "_______ on stage and screen" is frequently used for actors and actresses with theater credits. A common alternative is "_______ performances". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, but for me it sounds more like it should be a prose article. Using 'filmography', we know it's a table or list.  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Calvin999, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with Dr. Blofeld) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria.  — Calvin999 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streep's one to me has more of an engaging and interesting flair to it. I enjoyed reading it and I found it informative. I didn't get the same feeling when I read Chastain's; it read more like a burst of short sentences. It's meant to be Chastain on stage and screen, but only one sentence out of three paragraphs actually mentioned stage work. I think also her comparatively shorter career doesn't help as there is less to draw upon and write about. But therein lies another issue for me which is bigger: I think this article could be easily merged into her bio. Lots of actors have select filmographies, and I think that the same could be applied to Chastain's. For me, that is a big problem, because I don't think it warrants its own standalone list at this point in her career because it's quite short. It's nothing to be taken personally, no nomination of any kind gets no criticism or feedback. It's not a critique on you, remember that.  — Calvin999 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The readability of the prose in the lead may be a valid point (I've not read it, so make no judgement myself), but the title is not a problem, as the format is used in several other FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nominator has been indef. blocked. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Support All my comments were resolved, Good Luck with the nomination! NumerounovedantTalk 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Numerounovedant. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm sure neither the nominator nor the delegates are going to worry much about what Calvin999 has to say. The list is clearly comprehensive and of FL standard and you wouldn't want to bloat it with excessive prose anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, good doctor. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dan arndt (talk)

• the key about films that had yet to be released should go at the end of the table not proceeding it - is it possible to include as a separate row in the table rather than a completely separate line.
• the listing for Dark Shadows rather than an unaired pilot should read pilot episode with an annotation/footnote that the pilot episode wasn't aired but did have a limited release.

@Dan arndt: Both your comments have been addressed, though I'm not sure how to include the key as a separate row. Thanks for reading the list! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and see if I can fix the table for you -

don't know why its bolded - will work on it.

Thanks!

• The Huntsman: Winter's War has had its cinematic release
• Ref 52 needs fixing

Done. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stolen was originally known as Stolen Lives but was renamed before it received its theatrical release - notes should reflect this.

Well, several films have different names during production, but the name with which it is theatrically released is the only notable one.

Then maybe a footnote explaining that when it was first screened in 2009 it was called Stolen Lives but was renamed prior to its theatrically release - otherwise the notes column makes little sense.

• The Westerner she was a co-producer not the sole producer - notes should reflect this.

Generally, films have more than one producer. Each one of them are still the "producer", so I think it's fine.

It would be preferable then for a footnote to be included to this effect, as not all films have multiple producers.

• Texas Killing Fields was also known as The Dark Fields

According to IMDB, it released as The Dark Fields only in Australia. It also had different release names for other international markets. Is this notable enough to be included?

Maybe it is because I'm from Australia but you're right it doesn't need to be included.

• The Colour of Time was released in the UK as Love Forever. Was it released in the US under The Color of Time or Tar?

It was given a theatrical release in the US as The Color of Time, but premiered in film festivals as Tar.

Similarly to my preceding comments about Stolen, there should be a footnote provide greater explanation about the alternative names.

• The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby she was a co-producer not the producer, which implies she was the sole producer - notes should reflect this.

As above.

As per my comments on The Westerner.

• Wilde Salomé, was also released as Salomé, in 2013, essentially without the documentary elements - notes should reflect this.

Already mentioned this. Added the year of release in the footnote.

Maybe reword the footnote as 'entitled Salomé, was separately released in 2013.'

• Did she appear in the 2011 short film, Touch of Evil?

It wasn't really a short film, but a 40 second spoof for NYT. Is this notable?

You're right it isn't notable and shouldn't be included.

• Did she appear in the episode, "Eros in the Upper Eighties", of Law and Order: Trial by Jury in 2006

According to this, she wasn't a part of this episode. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and yet there are these screenshots from that episode and IMDb which appear to indicate otherwise.

• Possibly where I was confused was in the footnotes you state 'Refers to the film's earliest release' whereas when you state the name of the film you use the date of its theatrical release as the correct name for the film, which for some of these films are different.

Dan arndt, all done. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time out to review this. Much appreciated. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has also received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive commentsKrish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Screen debut can be either on-screen or off-screen. Please clarify.
• Replace "won" with "earned" in the case of Patthar Ke Phool.
• "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films which continued with her 1993 releases"—I suggest you to rephrase it to "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films until the end of 1993."
• "Among these were two of the top grossing films"—highest grossing? If yes, also mention whether they were for that year.

Please read the whole text which says "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the top grossing films – the action drama Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale." So mentioning of year is not necessary Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Action film is enough for Mohra. Few thrills cannot make an action film an "action thriller".
• "Her other film was the comedy Andaz Apna Apna, which though initially a box-office disappointment, over the years achieved cult status"—"achieved cult status over the years".
• Again, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is just an action film.
• Remove action film for Ziddi. It shall avoid repetition and shall make the readers job a bit easy,
• Any reason for not mentioning her Tamil debut Sadhu, Kannada debut Upendra, Aalavandhan? The last is surely a notable one and the second is her only Kannada film till date.
• No mention of Bangaru Bullodu (1993) and Akasa Veedhilo (2001) in the list and the lead. According to this, the former is her Telugu debut and including Pandavulu Pandavaulu Tummeda (2014), which you mention in the lead, Tandon did three films in Telugu. I suggest you to document the other two correctly in the list and the lead, if possible.

Because it was her comeback film after a long hiatus. And, she is known for her Bollywood films, so its not really important to say she made her this language debut 5 times.Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, i would ask you to list her three Telugu films with reliable sources in the list under filmography section. You have one, and two are left. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala Actually there aren't any sources for other two films. Hence, I was suggested to remove those films in the first FLC.Krish | Talk 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add them. I will provide the sources. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala I have added the films, so kindly provide aources for the same.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]