Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2014

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:25, 26 August 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiths were one of the formative bands of my youth – and I still make my friends jealous by reminding them that I saw the band live back in the 80s. This list was in pretty good nick when I looked at it, and needed only a bit of work around the accessibility aspects, sorting and referencing to bring it up to nick. All comments, questions and observations are gratefully received. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Citation 8 seems to be dead and Citation 24 redirects to its main page. GamerPro64 03:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted! Replaced one with a different source, and readjusted the addres of the other. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through this article again, I would like to add that in the "Music videos" section, the columns for "'Ask' (live)" and "There Is a Light That Never Goes Out" are unreferenced. GamerPro64 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Aargh! I took ages to find these first time round!! Re-found and now added. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list meets the FL criteria now. Support. GamerPro64 19:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, GamerPro64: this is much stronger with your input, and it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Cassianto

• We have a lot of "reached"'s in the second paragraph and it does become quite repetitive after a while; I counted seven! I know this is going to be a bit difficult, but what are the chances of trimming a few?
• Third para, new para, new title needed rather than simply "Despite the band's chart success..."
• "Failing to find a replacement, The Smiths disbanded by the time their final studio album, Strangeways, Here We Come, was released in September that year." Something seems wrong here. How about "Failing to find a replacement, The Smiths disbanded by the time of the release of their final studio album, Strangeways, Here We Come, in September that year"? Cassianto^talk 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good eyes, as always! I've tweaked and twisted as per your comments, and all is now tickety boo! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and inconsequential quibbles from Tim riley

• Lead
  • At the opening of paras 2 and 3, you have The Smiths debut/chart success without a possessive apostrophe. One apiece needed, unless this lack of punct is a pop group affectation in which case ignore the old codger
  • "failed to break the UK Top 40" – break into?
• The list
  • Capitalisation: pray examine your conscience and your sources: What Difference Does It Make? How Soon Is Now? Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me, etc etc etc. In the three examples I have plucked out, "It", "Is" and "That" wouldn't normally have a capital. Stick like glue to the original punctuation on the LP covers, of course, but just in case you haven't I draw it your attention.
  • Sources: "Rogan, Johnn" – Johnny, I assume

That's my lot. I am to popular music what hippos are to hang-gliding, but I hope there are some random shots above that are useful, and my support is firm notwithstanding these trivial points, – Tim riley talk 22:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks indeed for your thoughts. I've tweaked as appropriate, with only the capitalisation untouched: what is there is as per the original punctuation: inconsistent, but they were Lancastrian, after all... Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Bloody nerve! Southerners!) But my support is unwavering. Tim riley talk 22:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worse than a Southerner, I'm afraid: a Yorkshire-born southerner! - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:13, 20 August 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W. Somerset Maugham was one of the most prolific and high-profile English writers of the 20th century, who is known to have been a strong influence on George Orwell, Ian Fleming and Anthony Burgess. A doctor, member of the Red Cross and in the ambulance corps (during the First World War) and MI6 operative (in Russia during the revolution), he was the most commercially successful and gifted writers of his time. This bibliography has been cleaned up from the rather messy state it was previously, been brought into line with MOS requirements, and is now fully sourced throughout. – SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – now fully FL compliant. A tricky and complicated topic handled with great skill. (Rather better than the treacherous old ratbag deserves, but when all is said, he was a great story teller, and this does him justice.) Tim riley talk 18:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - your time and effort going over this are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a very user-friendly, attractively laid-out and informative list. I thought the Lead, too, managed to combine biography and the scope of his writings/of the list very well, only there's just one sentence I was not sure about: "Maugham also acted as editor on a number of works, which often included adding a preface or introductory chapter to the work of other editors." - should this read "the work of other writers"? Altogether, though, an excellent piece of work. Alfietucker (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it should the "work of other writers"! (Now tweaked). Many thanks for spotting that, and for taking the time to look this over: it's much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per above resolved comments. A tremendous effort! Cassianto^talk 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks: your thoughts and efforts are, as always, much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well-written and very well-sourced list, excellent lead as well. --Carioca (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks - your time and effort going over this are much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2014 (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) 21:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 20 August 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from me and Cowlibob. We're nominating this for featured list because it meets the six criteria for a featured list. We welcome any and all constructive comments or criticisms, and are happy to make changes to better the article if required. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• Something off about "The film follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a man who develops a relationship with a female voice "Samantha" (Scarlett Johansson) produced by an intelligent computer operating system." How about "The film follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a man who develops a relationship with Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), a female voice produced by an intelligent computer operating system"?
• Would be nice to include the Best Picture Oscar nomination in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestions! I made both changes. Thank you! Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 11:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well done, yet again. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• References 33 and 34 have dates in DMY format. They should be changed to MDY format to maintain consistency.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Good catch! Fixed now. Cowlibob (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rotten Tomatoes page says the film received 226 reviews.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Corrected, thanks again. Cowlibob (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No issues. Excellent work!--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Meets the standards! --Khadar Khani (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Can't find anything else wrong. Good job! AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 00:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Is the disambiguator in the title entirely necessary? Similar lists (e.g. for Avatar, Precious, Ratatouille and Up) omit having "(film)" in the title, and List of accolades received by Her redirects here anyway. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: I agree it's probably best to have the article as just "Her" as to my knowledge there is nothing that it could be confused with. I think a move should be considered after this nom has finished as it can be confusing for whoever does the bot's work as there'll be different article names. Do you have any other suggestions to improve the list? Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors and Cowlibob: It was agreed that film accolade lists should include their film's disambiguation tags. Please see this discussion for more details. Technically, we should have moved all of your examples after this discussion. Sock (tock talk) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, some of these rule changes need to be put in more prominent places than discussions that not all of us were part of. Cowlibob (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I'm not really sure where it would belong. Sock (tock talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (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) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 20 August 2014 [4].

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, cited by many as one of the most beautiful women in the world, has appeared in over forty films in five different languages. This is my fifth filmography nomination on an Indian celebrity, and as usual, I look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @AB01: -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) I can give my support now AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks all good now! Great list. Cowlibob (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:25, 7 August 2014 (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) 21:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:13, 20 August 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on it extensively for the past few months, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. This is the second nomination in a series of three articles on Rap Songs number-ones, following a previous successful FLC. Holiday56 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point I raised 12 days ago still hasn't been resolved, but it was only a small thing so I fixed it myself and now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is inconsistency in the titling of the three lists ("singles" is used in the 1980s/1990s and 2000s lists, while "songs" is used in the 2010s list). Is this intentional? --Philpill691 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philpill691: Yeah, it's intentional. This particular page was moved to reflect the chart changes which took effect in 2012 – prior to that this chart was based solely on sales (and in the 2000s, airplay) of rap singles, but with the new changes incorporating digital download sales, streaming, etc. it's possible for album tracks to chart without being released as singles. Holiday56 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work overall. Simon (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Holiday56 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar decade lists (e.g. here or here) include tables indicating which artists/songs have been at number one for the longest – could similar stats be included here?
  • I considered adding data tables for the most number-ones in initial drafts of the article, but in the end I figure that the sortable function in the main table, not to mention the fact that this stuff is covered in the main Hot Rap Songs article, would make such a table redundant – it also breaks consistency with the other rap number-ones articles. Holiday56 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the sort of information that I'd expect to see in this article though. It may well be available in the main Hot Rap Songs article, but, per WP:Summary style, it should probably be here as well. If one of our readers comes to this article to find out which artist has spent the most time at number one, they're not going to want to have to add up a bunch of numbers just to find that information out. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a sentence in the lead which mentions counts for the top five artists with regards to longest time spent at number one; I'm still somewhat skeptical as to whether an entire section is necessary, but if another user chimes in and feels that he'd like to see a whole table I'll gladly concede. Holiday56 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are no other issues that I can see, but I would like to hear another editor's opinion on the table issue before I support. For reference, of the 15 featured lists of music charts for specific decades, five of them don't have a dedicated section for these sorts of stats (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), while the other ten do (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Not that this necessarily indicates consensus, of course. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport with comments- 1) I don't think you need an additional table for how long each artist has been on the chart; listing the top 5 is fine by me. 2) There doesn't seem to be a mention in the lead of which song has spent the longest on the chart ("Fancy"), in addition to which artists. 3) Redirects: streaming data, BedRock, Nielsen Business Media (in refs) 4) Archive links and deadurl=no? Be still my heart! That said: 5) You abruptly switch from cite web to cite journal for Billboard; pick one. --PresN 19:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed these comments now – thanks for the support! Holiday56 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2014 (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) 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list after revamping, rewriting, and restructuring it completely. Focusing on the topic of Shakira's discography, the list includes the peak chart positions and certifications of the various releases by the Colombian artist. I have made the list in accordance to the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE and it is similar in style to various other featured lists, like Madonna albums discography, Beyoncé discography, and Robbie Williams discography. Thank you WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

WikiRedactor (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You should wikilink "signature song" when mentioning "Ojos Así".
• You're missing a quotation mark on "Underneath Your Clothes".
• "It was a success in the United States too, where it shipped more than a million copies and was certified platinum." should read something like "It was similarly successful in the United States, where it sold more than one million copies and was certified platinum." (In my eyes at least, songs don't ship so much as they sell, and I think one million is a touch more clear.)
• The note for "Sing" by Annie Lennox is not working.

Oh I forgot to remove it. Removed now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Other appearances" section is unsourced. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet

• Support: All my comments have been resolved and I believe the article is now featured list-level. Congratulations! decodet. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: and @Decodet: : There has been a massive mistake. A user untimely restored the old version of the page and removed my new edits. This is very embarrassing and I have notified the editor about his/her really careless revert. Kindly look at the new page please --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Magiciandude

Support Great job WonderBoy1998! Erick (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Support Looks great overall, no issues found. Simon (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• "Her first two studio albums Magia and Peligro, released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993, respectively, performed poorly and had low sales"..... I think this would read better as "Her first two studio albums, Magia and Peligro, were respectively released in Colombia in 1991 and 1993. They performed poorly and had low sales"..... let's also give a range for such sales
• "After a break from her career, Shakira found success" → "Shakira later found success"
• "Like Pies Descalzos, it spawned numerous singles, including its 'signature track' 'Ojos Así'"..... I don't think we should note that it spawned that many singles for one album and not do the same for another. Instead just make note that "Ojos Así" is from Dónde Están los Ladrones?
• "sales began to dip"..... began to decline

Overall, looking pretty good. Just a few concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I've addressed the comments --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well done. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

• "becoming one of the best-selling singles worldwide" remove one of

Removing one of makes the sentence "Four of her singles, "Whenever, Wherever", "Hips Don't Lie", "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)", and "Loca", have achieved sales in excess of five million units, becoming best-selling singles worldwide" - THis just doesn't sound right since it would seem like these four are the only best sellers.

• "thirteen" → 13 (per MOS)
• "hit" sounds really NPOV

"Hit" is often used to simply refer to singles that performed well in charting or simply charted. It is like a milder version of "success"

• What makes Eil.com and CDandLP.com high-quality RSs?

These sites are one of the few ones that cover a lot of release dates of really obscure singles. I have crosschecked on the other few sources available and it would seem these dates are correct. I hope they can be allowed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor comments, I have nothing to add to this. I support it based on meticulous sourcing, well-formatted tables and great prose. Keep up the good work.pedro | talk 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copyedited the lead a bit, but I can see no reason to not promote this now. Consensus is clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have based much of List of songs recorded by Marina and the Diamonds on my earlier nominations List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus and List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira; with my most recent nomination The Real Housewives of Atlanta (season 6) confirmed for promotion by a FLC delegate, I am ready to present this list to you all for FL consideration. Here, you will find a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Welsh singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis; credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources including Digital Spy and Idolator. I will be readily available to address any concerns that come about during this nomination process, and am looking forward to this discussion! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

• Isn't this article written in British English? If so, "Welsh singer-songwriter" → "The Welsh singer-songwriter". I'm not sure on "Singer and producers" though, I don't know if it should have the definite article.

• Done

• "Diamandis' co-wrote" typo

• Done

• The last mention of Electra Heart in the prose could be substituted by "the album of the same name"

• Done

• The image is free to use and uploaded on Flickr with an acceptable license.

With regards to the rest, there's nothing I saw that needs correction. I give you my support based on meticulous sourcing, reliable sources and a comprehensive list of songs by Diamandis. Another great work by WikiRedactor. — prism △ 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism: Thanks so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Sound of 2010 poll organized by BBC" - she is British, so the article should be in British English and therefore the correct spelling is "organised". Also, it's the BBC, not just "BBC"

• Done

• • "Songwriter and producers Liam Howe and Pascal Gabriel" - assuming that this is meant to indicate that both these people are both songwriters and producers, then "songwriters" should be plural too

• Done

• • "Rick Nowels frequently partnered with Diamandis during production of the record, and were consequently...." - unless another name has been missed out somewhere, the "were" should be "was"

• Done

• Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No other outstanding issues that I can see. Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:19, 6 August 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Charteris was a tireless writer between his first foray into writing in 1927 and his final 1980 introduction to a re-print of one of his earlier works. He is, of course, best known for his creation of Simon Templar—aka The Saint—a "born buccaneer" who span off into comics, films, television shows, on stage and elsewhere, always identified by the stick man drawing with the halo. Charteris had more to him than this though, and developed Paleneo, a pictorial sign language, produced a guide to learning Spanish and translated the autobiography of the bullfighter Juan Belmonte. – SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question, how does the infobox square with the article? For instance I see "Non fiction 2" but yet four are listed in the article. There's also something missing here: "Charteris also three works of non-fiction"... More soon if I get a moment this weekend! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi RM, and thanks for looking this over. The IB breaks things down a little more, with 2 non-fiction, 1 translation and an introduction all linking down to the one table. I've tweaked the lead para about it too, which may help explain (and gets rid of the typo problem too). It may still need something of a further tweak to be completely spot on, and I'll mull that over today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I leave the arithmetic to others but the prose of the lead and the contents of the tables are first rate. The page is evidently comprehensive, and is reader-friendly and pleasing to the eye. Tim riley talk 13:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Born in Singapore to a Chinese father Dr Suat Yin Chwan" - the name is an appositive, which should be surrounded by commas. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Contractions, you shouldn't put Dr in there.

• Ive added the commas, and removed the Dr, despite deeply disagreeing wight the MoS on the latter point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the American publishers' locations given in parenthesis? (Which you don't repeat in "Other Works")
• I'm presuming that you give the publishers location as a short of shorthand as to whether the work was originally published in the UK or America, but 1) Why not just have a column that says that rather than jamming in the city the publisher is physically located in (it's not like the London publishers didn't sell the books in other cities in the UK, after all) and 2) in either case you don't have a location for Juan Belmonte, Killer of Bulls: The Autobiography of a Matador.

• I think that's the standard for all biographies or source lists: you show the location of the publisher by city (and state/country, if necessary) – see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY

• It's Charter Communications, not Charter
• Screenplay heading should be "Co-writer(s)", since one of them had two
• Why does one of the screenplays get a redlink, but no books do?
• Looks good besides that. --PresN 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN, Sorry for the delay here, for some reason this dropped off my Watchlist and I didn't pick up on your comments. I've got a day with the family I front of me, but will go though these shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi PresN, all now sorted, except the one point commented on above. Many thanks for going over this one: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – can't fault it! Cassianto^talk 19:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ii

• If the table captioned "The books of Leslie Charteris" is initially in publication order then alphabetical order, something's not quite right, Knight Templar shifts up when sorted by publication year.
• You have "emphasizing" but then "Novelisation". Would stick with one variant of English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both schoolboy errors – both now fixed. As always, many thanks for taking the time to go over these: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No other issues that I can see. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ATD: your time and effort going through this is very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:25, 6 August 2014 [10].

Nominator(s): Vibhijain, —Vensatry _(ping) 18:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A previously failed FLC due to the nominator's absence. Vibhijain created the basic article, I improved it up a bit. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one comment: asked to follow-on or forced to follow-on? You use both, yet asked and forced have very different connotations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done as suggested (from asked to forced) —Vensatry _(ping) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just one thing: you don't need the first note at all, if you're willing to keep this than it should be like "Muttiah Muralitharan, Richard Hadlee, Shane Warne, Anil Kumble (India), Glenn McGrath, Waqar Younis, and Wasim Akram have taken more fifers then Harbhajan." or something like that...... Regards, —Zia Khan 18:35, 4 August 2014 (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) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:10, 4 August 2014 [11].

Nominator(s): Lugnuts, Zia Khan 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Pakistani players who have taken five-for on their Test debuts. The list was initially created by User:Lugnuts, I was involved in the expansion process. I believe this is now according to the FL criteria. Comments/suggestions will be appreciated, as always. Regards, —Zia Khan 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've made a couple of minor additions. I think it's the same standard as other FLs for related cricket articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With the size of List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut being too small, isn't this a 3(b) issue? —Vensatry _(ping) 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry, I've expanded the parent article! Hope your concern is now addressed. Please have a look now. Regards, —Zia Khan 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a fine line here, one which needs to be drawn and a consensus formed. Arbitrarily, I would say that eight players who have taken five wickets on debut for a country justifies an article. @Vensatry:, what are your thoughts on that limit? I'll make a post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket to help find that line. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I don't personally have a problem with a list of 10 players.

• One dead link

• Removed that one! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Table should sort by last name, not first.

• Done! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Oval" sorts out of place; omit the "the" from the sort template.

• It should include "The" as the article is named as (The Oval).

• File:Shahid Afridi 2010-cropped.jpg needs a personality rights template.

• Done. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is regarded as a notable achievement. Why, exactly? I don't like the use of the word "notable" here, but if you choose to keep it, you need more references to support that claim.

• Replaced notable with significant. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• first Pakistani player to take a five-wicket haul on his Test debut; he took use a colon here.

• Done. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He accumulated 11 wickets for 130 runs at his first appearance, against New Zealand in 1996, at the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium perhaps a clarification that the 11 wickets for 130 runs is over the course of the match.

• Fixed. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most recently, the feat was achieved by Tanvir Ahmed, against South Africa in 2010 at the Sheikh Zayed Stadium, Abu Dhabi; he colon again

• Fixed. —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Amongst the bowlers, Shahid Afridi is more economical, with 2.21 runs per over, and Zahid has the best strike rate. "the most" would make the most sense here as he has the lowest number. Do you have a reference for "strike rate"? That's the only time the term is mentioned.

• Done. This should be the best, I think (see this). —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my review. Seattle (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! —Zia Khan 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list. Cowlibob (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. —Zia Khan 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well-sourced, well-written list, excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 19:47, 2 August 2014 (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) 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone and esp. to Sahara4u for all the great expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: - Has something broke with the bot that adds the little star to the article page? Let me know if I need to something here. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:10, 4 August 2014 [12].

Nominator(s): ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Frozen is recently an unprecedented commercial success and has garnered a number of awards from many film critics and circles, and this article seems to have covered all aspects of them. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick observations first, then I'll go more in-depth. First thing I noticed is that there are numerous unlinked recipients. If the table is sortable, all recipients, whether its people or the film title itself, should be wikilinked so a reader doesn't have to go searching for the article. Jeff Draheim is notable enough to have an article, so he warrants a redlink. Also, make sure the references in the ref column are in the correct, numerical order (both the Annies and the Oscars are out of order). More later. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The film centers on a fearless princess, named Anna, who sets off on an epic journey..." This does not read well at all, way too much fluff and promotional sounding language. For starters, change "centers" to "focuses", and make Anna mentioned first. "The film focuses on Anna, a princess..." (as she's far from fearless). Remove "epic journey". Not sure how to deal with "icy powers", but that doesn't read very well either.
• "on a budget of $150 million" isn't quite accurate, as that $150m number doesn't include marketing. How about "against a production budget of $150 million"?
• "Frozen has garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with most of them being in the Best Animated Feature category and..." Far too many words in this sentence. Try something like "Frozen has garnered a variety of awards and nominations, many of them in the Best Original Song (for "Let It Go") and Best Animated Feature categories."
• Songs titles aren't italicized, they're put in quotation marks.
• "At the 71st Golden Globe Awards, the film earned two nominations and went on to win..." can be shortened to just "two nominations, winning..."
• Monsters University should be italicized.
• "both earning ten nominations each." This is redundant. Either remove "both" or "each".
• "including for Best Animated Feature". For needs to go.
• "the Critics' Choice Award for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song as well as four Visual Effects Society awards." Run-on sentence here. I'd say change "...Original Song as well..." to "Original Song, and..." Also, it won the Critics' Choice Awards for Best Animated/Original Song, as there were multiple awards won.

References

• I didn't see any unreliable sources, but some of the publishers/works are not linked while others are. I know some of them probably don't have Wikipedia pages, but Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo should be linked. BOM also doesn't need the publisher of Amazon.
• Why is Deadline italicized in one instance, but not italicized and with a ".com" in another?

Not entirely sure that's everything that could be improved here, that's really just at a first read-through. I'm going to have to lean in the favour of opposing this nomination at this time, unless the list is significantly improved in the near future. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: I think I've fixed the majority of your points. The references seem out of order because they're also referred to in the lead as well. Have a second read-through and hopefully it should be more pleasant. Cowlibob (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Well, you definitely improved it significantly in the near future. I made a small copy-edit to the Visual Effects Society Awards. Also, I know the references are odd because they're referred to in the lead, but either a bot or an AWB user will eventually come by and fix the ref order anyway. It should always be numerical, rather than order of content. Once that's fixed, I will be happy to support. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the order. Thanks for the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I now endorse my support of this article's promotion. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent work here.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: on prose. Can't find any errors in the lead. Nice job! AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: No major concerns. Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well-written, well-sourced. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Good work! —Zia Khan 00:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2014 (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) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 21:37, 18 August 2014 [13].

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of Local Nature Reserves in London with photos and brief descriptions of each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw This is an interesting list, which provides lots of useful information. A few comments:

• In the lead the population has a citation but not the area 1,572 km² (607 sq mi).
  • Done.
• The OS Grid Reference is used - I have no problem with this but some of our international readers my not be familiar with the OS system. It may be useful to add or replace with WGS84 lat & long which also enables a map to be presented using kml or similar
  • FL lists of UK protected areas normally show the grid reference only and this has not been raised as a problem e.g. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset and List of nature reserves in Barnet.
    • That Somerset one I did was promoted more than 5 years ago and I think things have moved on (and I have been persuaded of the advantages). If you look at more recent ones (eg List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset & List of National Trust properties in Somerset you will see they use systems which enable mapping.— Rod ^talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can do this if it would help but I do understand the reason. Whether I click on a grid reference or coordinates I go through to the same Geohack page. What is the difference? (BTW It was not raised when I nominated List of nature reserves in Barnet last August.)
        • I can't reember which list was under review when I first came across this argument (possibly List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southwest England) but it has been discussed in various places - for a good summary of the debates see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 27#Automagically converting OSGB36 to coord?. Basically it is for users not from the UK and to enable easy mapping of multiple sites (not just clicking on one link). Take a look at my current nom List of English Heritage properties in Somerset & go to the box, after the lead, at the top right of the list & choose either google or bing & click "map of all coordinates..". This sort of functionality is not available with OS grid refs.— Rod ^talk 14:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. Did you find a bot? It will be a big job converting 142 grid refs manually. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • No in that discussion someone did say it would be possible but I've ended up converting them manually - it has also been suggested that rather than replacing OS Grid Refs with coords, they should be added so booth are included. I'm still not sure if both are needed.— Rod ^talk 14:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks. I have asked at Talk whether anyone can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodw can you tell me whether you think this is OK?

Site	Photograph	Borough	Area	Location	Map	Details	Access	Description
Abney Park Cemetery		Hackney	12.54	51°33′50″N 0°04′37″W / 51.564°N 0.077°W / 51.564; -0.077 TQ 334 868	Map	Details	YES	This is one of London's Magnificent Seven cemeteries. It was closed to burials in 1978 and is now managed as a nature reserve.

Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. If they are all done like this it would allow the inclusion of kml or similar template for mapping.— Rod ^talk 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the coordinates. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What unit is the area given in? Acres, hectares etc
  • This is shown under the heading 'Sites'. Would it be better to put it in the note?
    • I can't see this and would suggest adding it to note B or in the column header.— Rod ^talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
• St John's Wood Church Grounds redirects to St. John's Wood Church Grounds any reason why that link isn't used?
  • Changed. (I think the stop in St. is probably an error but it is so minor I never got around to checking it out.)
• Rainham Marshes redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve any reason why that link isn't used?
  • The name according to Natural England is Rainham Marshes but whoever created the Wiki article added Nature Reserve.
    • I would just pipe it ie [[Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve|Rainham Marshes]].— Rod ^talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been told off for this before. You are not supposed to pipe when there is already a redirect. See WP:NOTBROKEN.
• Where references are to PDF documents (eg 2,5,69,82,130,140) then I believe |format=PDF is supposed to be included.
  • Done.
• Ref 41 - The Chase - Havering seems to be missing the URL.
  • Fixed.

Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments Now that the issues above are sorted (or very close) I thought I'd take another look at the list.

• Battersea Park Nature Areas (and a couple of others) - the lat & long seems to be duplicated presumably this is because it relates to one area, but it does look slightly strange. Does the area given relate to each of the separate areas or the total?
  • I have added a note (which I forgot before) explaining that locations are taken from the Natural England details pages. In some cases they supply two grid refs where the site is in separate areas. The NE maps give the total area.
• Barking & Dagenham - why the "&" symbol when the link goes to Barking and Dagenham
  • Changed.
• Castle Hill ( and others) - the description includes the term "scheduled ancient monument" but the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines only ancient monument and scheduled monument, but not SAM (see Scheduled monument)
  • I took this from GIGL but it seems to be wrong so I have changed it to Scheduled Monument.
• Beam Valley and The Chase - Barking - one refers to the River Beam and the other the River Rom but they both go the same article
  • The River Rom article explains that part of it is known as the River Beam. There is only one artice for both.
• Ten Acre Wood (and others) - should the abbreviation "N/Av" be explained (perhaps in note i)?
  • Changed to No
• "Note e" tells us that several maps are missing but use the Greenspace Information for Greater London database instead of the Natural England database of Local Nature Reserves - why is one preferred over the other? Could GIGL be used for all.
  • The GIGL database is of a different designation, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. I was able to use it to fill in the missing details because these sites have both designations.
• I was confused by note f. & several of the notes explain that the Natural England database is wrong and point to alternative sources - have Natural England agreed they are wrong? How does the reader know which is "right"?
  • LNR is a designation by local authorities. NE just records information given to them about designations. They have corrected a number of errors which were internal ones in their system, but they say that it will take them time to get answers where they need confirmation from councils. The NE grid refs are correct even when the maps are wrong, and bodies such as LWT and Ruislip Woods management are far more authoritative than NE which knows nothing about the sites. I have tried to expand the notes to make the position clear in each case, although I doubt whether I have succeeded with the Yeading sites, where the situation is so confused that I am not sure whether there are two LNRs or three.
• Have you looked at Parks and Gardens UK which I've found to be pretty good in the past. It may give another source where there is a dispute. (The one I did as a check Broookmill also gives an alt name)
  • I have not used this site. London Gardens Online is much better for London - see [14] on Brookmill Park - which is a different place from Brookmill Road nature reserve.
• Lots of references use "London Wildlife Trust" as the publisher, but ref 156 just uses Wildlife Trust - best to be consistent. Most of the references look good but I've not done a formal sources review.
  • Typo corrected.

I think this is getting close to meeting the criteria and hopefully I won't spot anything else.— Rod ^talk 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks very much for all your trouble which has greatly improved the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Following my nit picks above, which have all been resolved. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 07:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Robevans123 An excellent list - have been thinking about similar (but much smaller) lists for some principal areas in Wales (starting off with Torfaen). A couple of very minor points:

• Would it be useful to add List of local nature reserves in England to the See Also section?
• adding a summary="text" to the {|class="wikitable" creates a description of the table that can be used by screen readers improving accessibility. The text is not normally displayed. Very useful for the structure of the table to be announced - something along the lines of "a table listing the details of the nature reserves with xx columns for name (etc), and nnn rows"

Robevans123 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added both suggestions. Which class of reserve are you planning to work on? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good and ticks all the boxes. LNRs in Torfaen is on my to-do list. I shall shamelessly copy this format! Robevans123 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now: lead is completely inadequate. It gives me a bit of information about London, tells me what a LNR is, then throws them at me. What are the highlights of the list? The most recently established LNR? The largest? The oldest? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead. Is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, better. I've stricken my oppose above. A few quick comments

• Why not use the {{convert}} template, so that American readers can have their acres? (i.e. {{convert}} gives you 97.31 hectares (240.5 acres)}})

• If I remember correctly I had convert in another list and took it out because an editor objected that sort did not work. Can you have both on the same column? I think the ability to sort is more important.

• I'd trim (named after Gilbert White of Selborne) from the lead as it's not quite pertinent

• Done.

• Also about Perivale: although it's been managed by Selborne since 1902, that doesn't necessarily mean it was established in that year. The article on it says 1974  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not get your point here - you may have been misled as the article on the wood itself was not clear, and I have added details there to clarify. Perivale Wood started to be managed as a nature reserve in or before 1902, (almost certainly in 1902, but the source is unclear) and managed by the Selborne Soc from that year, but it was not desigated an LNR until 1974. The wording is "Perivale Wood is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain. It has been managed by the Selborne Society since 1902, and was designated an LNR in 1974." This seems to me clear without going into excessive detail - but of course if anyone is not happy with it I can revise. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not misled. You say it was one oldest Local Nature Reserve in Greater London, yet its age as an LNR is only 40 years. Since the program began in 1949, 25 years before the Perivale site was made an LNR, it's still quite possible that there are older LNRs in London. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that it is the oldest LNR in London, but that it is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain, established by 1902, citing a WP:RS. Perivale is the first London site to be designated an LNR for which the date is known, but as some sites are missing the date on their Natural England pages, I thought it best leave aside which is oldest London designation. As my wording is obviously confusing, can anyone suggest a better one? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One wonders what the relevance is if it's not the age of the reserve being designated an LNR which is notable... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• https:Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview says "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article", and the Featured List criteria mention that the lead should be engaging. I think the information on Perivale Wood helps on both these points. It prompted me look at the articles on Perivale Wood and also Local Nature Reserves, and I found out that the legislation on LNRs dates from 1949 - I'd assumed that they were more recent than that. Robevans123 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering I'm the one who asked Dudley to add "interest" in the article by adding the highlights of the list, you'd think I know the guidelines. My question was simple: what is the relevance of Perivale being one of the oldest reserves, if it is not one of the oldest LNR? This is after all about LNR in London, and not reserves in general. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the fact that a London LNR is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain can be considered a highlight of the list. Thanks very much for your help, which has considerably improved the list, but I take a different view on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least, since the context is LNRs, could you contrast this with some of the older ones in Greater London? i.e. "several sites, such as X and Y, were designated local nature reserves at an earlier time" etc. Keep the lede focused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not clear what I could say. No dates are given for some sites, but the oldest which do have dates are Perivale in 1974 and Sydenham Hill Wood in 1982. Can you advise further? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... yeah, not much to go on then. How about secondary sources? Anything there we can use? Or another way to contextualize this without making possibly false claims? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not found anything. I came across a statement in Google books that the oldest LNR in Scotland was in the 1950s, but that does not seem relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support, the condition being that the article be updated once we ascertain and can reference what is the oldest LNR in London. The list is ready, but that information would make it much more comprehensive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Robevans123

You can give a table cell a specific sort value (which overrides any text in the cell for sorting purposes) by putting a statement like:

| data-sort-value="12.54" align="right" |12.54 ha (31.0 acres)

which will give you "12.54 ha (31.0 acres)" in the table cell. The table will sort correctly on the value given in the data-sort-value statement. See Help:Sorting for more details if needed.

Belts and braces - there is no harm in changing your column statement to:

!scope="col" data-sort-type="number" | Area

In fact, I would try this first, and test it with a few convert templates - setting the data-sort-type to number may be enough to stop the convert template confusing the table sort. Would save you having to add a lot of data-sort-value statements... Robevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to acres added. Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good to see it worked without having to add data-sort-value statements. Robevans123 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor is going round changing the names of local and national nature reserves articles from title to sentence case, including this article - wrongly in my view and without consultation. I have raised this with User:Bishonen. See Talk:Local nature reserve. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

• You don't need to lead the key off with "Area is in hectares.", given that you say hectares (and acres) in every area cell

• Deleted.

• The "This is" construction you use for all the descriptions is a bit jarring, though grammatically correct. I suppose it's fine.

• "This is" is only used for two out of the first 10 descriptions.

• Note a: "but it is missing" -> but is missing.

• Done.

• Note b: why bold the i in identify? Even if the icon is an i, that's no reason to partially bold a word

• Revised.

• The Wikimedia Commons box is bleeding into the next section- try just sticking it in the See Also section, or throw a {{-}} after it to force a break

• Done.

• Your redirects are largely fine, but you should probably fix the two in the see also section

• I think it is better to keep the capitalisation consistent with the SSSIs list.

--PresN 20:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2014 (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) 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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