Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2019

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 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:08 28 April 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 23 FLs of these year-by-year lists of Billboard number one country songs, and a 24th has been open for more than a week, has multiple supports and no outstanding issues, so I thought I would nominate a 25th, and as it's the 25th I thought I would jump to the 25th anniversary year of the Hot Country Songs chart , which began in 1958. Let me know what you think, people........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• WP:Table scopes should be the date --Lirim | Talk
  • Done. Scopes confuse the heck out of me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just remember: The first column=scopes.
• Reba McEntire (pictured in 2010) had the first number one of her lengthy and highly successful career. Why do you mention pictured in 2010 for this picture but not for the other ones? What does "lengthy and highly" even mean? Way to vague.

• Reba's picture isn't the only one where the year is mentioned - Larry Gatlin's also did and I have just added a couple of others. I mention the year when the picture was taken many years either before or after the year the article is about, so as to indicate that the artist didn't look like that in the year in question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• {{abbr|Ref.|References(s)}}

--Lirim | Talk 12:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All other points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Lirim | Talk 23:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For the caption for the lead images, I am confused why Rogers only has the (pictured...) part. I believe Parton should also have that, particularly since it would be helpful for a reader to know when the picture was taken.
• Do we know when the Thomas picture was taken? It is just odd that every other image has the (pictured...) part except for him. If the date is unknown though, I would understand.

Everything else looks great as usual. Once my two comments/suggestions are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great as always. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything looks good on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 25 April 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (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) 20:59:07 25 April 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a preeminent children's literature award. I have modeled parts of my work on this list on the Aurealis Award for best young adult novel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a book award list (I did the Hugo/Nebula/World Fantasy lists at #Literature and theatre). Not going to do a full review yet, but here's some quick comments from a skim:

• Single-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; a paragraph should have at least some flow to it.
• "is given to the winning author at the next ALA annual conference" - ...the next? You didn't way when it's announced, so when would "next" be?
• The lead seems not to be covering a good chunk of the "history" section; it reads like a (slim) intro to a table-only list, but then there's a good section on history that means that it should be a real lead? In any case, it feels slim- compare to Hugo Award for Best Novel, which has a more substantial lead for an objectively less important award.
• The table has the winner/nominee in a column titled "Citation". I think it's just the column title is wrong, assuming that the whole table is cited to the reference tagged on the heading.
• The table needs colscopes and rowscopes so that it can be parsed by non-visual browsers or text-based browsers; see MOS:DTAB or copy out of that Hugo list I linked.

--PresN 07:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order:

• I did some rearranging and incorporated those sentences into existing paragraphs
• While this was present in the text I have inserted the timing of the selection into the LEAD
• I have incorporated some more information from the history section into the LEAD such that I hope it better complies with MOS:LEADREL
• Citation is frequently used in this context - it was given the Newbery Medal citation but for clarity I have changed the column header.
• I have attempted to fix this. This is new for me so please let me know if I did something wrong.

Thanks PresN for your early comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Do you have any further comments or feedback? I"d love to get your support if you feel it merits it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this on my watchlist for a while, I'm glad to see it expanded.

• "masters and doctoral theses are written on them" (should be master's) is a rather specific yet broad statement. It could be something along the lines "they are written about in academic writings" to be more general and not just copy the source.
• "fifteen person" needs a hyphen, as does "ex president", as does "then ALSC President"
• Missing period after unanimous.
• "first winner of two Newberys" -> a second Newbery
• space in "year,with"
• given to the "author of... does not have a closing quotation mark
• The image of Melcher should be in the section that discusses him
• ellipses do not need spaces on either side
• Several books that start with "The" do no sort correctly
• Would be worth having a small table with the multiple winners/honorees

Just a start, that's enough problems I may have missed some. Reywas92^Talk 00:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the last one. I started doing that and quickly found it wasn't such a small table. If the feeling is that it should be done, I will happily do it but ending up removing the whole multiple winners section as more TRIVIA than encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly be limited to 2+ wins/3+ honors or whatever combination you think would keep it to an appropriate size, but I think it's relevant to point out the most prolific authors besides just the several we have a license-free photo of. Stuff like that is what makes Wikipedia more useful than just directing folks to the source for the bare list. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the table. In the interests of disclosure I have not included all the authors for whom we have license-free photo because it seemed at a certain point it was "another person." If in the interests of completeness you/others think we should include all, I will add in the authors for whom I have skipped (I looked at every medal winning author; have not done so for all honor authors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean including all images? No, the current gallery is fine, I was just commenting that most of the pictures were of multiple winners and that was the only place where such status was mentioned, but there are plenty of photos already. The table looks terrific! Linking to the books is above and beyond, just leave a note in the text above that since readers wouldn't assume that's what's linked from the year. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a multiple winners table. I am still skeptical about this as I don't notice any such table in any other Featured List. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it done somewhere before, though to again use my own lists as an example, the Hugo/Nebula etc. lists just list the notable multi-winners or multi-nominees in prose in the lead, like "A has won 5 awards, the most of any author, out of 8 nominations; B and C have won 3 times out of 4 and 6 nominations, respectively. 7 other authors have won twice.", or something like that. Might be difficult to do with this table, though, depending on how detailed you want to get. --PresN 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reywas92^Talk 05:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Lead: five.To → space
• Beverly Cleary image missing alt text
• Combine years into one box, ex. only one 2014 instead of five.
• Whole second table should be centered
• Keep dates consistent (some are Month Day, Year, others are YYYY-MM-DD)
• Random double comma in ref 4
• Ref 10: p. vii → p. 7
• Add date of publishing for refs 12, 13, & 14 (June 3, 2016 for all)
• I'd personally archive all the website references

Looks good to me otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions except if I combined the 5 into one box it would make the sorting feature much less useful. I think the current format serves readers better. I've changed Ref 10 but since I took that citation from the John Newbery article and haven't seen the source myself, I am assuming you know that it really should be p. 7 and not vii. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables can actually deal with cells spanning multiple rows now, it just splits it apart with a different sort. I just did a bunch to see how it would look (easy in visual editor) and it's much less cluttered. Reywas92^Talk 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reywas92 for doing that. It actually looks better visually when they're all merged and besides, sorting does fix itself. Having every year in every row makes it more cluttered so it's confusing to the reader, especially me when I was crafting my comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks much better now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aoba47 (Passed)

Great work with this list. I just have a few questions/comments:

• There are a few inconsistencies with the date formats in the references. For instance, Reference 19 uses Month Day Year and Year Month Day. Would it be preferable to use the American formatting for all of the days (i.e. Month Day Year) as this is an American award?
• For the The Newbery & Caldecott Awards : a guide to the medal and honor books source, is there any reason why the subtitle does not have any capitalization?
• The references used in this sentence (The Newbery was proposed by Frederic G. Melcher in 1921, making it the first children's book award in the world.) should be in numeric order (i.e. reference 3 before reference 4). Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do a source review Aoba47. I have fixed the subtitle and ref order. I fixed source 19. In general I use VE for content creation so try to default to its Year-Month-Day format. I just looked over the list and dind't see any further issues like that, but bibliographic details have never been my strength (just ask my 6th grade social studies teacher). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I am pretty terrible with keeping all of the bibliographic details in oder. You can ask my English professors about that lol. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is the name of the award the Newbery or the John Newbery medal? I would expect the intro and the name of the article to be consistent.
• Is there just one medal or does each recipient get to keep a carbon copy?
• And the medal is it, no monetary value?
• Doesn't Publishers Weekly have an article?
• You refer to Caldecott as both "Medal" and "Award" interchangeably, isn't it just Medal per the article?
• "five books named a Newbery Honor " either add "each" or make it "named Newbery Honors".
• Avoid using the hash/pound symbol to mean "Number" (per MOS:HASH).
• "of Total ..." -> "Total number of ..."
• I don't like the easter egg links in the summary table, particularly as to the reader, the same year links to different book articles, and some not linked at all because those book article don't exist at all.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review The Rambling Man. I'll address your thoughts in order:

• The full name is the John Newbery. Everyone, including the awarding organizations, shortens it in nearly all contexts to just Newbery. Changed MOS:FIRST to reflect this.
• Each gets a copy. Noted this w/citation.
• No monetary value.
• Fixed.
• So the Newbery Medal refers to the winning book. Newbery Honor refers to runner-ups. The Newbery Award refers to both. I think I did this distinction correctly throughout but it's possible I missed the mark somewhere. The same nomenclature is true for the Caldecott - this is reflected correctly in the article.
• Fixed
• Fixed
• Fixed
• I don't like that whole table, which I added as suggested above, and don't think it should exist. But I removed the links.

Thanks again. Please let me know if you have other suggestions to improve this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice improvements, just one more thing, citation date formats seem to be mildly inconsistent, Ref 3 (for example) has an mdy publication date while the others are the horrendous ISO format. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Fixed. I too don't like the format but since it's what VE defaults to and I do like writing major content with VE it's what I end up defaulting to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokes, I could easily reformat it all to human-readable MDY if you prefer, but no worries really, as long as it's consistent, which is what MOS demands. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:shrug: I like to do MOS stuff right because I'm a rules follower but have no real passion for it. I only work to keep what I write in ISO (which I couldn't have even told you was its name) so that when I'm adding content to it with VE I don't have to change the source dates it generates automatically knowing that MOS prizes consistency. Since this article likely won't have major future expansion, absent a whole bunch of new sources being written, if we consistently changed it to something better that's fine with me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I support this nomination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Sorry this is my first FL. Do I need to do the 4 steps at WP:FLC/ar or is that done by a director/coordinator? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does it. Doesn't seem to have finished, though; re-doing. --PresN 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Giants subst'ed the closure template, so the 'bot just ignored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2019 (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) 21:16:31 25 April 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following two promotions earlier today, there are now 23 FLs for lists of Billboard number one country songs by year, so for the next one I thought I would do something a bit different. This list represents the number one songs from the very first year in which the magazine published a country songs chart, way back in the dark days of the Second World War. At the time the term "country music" had not come into standard usage, but this chart (which began using the term in 1949) is regarded by noted chart historian Joel Whitburn and others as the beginning of the lineage of the current Hot Country Songs chart. As ever, I will respond promptly to any queries or concerns raised. All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

WP:Tables The scopes should be the issue dates in this case

• Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue in this list are the references. All these Google Books references need to be cited with Template:Cite book with page numbers, year, etc...

—Lirim | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Lirim | Talk 20:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be possible to get the google books links to go to the actual page rather than a search result list? For example, have ref 13 link to this page rather than this one? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I didn't know you could do it like that. I'll get that change made over the next day or two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done - didn't actually take that long once I figured out the syntax.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. I just think it helps the reader go to the direct page for confirmation. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – I reviewed the list and have only one nit-pick: the ranges in the titles of references 4 and 9 need en dashes. Other than that, the list is in good shape. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - done - sorry for the delay, been away on holiday -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:16, 25 April 2019 (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) 21:16:37 25 April 2019 (UTC) [4].

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively new list, but I think it meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question - why does it use "chart week" (a number) rather than the date, as all other chart lists do? If I look at the list and see that, say, "Shotgun" was number one in "week 37", it's really not apparent (without doing a lot of mental arithmetic) when exactly that was...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see now that that is how it shown on the official website. Is there no way of converting a week number to a date? I look at "week 37" and think "ah, so George Ezra got to number 1 in September....no, wait, October.....or was it September...?"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: It seems that the charts are published simultaneously with the single and album charts each friday. I compared other sources who give accurate dates and it matches with the official dates. [5] [6] or [7] [8]. The problem is that sources which show specific dates don't have proper archives. I could change the calender weeks to the dates, based of the official charts.--Lirim | Talk 14:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it going to be possible to do it without needing OR....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

• There's a typo in the opening sentence and "broadcastet" should be changed to just "broadcast" (preferred) or "broadcasted".
• "Lost Frequencies' & Zonderling's "Crazy", dethroned P!nk after her two-week reign and topped it for five consecutive weeks" -- The comma after the song name is unnecessary, optional but I would also try to remove the excess repetition of the word "it" in this area.
• "The number-one single of the year was "Flames" by French DJ David Guetta and Australian singer Sia." -- This sentence is a bit confusing since the phrase "number one single of the year" is vague. I'd give preference to "best-performing single of 2018" as you've done for the key.

Good job with this article!--NØ 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Done. Thank you very much for your comments.--Lirim | Talk 20:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great list overall!--NØ 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments from me
  • "In 2018, 19 different songs by 18 different artists reached the top" - I count way more than 18 artists here. Presumably this refers to only the "lead" artist? If so, that needs to be made clearer. Also, how are you counting instance like Lost Frequencies & Zonderling or Liam Payne & Rita Ora, where there doesn't seem to be a clear "lead" artist?
  • "first number-one of the year" - don't need the hyphen there
  • " "Flames", released in March,[4] reached the top in the 19th week" - need to say who it was by (I know it's in the image caption, but it should be in the prose too)
  • "Namika's "Je ne parle pas français (Beatgees Remix)", featuring Black M, was the only German and French song atop the chart in 2018" - could do with a source for the German element (the French element is obvious from the title)
  • "The year concluded with Ava Max "Sweet but Psycho"" => Ava Max' "Sweet but Psycho" (or "Sweet but Psycho" by Ava Max)
  • Neither entry in the key is a complete sentence, so remove the full stops
  • As the table is sortable, I would link artists and songs that appear more than once every time they appear, as the linked instance might not always be the first
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done and i checked System description of the BVMI again and apparently charts are always conducted between fridays and thursday and published the following friday. This means that the airplay issue dates are the same as the official single/album ones. i'm gonna to change it.--Lirim | Talk 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Have your concerns been adequately addressed?--Lirim | Talk 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely forgot about this one. My only issue is that you still don't have artists who appear in the list multiple times linked each time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Should be fixed now, unless I'm blind.--Lirim | Talk 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a couple of minor changes but now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions regarding notability. The German airplay chart is severely lacking any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, so what makes reaching number one on it significant? This only seems to review what occurred on the charts during the year, and the only sources seem to be the charts themselves, meaning there's really no difference between what's number one on the chart or number 99, they're are just one song on the chart along with 98 others. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Airplay charts are one of the oldest official charts in Germany. Since 1989, airplay plays an immense role for the weekly single charts. 27% of music consumption in Germany is through radio. There are sources and I'm definitely going to work on German airplay chart later on.--Lirim | Talk 01:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of number ones of the weekly singles charts make sense because it compiles from 100% of music consumption and songs often receive independent coverage when it reaches number one on the main chart. When a song reaches number one on this chart, is it significant, and if so, where is it discussed in independent reliable sources? To me, this is just having a list for list's sake because they are easy to do. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: For e.x. [9][10][11][12][13].--Lirim | Talk 13:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those Lirim.Z, although two of the links were the same. I'm just disappointed these featured lists of number one songs don't incorporate references more like these into the prose, rather than x number of songs reached number one this year, with such and such being the first, then this one, and then this one which stayed at number one for y number of weeks. If that's the criteria for featured lists, so be it, but I would want more than just music chart trivia and a summary of what songs reached number one, when and for how long. Nothing against the writing and effort done to put these together, but such lists are very cookie cutter and don't tell me anything that the list itself doesn't already tell me. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I added more independent sources to the lead and two numbers of plays in evaluated stations. For whatever reason, they didn't publish any numbers for the number one song.--Lirim | Talk 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please note that per Help:Tables, use of "scope" in tables is not designed to provide/add emphasis to a certain row or column but to distinguish the top row or the first column from the rest of the information listed. This should be fixed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done.--Lirim | Talk 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Have your concerns been adequately addressed? Lirim | Talk 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be addressed but if this is all that it takes to meet featured list status, the criteria is rather flimsy. Not meant as a slight to the amount of work you put into it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great list overall. These are of triviality, but some of my concerns are:

• Lacking retrieval date for ref#5
• Germancharts.de should not be italicised since it's a non-print source
• Lacking work/publisher for ref #2

— HĐ (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @HĐ: Done and Germancharts.de is in italics, because the template cite web does this through the |website= parameter.--Lirim | Talk 02:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, I don't think this list needs to justify further the notability of the German airplay charts, promoting. --PresN 21:16, 25 April 2019 (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) 21:16:30 25 April 2019 (UTC) [14].

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spent the last 10 hours working on this list. Should meet all the FL criteria. Thank you all in advance for your comments.—Lirim | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't believe you did :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The only thing I see that's worth noting is in the first section heading. The second word of "Issue Date" probably shouldn't be capitalized since it's not a proper noun. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Giants2008: Done, thank you.--Lirim | Talk 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:16, 25 April 2019 (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) 21:16:33 25 April 2019 (UTC) [15].

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• I do not believe there should be a full stop for the infobox image caption as it is not a complete sentence.
• For this part (she became the first person to win four Logie Awards at one event, and the youngest Gold Logie recipient at nineteen), I do not believe the comma after “event” is needed.
• I have two comments for the image of Olympiapark, Munich. I do not think the image caption should have a full stop because it is not a full sentence. And I would also add ALT text to the image.
• I have a question about the citation method used for books. I see two methods currently being used in the article. The Smith source includes the page number in the “References” part and links down to the full citation in the “Sources” section, while the Baker/Minogue source has the full citation in the “References” part. I would be consistent with one citation style. It is completely up to you on which way to go.

Wonderful work with the list. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into the list. Minogue has a long career so it means more work on tracking down the references for each award. My comments above are rather nitpicky. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Aoba47. I made some changes per your suggestions above. Let me know what you think. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "released her self-titled debut album, Kylie in 1988" - needs a comma after the title too, to close the subordinate clause
• "Her subsequent studio albums....were nominated for ARIA Award for Best Female Artist." - firstly it should be "the ARIA Award". But more importantly, if the award is Best Female Artist then it wasn't the albums that were nominated, it was Kylie herself
• "her duet with rock band Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "Where the Wild Roses Grow" won" - missing closing comma again
• "which was nominated ARIA Award for Album of the Year." => "which was nominated for the ARIA Award for Album of the Year."
• "Its lead single, "Can't Get You Out of My Head" garnered" => missing closing comma again
• "were nominated for Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, winning the latter in 2004" => "were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, the latter winning in 2004"
• "For her work as songwriter in "Love at First Sight"" - someone can't be a songwriter "in" a song. "For" would be better.
• "Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked" => "The Phonographic Performance Company of Australia ranked"
• "by Australian Recording Industry Association" => "from the Australian Recording Industry Association"
• "her contribution to the Australian live entertainment" => "her contribution to Australian live entertainment"
• "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree by Anglia Ruskin University" => "honorary Doctor of Health Science degree from Anglia Ruskin University"
• "for services to Music" - no reason for capital M here
• "for contribution to the improving of relations between Britain and Australia" => "for her contribution to improving relations between Britain and Australia"
• I can just about remember enough of my schoolboy French to know that "Chevalier de Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" should be "Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres"
• Note b - again, you can't be a songwriter "in" a song. Use "for" instead.
• Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I fixed everything you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made one little English grammar fix but am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Very impressive article. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! Damian Vo (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eurohunter

• Why awards name in the plural form? She received one "American Choreography Award" not "American Choreography Awards". Eurohunter (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many FL cite awards name in plural form ([16], [17], [18]) Damian Vo (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is even "Award" instead of "Category". How is this possible? Eurohunter (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Sorry I completely forgot to support this a while ago. Hard to believe you can be nominated for so many 'best' and 'worst' awards during your career (in some cases for the same thing). I still liked her in "Voyage of the Damned" – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:16, 25 April 2019 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:14:10 21 April 2019 (UTC) [19].

Nominator(s): PresN 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few months, but I'm back again with another entry in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard), with a developer who just barely makes the 90s cut: Relic Entertainment, a developer from Vancouver. Relic came out of the gate strong with Homeworld, rated the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999. Five years and 2 games later, however, it got bought by publisher conglomerate THQ in 2004, with which it found major success with the Warhammer 40,000 license and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. It was going strong as THQ's most valuable studio 8 years after that... which we know because when THQ abruptly declared bankruptcy in late 2012, its purchase price at auction (to Sega) was the highest. Relic has put out a couple games since, to relatively poor reception, and is currently banking on regaining its crown with Age of Empires IV. I've fond memories of Relic from Homeworld, and I hope y'all enjoy a tabular peek at some gaming history too. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • First two very short sentences could probably be combined
  • Presumably the figure of $10 million is expressed in Canadian dollars? Might be worth making this absolutely clear.
  • Same query for the later figure of $26.6 million
• Actually, I think that's it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done- it was USD for both, actually, though it was surprisingly hard to prove the 10 million (now 10.2)- actually managed to find that US SEC filing where they list out that the price was $10.189 million. --PresN 05:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick Comment
  • Age of Empires IV is denoted as being systemless - however it was introduced it's been confirmed for PC [20]
  • If you have a release date, and all consoles are released in this year, does it need to be mentioned on the second half of the table (under Release years by system)? Seems a little redundant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lee Vilenski: Added AOE4 system. I think that single-year releases still need the year mentioned, and not just to retain consistency with the other ones- if there's a game that was released March 1, 2000, and the year by stem section just says Windows/Mac, it's not intuitively obvious that both the Windows and Mac versions were released in 2000 just because no year is listed; especially as some games on this list have large discrepancies between release years (e.g. Homeworld was released on Windows in 1999 and Mac in 2015). --PresN 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. You should work on List of games by Rockstar Games next! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I generally prefer the per-developer lists instead of the per-publisher, so maybe a list for Rockstar North. --PresN 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Their games developed section on their page could easily be split into its own list. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made a trivial tweak but couldn't see any real issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted. The link for the link-checker tool in the FLC toolbox isn't working for some reason, but almost all of the sources have archived versions provided anyway. Overall, no problems here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: TRM supported and I nominated, so you're the only potential closer for this one. --PresN 01:52, 19 April 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 21 April 2019 (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 via FACBot (talk) 21:21:16 21 April 2019 (UTC) [21].

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian Tamil film, Mersal starring Vijay. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fifteenth attempt at an accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• "It was a commercially successful venture," how bout just "It was also a commercial success,"...?
• In the second paragraph, should "Vijay's performance" by performances since he portrayed more than one person?
• Should there be refs in the third paragraph? (currently has none)
• "S. J. Surya" is spelled as "S. J. Suryah" in the table (multiple times)
• Fix the disambiguation link for Business Today in ref 11

Everything looks great as always. Great job on this! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, BeatlesLedTV. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I’m not able to find any problem in the list. Mr. Smart LION 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Mr. Smart LION. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• Mersal is not an English word, so you may consider adding the translation. Many Bollywood FLs have this.
• Consider moving the page for WP:PRECISION. List of accolades received by Madras (film) was moved to List of accolades received by Madras.
• [[Tamil language|Tamil-language]] [[Action film|action]] [[thriller film]] - you may not want to violate WP:SEAOFBLUE, so try reducing the consecutive links. Either write [[action thriller]] film or [[action thriller film]] (because redirects are not broken links), or [[Action film#Action thriller|action thriller film]] if you prefer to avoid redirects (personally, I typically use links that redirect to sections).
• Ruben and G. K. Vishnu was in charge of the editing and cinematography respectively - They were in charge, not was.

That will be all from me. Once addressed, this FLC will have my support. In return, do help me at Mullum Malarum's PR. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Kailash29792. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All good to go. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable and formatted properly except wiki-link IBN Times first in ref 16 and de-link in subsequent instances. FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved the "IB Times" source now, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

• With all due respect to the great Atlee, Mersal never thrills during its run time. Though I see a source supporting your argument, Action film would suffice to be honest.
• No mention of Qutub-E-Kripa in the credits. Why dear?
• Indian Express to be wikilinked in ref 6.
• Rest looks just fine. The image has no issues with its licensing and all, though a more "clear" image would benefit the purpose. However, upon checking the Commons, i don't think so that you can find one. Hence, discounted.

Let me know once you have addressed the comments. Veera Narayana 07:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Veera Narayana. As for the Indian Express one, I've already wikilinked it at ref 4 if you look closely in the references section. I've resolved the rest. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. Didn't notice that. Well, now that my concerns are met, this nomination has my support. Regards, Veera Narayana 05:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I would say that the film title needs to be in italics in the article title (using the DISPLAYTITLE template)
  • "and Vijay's performances have received" => "and Vijay's performances received"
  • The last three footnotes are not complete sentences, so shouldn't have full stops.
  • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I've resolved them. Do have a look again and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, ChrisTheDude. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (Mersal features Vijay in triple roles for the first time in his career.), I am a little confused by the last part (for the first time in his career). It implies to me that he would play a triple role in future films, but I do not see that in his filmography list. Also, are triple roles common enough in Indian or Tamil-language films that it is noteworthy to be his "first time" doing so?

That is my only note. Once my comment is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, the sentence also implies that in his 27-year long career as a mainstream actor (in protagonist roles), he has never done this before and he is playing a triple role for the first time through this film, which is considered a significant milestone. I do think it is okay for his filmography list but its your call if I can keep this sentence as it is or remove the "first time" bit.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence still strikes me as odd as it implies to me that he either would go on to do more triple roles or that triple roles are a major trope in this type of cinema. I am not sure if I would consider it a "significant milestone" in his career, in the same way that I wouldn't say something like Lindsay Lohan played twin characters for the first time in The Parent Trap. However, that is probably just my personal preference and I will leave that up to other editors. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I also wondered about the triple roles bit, but that seems to have been sorted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:39, 7 April 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 21 April 2019 (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) 17:15:51 11 April 2019 (UTC) [22].

Nominator(s): Prefall 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spent the last month cleaning up and expanding this article, and I believe it now meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and first time working on a discography. I used the recently-promoted Meghan Trainor discography as instruction. Looking forward to your feedback. Prefall 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Give more information on the picture
• His first studio album with them His first major label release
• Every released single should be referenced
• Don't use "N/A" in Guest appearances. It should be "Non-album single"
• Refs: 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 33, 35, 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 83, 84, 85, 88, 92, 96, 97, 100, 109, 138, 148 (I hope these are all) Itunes is not the publisher of the albums/songs, the label is. Change |publisher= to the respective record label and keep the store in with: |via=ITunes Store. Also, you definetely could swap a lot of these for proper sources.
• Mac Miller is not the publisher of MVs released after his signing to Rostrum |publisher=Rostrum Records, |via=YouTube
• --Lirim | Talk 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: Thanks for the response. I've addressed most of your comments, with the exception of the "N/A" -> "Non-album single" change. From my understanding, guest appearances are listed that way because they aren't singles. Prefall 00:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just change it to "none"--Lirim | Talk 08:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prefall 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Lirim | Talk 01:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - really excellent work. Two tiny points...

• Could abbreviate "extended play" to EP as most people use that initialism.
• Is the release date in each case for the US or global or something else?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:

• Extended play / EP is a mixed case; the full term is used as the article's title, but the abbreviation is used in the discography infobox. From looking around, most discographies go with the full term. I don't mind either way.
• The release dates are global. I haven't found any early releases in specific countries.

Thanks for the kind words. Prefall 19:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my trivial concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• "This was proceeded by" reads awkwardly
• "he collaborated with American actress and singer Ariana Grande" is too wordy; I'd cut her nationality (not relevant here) and occupations (already obvious she's in the music industry when mentioning collab)
• "featuring American singer Miguel"..... same as before
• Too many US component charts listed; I'd personally just stick with Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums in addition to main Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200 charts
• The "Guest appearances" listings don't belong here unless they charted and/or had single/promo single releases

We should be good to go after that. As for an image review, File:The Space Migration Tour London Music - Mac Miller.jpg is appropriately licensed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Done mostly all:

• I kept US Jazz in the EP section, as You is the only project he made outside of the hip hop genre. I also kept US Pop in "Featured singles" since no other component charts are listed.
• Just to clarify, only the "Moves Like Jagger" and "Into You" remixes from "Guest appearances" have single releases on iTunes. Would you recommend I move those songs to the singles section (perhaps as promo singles) and remove the rest? Prefall 06:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, move those tracks accordingly and delete the other guest appearances. Fair point on US Pop and US Jazz charts. Looking again through the lead, however, it is entirely US-centric and should include at least some mention of other nations. I do realize Miller's songs didn't have much chart success outside his native country (or even on its own main chart with only "The Way" reaching the top 30), but we could at least include his highest non-US peaks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Done the change to guest appearances. I've added some of his non-US peaks to "Self Care" from its post-death bump. I could expand "The Way" too, but not sure how much weight should be placed on a feature. Let me know if there's anything I missed or more I should do. Prefall 19:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When "The Way" was Miller's only real chart hit (keep in mind that main charts reflect overall popularity of songs within a country and thus are far more important than any component charts), it's fine to note this was his biggest commercial success. You can safely include the Netherlands as it reached number 22 there along with maybe Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I would also at minimum go into top 10 peaks for his studio albums (more important than mere debut). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Okay, I've added more peaks, mostly to "The Way" and Swimming. Is that closer to what I should be going for? Prefall 20:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, and I now support this for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:15, 11 April 2019 (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) 17:15:45 11 April 2019 (UTC) [23].

Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Casualty specials for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria of a Featured List. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Casualty and what the article lists included. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list give key information about the specials in a table format, which links to a section of prose about each special. No images are in the list, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. All comments are appreciated to my FLC and are considered very helpful! Thank you in advance. Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Initial comments, more to come later
  • "and On Call starts a storyline" - all the other titles in this paragraph are in quotation marks, so presumably this one should be too
  • "there was several health and safety procedures" - were, surely?
  • "At the time of filming the specials, Taylor had filming on-location for four months" - "filmed"?
• That's as far as I have got so far, I'll pick it up again later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your quick comments. Some silly mistakes spotted and amended. Soaper1234 - talk 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• More comments
  • "She explained that Sam and Iain were in "a different world out there in Afghanistan."" - here the full stop is inside the speech marks, a couple of sentences later there is a similar usage but it is outside. Minor, I know, but best to be consistent throughout.....
  • "Sam, who he described" - whom
  • "Sarker found directing the webisode a challenge, although found it enjoyable" - "although she found it...."
  • "Kent stated that Noel become "anxious detectives" as they" - Noel isn't plural, so presumably the words "and Mac" have gone AWOL?
  • "Seven cast members feature in the special, and continues in the following episode" - "which continues....."
  • "The First Noel is a Christmas-themed" - missing quotation marks on title
• Think that's it from me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: All the problems have now been fixed. Thank you - Soaper1234 - talk 20:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I made a slight grammar fix to the lead but otherwise it all looks good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• This sentence (The drama has aired for thirty-one series and a thirty-second series currently airs. ) needs to be updated since the show is currently airing its thirty-third season.
• For this part (It began on 8 May 2007 and it was cancelled in August 2008), I do not believe the second “it” is necessary.
• I have a comment about how numbers greater than ten are represented. In some instance, they are represented by numerals (as in this case, “Casualty has produced 19 special episodes”) and in other areas, they are represented by words (as in this case “The drama has aired for thirty-one series and a thirty-second series currently airs”). I would encourage you to be consistent with one way or the other. Either approach would work so it is entirely up to you.

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FLC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've addressed your comments and I thank you very much for your comments too! I shall add some comments of my own to your FLC now. Soaper1234 - talk 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "two series and 20 episodes" MOSNUM cats/dogs.
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Title / Aired between" does "Aired between" mean "episodes between which the special was aired"?
  • Yes it does. Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably worth noting in the list which ones are webisodes.
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking random refs, e.g. where in ref 17 does it say the special aired between "Only Human" / "Secrets and Lies"? The latter isn't even mentioned on that page... Need to check all other references support these "aired between" notes.
  • I don't think the references do support this. Your comments have made me think: would it be better removing the "aired between" notes altogether? We have the air date so they just seem trival? I've changed it - see what you think. Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not clear why we need to run through the list again with the episode synopses, this could be incorporated into the table.
  • Could you explain what you mean? Is this in relation to the prose about each episode? Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Soaper1234, yep, that's right, we seem to go through the episodes twice, once in the list and then again with the synopses. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Rambling Man: Ah, I see. The idea of the breakdown is to get more detail about the specials. The first list is meant to be a simple table layout for easy viewing. If you think one needs to go, I'd prefer to remove the table. Soaper1234 - talk 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, on reflection I think I'm okay with it, I guess the first is a summary then the second is the detail, and I'm cool with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• So many external links, any chance of div col?
  •  Done - Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments The Rambling Man. I have completed some feedback and responded to others. Soaper1234 - talk 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated thank you for your support, The Rambling Man. Soaper1234 - talk 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:15, 11 April 2019 (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) 17:16:00 11 April 2019 (UTC) [24].

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick break from international player lists, I am nominating this for featured list because I have been milling around it for some time and have finally got round to updating, improving and preparing this for FLC. I've modelled it on the 100+ appearances list, incorporating the overall design, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's a bit of the age-old "the club is singular/the club is plural" confusion going on i.e. "The club was founded [...] In 1907, they [...] They were [...] As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has...."
• "As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has won 3 division titles" => "As of the end of the 2017–18 season, the club has won three division titles"
• "Stan Richards set a club record for the most league goals in a single season in 1946–47" - how many goals? Seems a bit odd to say he set a goalscoring record but not say how many he scored!
• "the age of 16 years and 123 days old." - "the age of 16 years and 123 days."
• Paul McLoughlin's row in the table has a stray extra cell.
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the issues you raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cardiff were elected into the Football League in 1920, where the side remains to this day, moving into its new stadium, Ninian Park" - here you have the club treated as both plural and singular in the very same sentence. Also, I would move the last clause (if indeed we even need it all) as it sounds like the club moved into Ninian in the present day. Also, "where the side remains to this day", isn't actually true, as they aren't in the EFL currently.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed. Kosack (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I further tweaked it myself and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "...moving into its new stadium Ninian Park." Place a comma after "stadium."
• Link "transfer" to Transfer (association football) in fourth paragraph.
• Lead image caption: Add "transfer fee" between "club" and "records" (linked per above) so the reader knows what kind of records were set; otherwise its a bit ambiguous.
• The alt text for the lead image has "Jersey" capitalized; change to lower case
• Key: "The list is ordered by alphabetical order of surname." How about: "The list is arranged in alphabetical order by surname." to avoid using "order" twice?
• Key: "Thus the change in the names..." Add a comma after "Thus"
• Per MOS:DATETOPRES, date ranges should not end in a dash without an end date. For the positions key and active players, make it "–present" or (for the key) "–pres."
• Caption: "Aaron Ramsey spent two spell with the club and remains the youngest ever player in the club's history." Make it "spells" (plural) and "youngest-ever" or simply "youngest".
• Use title case. rather than sentence case, on references 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 to match the others.
• Reference 24 ("Tony Capaldi stats") is dead. It looks like the URL has changed.
• Everything else looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: Thanks very much for the review, I've fixed all of the issues you raised above bar one. The WP:DATESTOPRES issue is an interesting one, there are 28 lists such as this at FL status and all of them use the same "2018–" format as this one. I would say, if this is to be implemented, it should be done across the board in a wider discussion rather than this one being the only one and being out of sync with the rest. What's your thoughts? Kosack (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I searched through several FLC nominations for similar player lists which were promoted, and not one of them mentioned this issue. I'd say that adhering to the MOS is more important than conformity with similar articles. What's more, I'd say that no one is really going to notice that difference from article to article. (Nor do they seem to notice the need to cap that range with an end date.) Maybe someone else reading this has an opinion? NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a wider scale, the open date ranges are also the norm in footballers' infoboxes and are used like this on a massive scale. As well as conformity, the amount of previous FLCs that have passed this style would suggest a consensus that the layout is acceptable. Kosack (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - That works for me. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:15, 11 April 2019 (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.