Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantino is hands down one of the best modern film directors (alongside Nolan, Spielberg and Scorsese); his films are often characterized by gore, violence, nonlinear storyline, and pop culture references. His most popular and successful films include Pulp Fiction (1994), Kill Bill (2004-05), Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained (2012). This is my first filmography on a filmmaker and my first filmography since last August. I reckon it is close to meeting the six criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• There is a typo in the caption of the third Image.

Good catch!

• I'd suggest you to trim the 'promoting H 8' bit from the caption, its too long.
• A comma is missing from the first alt text.
• "..Sin City (2005) is not count." I think it should be "counted" instead, maybe.

You got me there!

• My Best Friend's Birthday was a short film, that should be mentioned.
• Is it 'jewelry' or 'Jewellery'?

They're both, but the former is American English.

• "His screenplay in Tony Scott's.." --> His screenplay for.
• Do we need to mention that he appeared briefly in Pulp?
• Kill Bill's plot detail is too much for a filmography, try trimming it down.
• I guess he directed one of the stories in Sin City not a scene.

Not according to the source – it says, "Tarantino because he directed one brief scene"

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yash. FrB.TG (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• "The film earned Tarantino an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and a Best Director nomination, and is cited in the media as a defining film of the modern cinema." -- This line IMHO should be the other way around. Like: "Cited in the media as a defining film of the modern cinema, Pulp Fiction earned Tarantino an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and a Best Director nomination." BTW, is it just American cinema or global cinema?
• "Also in 1994, he served as an executive producer in Killing Zoe..." -- i think "for" is better than "in" in this case.
• "which reached cult status and spawned several sequels" -- how about "attained cult status"?
• "The latter, a two-part martial arts film (Volume 1 and Volume 2), follows a former assassin, seeking revenge on her ex-colleagues who attempted to kill her." -- This line requires reliable sourcing.
• "he directed the segment, titled Death Proof." -- I suggest you to either remove the comma, or change "the segment" to "a segment". Any one change you like.

Changed to "the segment Death Proof". Better this way, I think.

• In the case of Inglorious Basterds, a film is written first and directed next.
• "His greatest commercial success came with the 2012 western film Django Unchained" -- I suggest you to rephrase it as "The 2012 western film Django unchained was Tarantino's greatest commercial success".

In this case I somehow find the former sentence more interesting.

• Ref no. 12 is redirecting. Please fix it.
• All the images used have no licensing issues with proper alt text.

Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala, thanks a lot for responding so quickly to my request and making the pertinent comments. FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Pavan and Yash have got most of the comments out of the way, so I found no issues with this when I read through it. Good work. JAGUAR  14:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: pass
• Spotchecks: checked refs 3, 20, 30, 37, all clear
• Completeness: pass

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Threeohsix (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it's ready to be feature. I've research it from the Almanac, with newer players being online sourced and put a lot of work into, getting the stats right and also creating about 50 new articles. Learning from my first nomination, I've corrected all of the problems pointed in the other list. Please give me feedback to anything I've might have missed. --Threeohsix (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (includes source review, but need to check table figures) –

• "Since its first edition," since the inugural league season?
  • Then we would have two "inaugural" in the same paragraph, sounds better to use synonym to inaugural, don't you agree?.
• "Of the players still at the club" - "Of the players still contracted to the club"
  • Actually no, Benfica has about 100 players under contract. To be in the list, they must part of the first team and obviously make a minimum of 25 appearances. When they're loaned, they're not counted.
• What makes thefinalball.com a high-quality, reliable source?
  • It's the new name of footballzz, I know their data is reliable, and I used it because it was also used at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Porto records and statistics/archive1 and deemed reliable.
• No dead or dab links, can't seem to open the ones with the site mentioned above
  • Works fine here.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to call for @Lemonade51:--Threeohsix (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Images have appropriate licensing as far as I'm aware Lemonade51 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to add future nominations to the top of WP:FLC, so others can spot it. ;) Lemonade51 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He did, but SchroCat reverted it- not sure why? --PresN 03:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops... Hit something by mistake there. Apologies Threeohsix. – SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – on style and structure. Only had time to look at 30-odd player figures, all of which are supported by the citations given. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support; looks good now. Well done Threeohsix! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would try and include a bit more about some of the players in the lead. Do any of them hold records? This would be interesting to the reader. It's a bit bland at the moment. Take a look at List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances for an idea of what I mean.
  • I know what you mean, but players that beat club records usually stay longer... I've added a bit about the record transfers and Player of the Year, but this is susceptible to being outdated if they pass to the main list. The only player worth mentioning something else is Hugo Leal, who is the youngest to play for Benfica, but I can't verify that with a source.
    • That's good, it was lacking info such as this. If you can find a source for Leal that would be great to add as wel. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the sorting correct? Should Alan Kardec not sort as K instead of A?
  • To be honest, I'm not an expert in sorting, Anjunaedit came by and tweaked that and I didn't see nothing wrong with his edit. I've fixed Kardec nonetheless
• I'm not sure you need the dagger when you're using italics. I think a symbol is only needed when you use colours
  • Removed that, you're right, the dagger is an accessibility aid.
    • Reyes and Caneira still have the dagger. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • @NapHit: for reply --Threeohsix (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My concerns have been addressed and I feel this list now meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (quick drive-by to remind me to come back and do more later)
  • This bit doesn't make sense to me: "Players with name in italics were on loan from another club for the duration of their Benfica career. Some later signed a permanent deal." How can they have both been on loan for the entire duration of their Benfica career and had a permanent contract with Benfica? I don't get it.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: I was trying to say that some later signed for the club on a permanent basis, like Amaral and Mitroglou. Tweaked a bit, how's now?--Threeohsix (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• More comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "The club was formed in 1904, and played their first competitive match on 4 November 1906" - club is referred to as both singular and plural within the same sentence
    • Missed it.
  • "as they all moved elsewhere while the season was ongoing" - don't think this is needed
    • I took out, but had to put it back in, without it just looks like something is missing from the sentence. Plus is a real fact, had they stayed another week or two, they would be in the 100 plus list.
  • "Axel Witsel is the club record sale at 40 million euros, while Raúl Jiménez is the record purchase at €21.8 million" - two amounts are shown differently (one with euro as a word, one with the symbol)?
    • Changed to symbol
  • "and in the players that later signed a permanent deal" - not gramatically correct, better would be "for players who......"
    • Changed
  • " sourced to Tovar (212)" - should that say 2012?
    • Missed it
• Think that's it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Any more comments? --Threeohsix (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted. --PresN 20:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has since been copy-edited by members over at WP:GOCE and was updated to match model FL singles discographies. – jona ✉ 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and good luck on your FLC. Best – jona ✉ 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Provide an Image of Selena with alt text.

• There's no free image of her on Wikipedia. – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her career began as lead vocalist of Los Dinos in 1980." --> as the lead vocalist.

• Done. – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the opening sentence should be "American singer Selena had released".., because she's dead.

• Done. – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink Billboard in its first appearance in the references.

• Done. – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is ref 24 a RS?

• Yes, see WP:GOODCHARTS. – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yashthepunisher: I have fixed all issues. Thanks – jona ✉ 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well was simple, wasn't it? Support Erick (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The removal of the infobox is really detrimental in a discography article, when the counterpart Selena albums discography has it. It is a quick way to look into the statistical aspects of this list and although one reviewer suggested removal of it, Ajona, you should not have done it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @IndianBio: I have added back the infobox. Hope that takes care of your concerns – jona ✉ 12:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better with the infobox (even though I was the one against it), but I will suggest not counting the number of her albums, singles etc in the opening line. FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nomination now. The list looks really good. Just wish we had any free image of Selena :( —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: ISBNs should really be ISBN-13s (you can use this to convert them), though I wouldn't oppose over it.
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 9, 18, 27, 32; all pass
• Completeness: Check

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's current, and while it may not be stable for the next two weeks, I'll keep on top of it. In the meantime, feel free to let me know if anything's missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The men's relay teams seem to be sorting by first name, not last name. The women's relay teams don't have this issue, so there might be a little formatting tweak required. I didn't find anything else worth noting. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Support – That did the job. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Ravendrop, I've responded inline above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done now Ravendrop thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good, see just a couple of comments above. Ravendrop 17:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks, PresN. -Cheetah (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You need to add rowscopes to the table so it complies with MOS:DTT
• ref 11 needs the author adding

Struggling to see any other issues. NapHit (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done these two, thanks for the eagle eyes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Great work as always The Rambling Man! NapHit (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: Some of your website titles are a little odd - I personally would have used "Rio 2016" or "Rio2016.com" or "Rio 2016 Games", not "The official website for the Rio 2016 Games", e.g. something that names the actual organization that is publishing the material, rather than a descriptor of the website. Though, you also use "London 2012 official website" - which isn't even true, ref 20 redirects to olympic.org. Can you try to standardize, and use a title that's an actual title and not a description?
• Spotchecks: checked refs 3, 14, 24, 34 - ref 34 is a 404 page, rest are fine, though as I say above the london 2012 refs are also redirecting to another site.
• Completeness: no obvious gaps

Some issues to be fixed before this can be promoted. --PresN 18:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I would like to make this list my first featured list. Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work on the text and tables. I've not checked the sources, but may get round to a source review before the end. – SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I hope everything is alright with the article. As for the references, I'm quite sure most of them are reliable, but a check wouldn't hurt. Arbero (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Overall, the list looks good. I've got no problems with the sources, they all seem reliable. — Mediran [talk] 08:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Did an extensive review of it, last time around and looks good now. Will need a good source review though. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: A handful of refs flipped from the usual "last, first" to "first last"; I just fixed it myself since I wanted to go ahead nad get this closed. Do note that "author" is only for named people; "Variety staff" should not be mentioned, as it can be assumed to be a staff writer for the publication if no author is noted.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 8, 34, 150, 200; all pass
• Completeness: pass

The shortest nomination I've seen in quite a while, but I checked it out myself and it looks fine. Source review passed, so promoting. --PresN 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe is still an icon, even over fifty years after her death. Her fame and status rests on the 29 films in which she appeared, of which possibly ten are truly memorable. This filmography has recently been updated and revamped, and is now at FLC standard. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jimknut

Television

• The Jack Benny Program, The Bob Hope Show, and President Kennedy's Birthday Salute should be in italics, not quotation marks.
• The Bob Hope Show redirects to a radio program called The Pepsodent Show. Either find a correct link or don't link it at all.
• As Monroe's credits were all on American television, the column listed as "Channel" should be changed to "Network". ("Channel" is more apt to British television and thus does not apply here.) Jimknut (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Jimknut, all three suggestions followed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It's probably not a common practice to add a comma after "in [the year]" in British English. Should comma be added here?

• I think it is in AmEng, but I'd be grateful if a passing American could confirm this for us. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960" - do we need to be so specific about the time? I think only the year would suffice.

• I agree on the walk of fame date, which I've slimmed down. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Same goes for the dates in the television section.

• I think we should be more precise on the television appearances where possible. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be "Ref" instead of "Notes" in the awards and nominations section. Just for the sake of consistency.

• Yep – my error – I deleted the wrong column heading while putting it together. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major; thanks for working on it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your comments – much appreciated. I've tweaked a couple, per your comments, and left a couple (one for others to clarify, as I'm not 100% sure on the US practice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I am sure a comma won't make that of a big difference. The change can be made accordingly as and when an American confirms it. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Montanabw

• No quite sure what the comma question is above, but as an American, I can tell you that correct general formatting is Month X, 19XX. So wherever there is a day, you always add the comma there. In situations where it is just month/year there usually isn't a comma between month and year, but we often add one right after the year: "It happened in May of 2016," or "It happened in May 2016," or "It happened on May 1, 2016." Rephrased, I'd punctuate it "In May 2016, it happened," or "On May 1, 2016, it happened." Does that help? Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Montana! It was the comma in sentences such as "In 1950, she ..." which was the point in question, so you've covered that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As far as I can see, this list is comprehensive, well-sourced and meets the FL criteria. That said, this is my first FL review, so I may have missed something. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Montana: many thanks for looking over this one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I must be getting dottier than ever: I could have sworn I'd looked in here and added my support already, but ahem! Happy to support now: no problems with the prose and content of the introduction, and to my (inexpert) eye the tables seem authoritative and comprehensive, and are certainly well documented. I can't imagine the page being done better than this. – Tim riley talk 11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: pass
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 9, 22, 41, 62; all pass
• Completeness: pass

Source review passed; promoting list. --PresN 19:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm nominating this for FL status because I think it meets the criteria. I based this list of List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium (a FL). This is my first nomination and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks to any reviewers in advance. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on style and structure, nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks I appreciate it. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't really find anything wrong in the prose, table is fine, respects access requirements. Good job.--Threeohsix (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Threeohsix: Thanks for the support I really appreciate it. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The ground has also hosted..." I don't think also is necessary here. It's implied international have been held at the ground in the title. Removed
• "with the first being in 1884..." -> the first in 1884 Changed
• "in what was Adelaide Oval's first Test match." -> in the first Test match at the Adelaide Oval Changed
• "Thirty ODI centuries..." you have 74 and thirty in the lead. You need to be consistent with either numerals or spelling them out. Fixed
• "In the three T20Is at the ground, no centuries have been scored with the highest score being 90 not out by Virat Kohli for India." -> Virat Kohli's 90 not out is the highest scores in the three T20Is held at the ground. Changed except "highest score" instead of "highest scores
• A few of the date rows in the Test table have stray } in them. Fixed

NapHit (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thanks for your comments. I have implemented them all. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now. NapHit (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks NapHit, I appreciate it. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: pass
• Spotchecks: checked refs 4, 36, 72, 100, all pass
• Completeness: pass

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria at WP:FLCR, and is on par with similar lists at WP:FL#Transport. This is the second nomination for this list, as it was previously nominated last year, then subsequently closed and archived by an editor, with no further reasons given.

I previously worked on the following featured rail station lists: List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations (creator, main editor, FL nominator), List of Los Angeles Metro Rail stations (added new sections/updates), List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations (nominated for FLC-removal, then "saved" list via reformatting/updating). I feel that this list is equal to those in quality and criteria. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a well-formatted list with a concise but complete introduction. There are high-quality maps of both parts of the system in the lede, and images illustrating the list. However, Checklinks shows that five Google News citations are dead links; this appears to be because Cox Media Group removed their holdings from Google News in 2015. Although offline sources are perfectly acceptable, for a featured list I think it would be better to have live links - even to subscription-only content - rather than none at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been fixed. Unfortunately I couldn't find any online archives for The Miami News (including subscriptions), so I just removed all the URLs from the citations. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my comments are resolved. I agree ridership is important, no worries regarding the Feb. 2016 data being used. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "with additional five stations opened through Okeechobee station in Hialeah." This is missing "an" before "additional", from the looks of it.
• "Since opening of the initial line" needs another "the" before "opening". Or you could try "Since the initial line was opened".
• Would it be possible to include more information about reference 18? Without a date or page number, it's hard to say that this source is verifiable at the moment. What I don't understand is why the date was apparently removed. A page number would be optimal, but a date is a must for verifiability. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typos have been fixed. I added the date back to the reference - it seems that another editor removed it by accident. I don't have a page number available. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an exceptionally comprehensive and aesthetic list. With the above edits I am unable to find any deprecating issue. A deep scan indicates content is accurate and sourced, the article is lavishly illustrated with appropriately licensed images and other graphics, and the topic is treated fully and comprehensively. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I read it over and it looks pretty clean. I couldn't find anything to change, except that there are wikilinks to Omni Loop in the table but not the lead. I think it should appear at least once in the lead. But this is so minor I will support regardless. Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't links to any lines (not just Omni Loop) because none of the lines have their own articles. The links in the tables just to lead to a station list section in Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) or Metromover. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All information appears to be adequately supported. Spotchecks show no copyvios. Formatting is good, with one question: footnote 19 gives the page as "p. Broward 1.", which looks odd. Is the "Broward" part correct? The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page format is correct because it is page 1 of the Broward section of the paper (referring to Broward County, as opposed to Miami-Dade County in which Miami is located). I'll look into archiving the other links. –Dream out loud (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Jennifer Lawrence, as we all know, need no introduction. She has achived both critical acclaim and commercial success, and that too in such a short span of time. Coming to the list, which provides the information about the awards and nominations she has received, I feel meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish | Talk 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I guess I'll take the first bite at this list. I figured I'd take a look at this list since I managed to promote Bradley Cooper's awards list to FL status not too long ago. I'll take a closer look tonight, but just something I noticed right of the bat. Recently, this was a thing, and I had to reword the opening line of the Bradley Cooper list to not include the number of awards and nominations. You should definitely look at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my previous commitment took much longer than I expected, and I'm kind of tired. But I still did a cursory look through the lead, and so far so good. One thing that can be easily fixed is "her portrayal of Raven Darkhölme / Mystique". Personally, I think you can leave it as Mystique, as most superheroes in superhero movies just go by their superhero name instead of their real names (Captain American, Wolverine, etc.) There is also another mention of Raven Darkhölme / Mystique in the last paragraph. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Famous Hobo Thanks for looking at the list. I really appreciate it. Krish | Talk 17:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are WP:OVERLINK issues in the lead (People and Teen Choice Awards, Golden Globe). – jona ✉ 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @AJona1992: Corrected the overlink. Sorry for being so late, was/am super busy.Krish | Talk 16:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support since I don't see any glaring issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't see any visible issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be satisfactory and meet the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Formatting looks OK, spot checks show the information is present in the sources, and no copyvios. The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish).

• 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) 07:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. I as well followed the style of Inna discography, which finally became a FL.

Comments by User:The Almightey Drill

• Some of the best certifications of "Mr Saxobeat" could be mentioned in the lead
• The German chart links seem to circle back to the site's landing page. I noticed this when I was working on Marina and the Diamonds discography. Like you have done with Italy and Slovakia, you will have to cite each song one-by-one – copy the template from the article I just mentioned and start from there.

@The Almightey Drill: All done! Thanks for your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support '''tAD''' (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

• I now support this nomination, I did minor removals of words and phrases that were redundant. Great job on another great article – jona ✉ 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Ugh, this nomination has gone way over the average time without enough attention. Review time!

• In the lead, you have the album as Cliché but the single as Cliche, which I thought was odd until I saw that the link redirected. They should be consistent.
• In "As lead artist" at "We Wanna", you link Alesta; you shouldn't, since you linked it in an earlier table and you seem to not be doubling up on those. (re: Saxobeats not being linked in this table)
• Redirects aren't a big deal, but literally half of the links in the lead are redirecting, as are several of the chart links in the tables (GER, HUN, CZR, ITA, SLK, SPA, RUS, FIMI). Makes it seem messy and not intentional
• Call the Police is noted as being as part of the G Girls, which is never mentioned elsewhere; since the group is a four-part including Stan, it should probably be mentioned in the lead, even if it's a one-off project (which it may not be).
• Why is Saxobeats' Finish chart performance in the album table, but the "Mr Saxobeat" and "Get Back" singles performances aren't in their table? (same ref)

Ref 24 (used for JPN singles performances) seems to indicate that Mr. Saxobeat got to #25 on the Canadian Hot 100, but I don't see CAN as a column anywhere.

• And... that's it. Not a lot, really, but a couple larger concerns. A very strange career trajectory, though. --PresN 16:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by PresN

Might as well go all-in here. --PresN 16:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting: Lot of instructions having to be given here, but this isn't the first list to find an awkward way to deal with the awkward global music charts websites, and I've never seen a better one. Also, ref 43: "kfetele" should be "Kfetele - even if they use all lowercase, Wikipedia converts to standard capitalization.
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 8, 24, 35, 47, 53, 65. Ref 24 no longer covers anything (redirects to an AllMusic search page). I had to find an archive to verify. Please archive your refs to avoid this problem. Ref 47 does not show that "We Wanna" is on the Polish album.
• Completeness: Given the problems noted above, I'm concerned that you're not covering all chart positions, even those given in the refs used.

@PresN: Sorry for the late response, but I am in holiday in Hațeg, Romania, and in this location I finally have internet. I have done everything, and here some responses comment-wise:

1. In a discussion made in the past with one of this article's "base-men", we have decided to only add the charts she has the most peaks and certifications on, thus resulting the change of some charts on the albums and singles
2. "strange career trajectory": I am also sad she has not got the same WW-success anymore, but she's still big in Romania, Japan and recently Italy again. :) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've spent some time thinking about this today, and I'm satisfied with that explanation. Support, and source review passed. --PresN 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple months ago, someone created this list in time for the release of the 4th main game of the franchise, and I thought it was pretty clearly based on my own FL List of Mass Effect media. And if they were going to go ahead and make a list based on an FL of mine, I thought it only made sense to come through and finish it off to nominate. This is the 8 video games, 2 motion comics, 1 film, 5 books, 1 board game, and 7 albums of the best-selling "totally-not-Indiana-Jones" video game franchise, all pulled together into one list. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created it, and I mean, thanks for nominating it and all, but just to bring you back down to earth I didn't base it on your list. I don't think you invented the "List of X media" format, and I have never played a Mass Effect game. Have a nice day. Andre666 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, guess it was in my head, then. Just thought it looked really similar, using the same table format. Sorry! --PresN 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Usual good quality, great job everybody. The article looks complete, well referenced, and references seem to resolve without any errors. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there is a complete lack of any media on this list of media page. Is there a reason images such as box covers, or a photograph of one of the main people involved in creating this series is not included? Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images, such as box covers, would be more than likely deemed purely decorative and would not pass fair use requirements. Salavat (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a big fan of referencing pages like this, but that's only a personal preference; I can't deny their reliability, particularly for recent games like these. This entire article is meticulously sourced, and well-formatted. It's a Support from me. – Rhain ☔ 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo Good for the most part, just a few nagging concerns

• Uncharted is an adventure media franchise developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Interactive Entertainment, composed of video games and associated media. Is it possible to publish a series? Yes Sony did publish all the games, but I don't think you can publish an entire series. Maybe just leave at developed by Naughty Dog
• In terms of references, what makes DualShockers (ref 19), and Loudr (ref 39) reliable sources?

Honestly, that's really all I could find. Well put list that once my concerns are either dealt with or answered accordingly, I'll easily support. Also, I know this was a pretty short review, but would you mind reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC? Since you've had experience with FA's before, maybe you could help out? Famous Hobo (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: - did the first. Looks like Dualshockers is contraindicated by WP:VG/RS, so replaced with a Sony press release that mentions the date. Loudr is a music distribution service similar to Bandcamp, and as such is a valid source for proof that a piece of music was released through it's storefront. That said, I was on the fence about including that song to begin with, and the more I think about it the less I think that a cover song, regardless of it's legal status (Loudr lets musicians easily by rights to legally produce cover versions) should be included in a list of official releases. Removed the whole row. Will try to take a look at your FAC when I get a chance. --PresN 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: - anything else? --PresN 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that those two points have been taken care of, I can Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources are all OK - formatting good, spotchecks shown the information is supported and no copy vios. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had nominated it around six months ago and it failed because it went stale; I was a novice and was not commenting on enough other reviews to gain consensus. All of the criteria brought up by the reviewers back then were addressed. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No need to make the first digit of each score bold, you've already stated the Germany goals are listed first.
  • done '''tAD''' (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Result col doesn't sort correctly (the 13-0 comes before 1-0...)
  • I am not particularly technical, do you know how to make it go in that order? '''tAD''' (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saints be praised, I've done it '''tAD''' (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Competition and Venue columns don't have consistent linking.
  • That was to prevent overlink but this is a table and people will move it around so yeah I'll link all of it '''tAD''' (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Done '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You may need to explain Cap (or add a Key which does this).
  • Done (I think) '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• row and col scopes needed for all tables per WP:ACCESS.
  • Done '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I added the Category:Career achievements of association football players for you!

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks. That category seemed to have been emptied earlier, as if it were deleted... '''tAD''' (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no reason NOT to have goals in the same game merged across the columns. Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's fine as it is. Just personal preference to merge cells, and may make it more of an accessibility challenge. Merged cells unmerge following a sort in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, just minor ones, @The Almightey Drill:

• "Klose scored in his first match for Germany", on his debut for Germany sounds better?
• List of goals table need row scopes to comply with MOS:DTT, Lemonade51 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51, as you can deduce, I have been unfamiliar with this technicality. Have I now added it right? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - my main concerns have been addressed, nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The prose is very good, but I feel it's poor record at the Euros is being overlooked, with three goals, it's not even in the top ten. Odd for the World Cup record holder. Also, he never scored in any of three finals he played.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Threeohsix Thank you for the comments. His number of goals at the Euros is included in the prose and in the table by competition. Why Klose has these cycles of coming good every four years is a mystery to me as well, but we go by what sources say and I can't recall much journalism damning his performances at the Euros. In comparison, for example, Zlatan Ibrahimović used to be damned (at least in my country's inward-looking media) as the guy who never scored against English teams. See references such as [13] [14] for that, although as I say that comes from a national bias and would not be recalled in other country's media. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, now I look at the stats, he played three times as many games in the World Cup than Euros. This is hampered by the old 16-team format, and Germany's failure in 2004. His goal record of 3 in 6 at the Euros is a better ratio than in friendlies, although he played 10 times as many friendlies. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can tweak the prose to reflect his low scoring record in the Euros, and the final of a tournament. Something like ... another 13 in qualification games. In the UEFA European Championship finals, he scored three goals in six matches, putting him outside of tournament's top ten goalscorers. In the qualification stages, he netted 16 goals. The remainder ...and Sweden. Klose has never scored in any of the three tournament finals he took part on.--Threeohsix (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am personally unconvinced that the reader would be interested in games he didn't score in, particularly when you take into account the title of the list. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Go on then.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments'

• "across the four editions from 2002 to 2014."
• "for the 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification." -> during qualification for the 2002 FIFA World Cup.
• "an 8–0 rout of Saudi Arabia..." rout is not exactly encyclopedic language. Just use victory or win to remain neutral.
• "Klose netted two goals..." try and avoid journalistic words such as netted, just say it as it is, scored.
• ref 13 needs an en dash
• Is Goal.com considered a reliable source? Always thought that was on the unreliable list.
• You need a full stop at the end of the caption in the second image.

NapHit (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I wouldn't trust Goal.com alone for rumours, but for match reports it's not a serious issue '''tAD''' (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @FLC director and delegates: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as the article has multiple supports already, is anyone interested in working on the article if there are further reviews? If not, it would make for one of us to close the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources are all OK - formatting good, spotchecks shown the information is supported and no copy vios. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's got enough supports and a check shows no issues I can see. Although the nom is blocked, that doesn't mean that the article does not reach the standards we look for, and it does so here.

• 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) 07:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC), Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2016 [reply]

This is a nice list, well referenced and illustrated. A lot of the work has been put in by Chamal N, Lugnuts and Sahara4u but only Lugnuts is editing regularly. I'm sure between he and me, we can address all concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, count me in - I'll do my best to get another cricket-related star on my userpage! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the missing ODI names. TRM - can you take a look at the lead for the article? It states that Arthur Coningham was the first Test player, but the table/source states it's Tom Horan. There's a rather good source attached to Coningham, so I don't just want to butcher it! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Can't we have separate pages for each format? 20, 22 and 12 seems like a reasonable fork. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I did mention that above, but Bencherlite felt that a single list was more appropriate. I'm not fussed either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hellbent on that. Given that last six entries of the T20I table are from the last five years, it's more likely to grow. We can probably decide on this when the count reaches 20. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, would you be able to review the list itself if you get time? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will review it before the weekend. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I strongly disagree with a separate pages for each list. I prefer the way it is right now with a single list, it is much more appropriate. There is not much difference in the lead that could be written, and they are all thematically similar. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support this too. Hopefully there's nothing major stopping this from being promoted up to FL. @Vensatry: - have you had the opportunity to review the list? Thanks in advance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• "Only Maurice Tate, Intikhab Alam and Nathan Lyon went on to play in more than ten Tests" - Ref. missing for Lyon.  Done
• "The first to achieve this feat was Australian Michael Kasprowicz who took wickets with his first and second delivery in this format in 2005, dismissing New Zealand's Stephen Fleming and Mathew Sinclair." - You need to cite the 'second wicket' and 'Sinclair' parts. Done
  • Is 'cricketcountry.com' a RS? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotchecks done for rest of the refs. in the lead - No issues.
• Refs. for the three tables (main) - Ted Arnold's first victim was Victor Trumper, not Reggie Duff.  Done

—Vensatry _(talk) 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: - apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've now fixed everything per your comments above. I hope everything is now in order. Thanks again for reviewing this. @The Rambling Man: - please could you cast your eye over the article now, incase I've missed anything. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: - re: the reliable source, I think it is, but in the avoidance of doubt, I've found a source from CricketArchive and replaced it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Two small changes I might recommend:

• 1. "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut match." -> "Not all of these bowlers took their first wicket in their debut matches."
• 2. Perhaps you might check if photo captions should contain the stops at the end of the caption sentences. My support any which way. Lourdes 12:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with the first, there are multiple bowlers but they each only have a single debut. As for the second comment, both captions are complete sentences (i.e. not fragments) so the use of the full stop is correct. Thanks for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With respect to the "debut matches", I think I noticed a different usage in the next statement: "Clive Lloyd, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Sadagoppan Ramesh, and Martin van Jaarsveld did not bowl in their debut matches." So had an opinion that either it should be "match" in both statements or alternatively "matches". I may be wrong but and would defer to your opinion. Thanks and good work. Lourdes 16:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very nice looking list and, although looking hard, I couldn't find any issues except that maybe "no." should be defined in the key. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: The Rambling Man According to the sources on Flag of Australia, the current Australian flag was adopted in 1903, so the flag in the "For" column for Tom Horan and Arthur Coningham and in the "Against" column of Bill Bradley and Ted Arnold should be the Flag of None. Similarly, according to List of South African flags and [16], South Africa didn't have an official national flag in 1906, and the flag depicted came into use in 1928. Hence, the "For" column for Bert Vogler and the "Against" column for Jack Crawford should have the Flag of None, and the George Macaulay and Maurice Tate "Against" columns should have the 1912-28 flag. Joseph2302 21:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; while I was going through this list fixing a few minor sorting issues; I found that in the T20I list there is further issues with numbers 5 & 6. When sorting by date either backwards or normally they are in the wrong order. The weird thing is they aren't the same date unlike the other issues I fixed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yellow Dingo, thanks. Sorry for not seeing these comments sooner. I'll look to address them tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Dingo all done. Tomorrow turned into next week. As is life. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I have supported further up this FLC. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list, and the minor issues have been fixed. Joseph2302 15:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources are all OK - formatting good, spotchecks shown the information is supported and no copy vios. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth list of Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in English counties I have nominated for FLC. LNRs are designated by local authorities for their biological or geological interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – With the fixes, I find the list to be of similar quality to the other ones in the category that Dudley has worked on. Nice job yet again. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets the FL criteria, and is of the same high quality as earlier FLs in the same series. Two v. minor points in passing: "anthill" is one word rather than two according to the OED and Collins and is one hyphenated word according to Chambers (Chairborough Road); and I don't suppose you meant to pluralise "deer" as "deers" (Warren Nature Reserve). – Tim riley talk 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Both your points are interesting. I have changed "anthill" to one word, although it looks wrong to me. OED quotes Smeathman 1781 as giving two words, but I fear that is not Sufficient Authority. I have also changed deers to deer. OED gives deers as "occasional", so not actually wrong, but on reflection deer does sound better. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – only quibble is you could link county in the lead sentence. Otherwise it's pretty faultless, prose is sufficient, table is appropriately formatted and so are the references. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link added. Thanks very much Lemonade. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Formatting: No problems.
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 6, 16, 27, 38; no problems
• Completeness: No obvious sources missing

Promoting! --PresN 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something a little different! There are currently no featured lists of lakes (Justin Timberlake discography notwithstanding) and where better to change that than from Minneapolis, Minnesota, the City of Lakes? The structure of this list is based on List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek and other lists of tributaries. This is my first nomination to WP:FL and I look forward to making sure this is the best list it can be! Uff da! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great idea for a list. I learned a lot from this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One nit. Would it be possible to link Grand Rounds Scenic Byway to "Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway"? I believe that's the name sometimes in use by the Park Board, plus it's the honest truth. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Done. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing. Do you think Cemetery Lake should link to Lakewood Cemetery? Maybe in the notes column. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added that fact and the fact that it's an artificial lake to the Notes column. Thanks for the suggestion! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 17:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Clear, evidently comprehensive, widely and thoroughly referenced, and well set out and illustrated. A pleasure to read, and clearly of FL standard in my view. Tim riley talk 10:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Given that the map/list explicitly calls out lakes that are not actually in Minneapolis but the city still claims, I think the list could be a bit clearer on why Wirth Lake is included, as it clearly lies entirely outside of the city. It's implied that it's because the city runs the park that it's in, even though most of the park and all of the lake is outside of the borders, but nowhere is it explicitly stated that Wirth Lake is not in the city proper but counted anyway. --PresN 00:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been giving me a great deal of grief for quite a while. This entire list sort of arose out of the question "How many lakes do we have in Minneapolis??" and the subsequent research. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is not the City of Minneapolis; it was created by an act of the Minnesota legislature in 1883 that called for its establishment to be put to referendum for the citizens of Minneapolis. The referendum passed and the Park Board was established but while it runs concurrent with the City of Minneapolis, it has its own powers to levy taxes (I think) and its own budgets and so forth. So perhaps the option that is least confusing is to simply remove Wirth Lake from the count because the more I think about it, the harder it is to justify a statement like "Well, it's not in Minneapolis but it's claimed by an entity that shares a name with Minneapolis" as a valid reason for including it on the main list. I'm going to go ahead and remove it to the Other lakes section and update accordingly. Let me know, @PresN: and others, if you think this change is valid. Thanks, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 04:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That would make more sense to me, but I haven't reviewed the list in depth or ever been to the city. It just struck me as really strange when I saw the map. --PresN 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably have only intermittent internet access until July 17 so I may be slow to respond to comments until then. Thanks. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• This is a first-rate article. My only queries are about the second paragraph.
• "The Dakota harvested wild rice from lakes, including from Calhoun, upon whose banks stood the community of Ḣeyate Otuŋwe, founded by Maḣpiya Wic̣aṡṭa in 1829. The lakes' shorelines were marshy, deterring large-scale settlement and development by White residents." This confused me. At first you appear to be talking about something in prehistory, and then you seem to imply that it took place after 1829. You might say something like In x period the Dakota harvested wild rice..." And then new sentence: "In early 19C lake shorelines marshy were... deterring white residents...but Dakota community founded 1829. BTW I do not think "White" should be capitalised.
• Why did Cleveland recommend purchase - to turn the area into parks and preempt development? If so, it is worth saying so.
• Was the dredging to get rid of the marshes and make the area habitable? It sounds as if it was private iniatives which made some of the lakeside private. If so, it should be explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good comments all. I'll look into these questions within the next several days. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 15:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: I've addressed your first two points to the best of my [references'] abilities; I cannot determine why the park board initiated the dredging by I've tried to clarify that as well. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts! Thanks, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - passed

• Formatting: No problems; thanks for archiving where possible.
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 3, 14, 16; no problems
• Completeness: No obvious sources missing

Promoting! --PresN 16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another awards list of another fantastic film of 2015, which in my humble opinion, meets the FL criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]