Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2017

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, 31 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing my attempt at standardizing all list of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will be the 15th such nomination after 14 successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama) and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities in Nevada

I have modeled this list off of recently promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments " Nevada is the..." I don't think it's necessary to repeat the state title here, "it" would suffice.  Done " of land" I don't think that's necessary either since you've already noted "... by land area ..." earlier in the sentence. Done "counties " is piped to a redirect, just pipe direct. Done Link Carson City first time round.  Done And why is it at Carson City, Nevada when no Carson City exists?! Good point. I've changed probably 200 cities that were named like this, however they won't let me move this one, says I need to request admin support to move it. "Incorporation Date" ->"Incorporation date".  Done Ref 5 needs page number(s). Done Refs should be split per "30em".  Done " "2000-2010 Entity Changes"" en-dash for year range.  Done Consistent date formats in the refs please.  Done I think The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] I believe I've made every change recommended. No problems. Thanks for your prompt and thorough review, much appreciated! Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good to me on first glance, but I do have some comments. Note that this is my first featured list candidate review, so if you disagree with my feedback then you're likely right!

• I don't think that United States should be linked in the lead sentence, per MOS:OVERLINK (and WP:SEAOFBLUE). I would replace it with one link to Western United States.

  I think in this case it's important to link to the USA, since this is a geography based article, USA is really the parent. It shouldn't' affect WP:SEAOFBLUE since no blue would be lost (just replaced with Western United States). What do you think?

• It does fall under WP:SEAOFBLUE because there are two links next to each other that look like a single link. Still, it only says "where possible", and your argument about United States being relevant to a geography article makes sense, so I think it's fine as it is (also, I notice your other featured lists have the same links in the first sentence).

• This might be an American thing (I'm British) but I think the second sentence is missing commas. I would put them before "with", "but the" and "spanning".  Done
• Again, possibly this falls under WP:ENGVAR, but "less" should probably be "fewer" because inhabitants are countable. Done
• The repeated use of "are population category" seems a bit odd to me. Aside from being repetitive, I think it would sound better if something like "are part of population category" were used instead.

• Does "in population category" work? If not I'll use yours, I have no strong preference.

• Your version seems fine to me. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking wards and city clerks. Done
• Again, I think there should be a comma before "which" in the final paragraph of the lead.  Done
• The dates in the last sentence of the lead can't really go on their own; it should read something like "Carson City, which did so on March 1, 1875".

  added just "on" instead of "which did so on", would that work?

• I think it does work, but it might be worth adding either a comma before "on" or putting the whole phrase in brackets, i.e. "(on March 1, 1875)". N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• I made one minor edit (fixing a capital letter).
• I might be wrong, but isn't independent city Carson City's legal description (which would make the first sentence of the second paragraph wrong)? Or is that a different sort of term?

Yeah they are different terms, should I make it more clear? Independent means there is no 2nd tier administrative unit above it (no county or merged county), the legal description (is it a town, or city, etc.) is different, so in Carson city's weird case, it has no description.

• I think it would help if you could make it a bit more clear, actually. It would certainly help non-US readers in my opinion. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm I tried making it more clear, but I think it ended up being more convoluted. What do you think of the wording: "Incorporated places in the state are legally described as cities, except for Carson City, which has no legal description, but is considered an independent city as it does not reside in any county".

• I think that wording is pretty good. I don't think there should be a comma before "but", though, and I'm also unsure about the use of "reside" seeing as that word usually applies to people – how about "it is not located in any county"? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• The photo captions' use of the word "largest" threw me off a bit. I know that they have a heading ("by population"), but something like "most-populous" might be easier to understand and less repetitive. (Feel free to ignore this one, it's just my opinion).  Done
• You don't need to write out Henderson, Nevada because the caption already says that it is in Nevada. Done
• The table looks fine to me.
• Maybe add List of counties in Nevada to the See also section. I know it's linked in the table, but that link isn't very obvious and the See also section would be a more natural place for it in my opinion. Done

• I just noticed that per MOS:SEEALSO, the links in the See also section should be ordered alphabetically. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Done[reply]

• Why does one reference have "in English" when none of the others do? It seems unnecessary to me, but either way it ought to be standardised. Done

Overall this list looks great, and once my comments are addressed I will be happy to support. Your project is very ambitious; I wish you the best of luck with it! N Oneemuss (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I haven't had time to address all of them but I've check off the ones I've tackled so far. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks N Oneemuss! I believe I've addressed all your recommendations above. A few points require your approval but other than that, thanks for the review. Mattximus (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all of your comments and I only have one minor suggestion left (I did make one very minor edit to the list, adding a comma). It's just a wording issue though, so I'll support. Great work on this list! N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made that one change you suggested, and thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "and the smallest municipality by population" I think it is still clear and reads better if you leave out the repetition of "municipality by population". Ditto with repetition of "to incorporate" below.  Done
• I would mention in the lead that Carson City is the capital.  Done
• Notes looks odd, presumably because it is in columns even though there is only one note. Done
• Maybe comment in the lead on the dramatic increase in population, especially in Clark and Washoe?

• Surprisingly those are not terribly dramatic increases relative to other municipalities in the states which have doubled or tripled in population. I'm also hesitant to include trends such as this since the new census will be out in a few years and I will delete the whole 2000 census column (which is already out of date). This would mean those cities will inevitably grow much slower, and no longer be notable to include in the lead.

• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Dudley Miles! I've made you first three changes, and presented a point for your consideration on the fourth. Mattximus (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandvich18

"United States Census Bureau" is overlinked in the refs and the notelist doesn't need to have 30em columns (both issues appear in other FLs of yours, too). Other than that, everything looks good. Sandvich18 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandvich18, made both changes. Mattximus (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a support vote from me. :) Sandvich18 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (fixed one minor formatting issue); promoting. Good to see another of this series out the door! --PresN 14:44, 30 August 2017 (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, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Benni McCarthy is South Africa's all-time leading goalscorer in football, and is widely recognized as one of the nation's best ever footballers. All reference to career achievements and goals scored are well sourced and set out in an easy to read manner.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Linkable items should be linked every time in the sortable table. Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop. "Africa Cup of Nations" should be "African Cup of Nations". Similarly, it seems "US Cup" should be "U.S. Cup". " he scored at 2002 FIFA World Cup" missing "the". "He scored again against" awkward. "collected both the Player of the Tournament and Top Scorer awards for his seven goals" ->"named Player of the Tournament, and collected the Top Scorer award for his seven goals" (removing the implication that he was named POTT for his goals alone). "first ever ... first ever..." a little too much. "since readmission." to what? Refs shouldn't be sortable. Bold alone should not be used to differentiate something from the rest. Hash should be replaced with No. row and col scopes should be added to the table per MOS:TABLE. Fix WP:DASH violations in some of the ref titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Response Hi The Rambling Man. Thank you very much for the initial review. I have made all of the necessary amendments bar the one on bolding. Is that in reference to "Scores and results list South Africa's goal tally in bold?" . If so, what is the issue there? I did most of amendments separately with edit summary of each for ease of reference while reviewing. Let me know what else needs to be fixed or changed. Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that's what I'm referring to. It's an accessibility issue, people may have trouble discerning bold. I got round that at Rooney's list by always putting England's score first.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the clarification TRA. I prefer being able to distinguish between home and away matches, hence the emboldened score-lines, but I do understand the concern raised. I have amended it accordingly. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] You may wish to include in the lead that the 14 friendly goals included two in the HKSAR Reunification Cup which is listed as such, and not listed as a "Friendly", just to avoid confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Alright, I have made mention of the HKSAR Reunification Cup and U.S. Cup in respect of friendlies. Just FYI, going back over the Africa(n) Cup of Nations articles, it seems the common name changed to Africa (from African) Cup of Nations in 2006, so I've left the 2008 reference as Africa, and all others are African... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] I'm happy with that. Thanks for clearing it up TRA. Let me know if any thing else needs to be done. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] For completeness, I would just mention his retirement from international football, so we know this is now a complete and stable list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] From what I've gathered, his international retirement coincided with his retirement from all football. Bar the temporary retirement early in his career, I don't find that he made any formal announcement as to international retirement. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so just a sentence that says "McCarthy retired from playing football in ...." or similar would be good. Perhaps also contextualise it with the number of appearances he made for SA in the all time list? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Does the existing sentence "...and scored one more goal before retiring from football in 2013 at the age of 35" not work? I've added a sentence on his appearances and linked it to the national team records. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – in what was the South Africa's 100th match since readmission to international football." the" needs to be removed from this sentence. Also, when was South Africa readmitted? Something is off in a goal count somewhere. We say McCarthy tied Bartlett's record of 29 goals against Zambia and broke it against Paraguay, but the table shows that the Zambia and Paraguay goals were numbers 30 and 31. Did Bartlett have 30 goals instead of 29 or am I missing something? The first paragraph is fixed, but the fourth paragraph still says he tied the record against Zambia and broke it against Paraguay. That still needs fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] I see US Cup and U.S. Cup in the lead. Pick either the version with periods or the one without and use it consistently throughout the article. Not sure that the last word of "African Cup of Nations Qualifying" should be capitalized. It doesn't strike me as a proper noun, and we aren't capitalizing "qualification" in the table. The first two words of the List of international goals section heading can safely be removed. They don't add much, as it's fairly obvious that this is a list (the article title gives it away anyway). Minor point, but references 12 and 18 could stand to have the hyphens in their titles replaced by en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Response Hi Giants2008, thank you for the corrections. I have fixed the minor ones. As for your second point re: the numbers not adding up (I'm not sure how I missed that), I've added a note to the bottom of the table to explain. Both RSSF and National Football Teams accord with this. I'm not sure how to add a ref to a note but I would like to link it to ref 11 and to NFT.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/6116/Benni_Mccarthy.html|title=McCarthy, Benni|website=National Football Teams|accessdate=17 July 2017}}</ref> Please let me know what you think. I'd appreciate your thoughts as well The Rambling Man. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] It looks like the reviewer below took care of this for you here. For references at the end of a note, just tuck them after the content, but before the brackets at the end of the note. Check out what I left unstruck and see if you think those are worth fixing, and don't forget about N Oneemuss' comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Hi Giants2008, thank you for the above. I've amended the article to accord with the note that was added, removed the words "list of" from List of international goals... and replaced the hyphens with en dashes. I'm busy tackling some of N Oneemuss'comments now as well. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list looks good but there are definitely a few consistency issues.

• I took the liberty of adding the two sources you mentioned above to the note; feel free to revert if I misunderstood you or anything.
• I'm not sure if the lead needs to say "calendar year"; I think that's what most readers would assume anyway (if you just wrote "year").
• I'd link World Cup in the lead.
• "Most capped" should be hyphenated, I think.
• Maybe mention what position McCarthy played.
• Maybe also link Burkina Faso and Cape Verde in the table.
• The Venue column in the table has quite a few problems actually:
  • Some entries have the names of stadiums, whereas others have the names of cities. One (30) has both.
  • All the entries have a country given except for 9, which has a city.
  • No. 30 is the only entry with three pieces of information given. All of the above need to be standardised.
  • Also, how about Location as a name instead of Venue (not that I'm too bothered)?
• The two goals against Turkey have the same thing listed in score, which is obviously wrong.
• There's still a contradiction; if McCarthy scored two goals after equalling Bartlett's record of 29, then McCarthy would have scored a total of 31 goals, not the 32 mentioned in the article. If the note is correct, then the lead needs to be edited to reflect that.

That's all, I think. I will probably support once these comments are addressed (though I might take another look). N Oneemuss (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi N Oneemuss, thank you for the comments and for adding the sources to the note. It is much appreciated. I have ticked off your first four points and the last two. I agree about the standardization of the venue column. I'll try and tackle that during the course of the day and get back to you. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The table has now been standardized as well. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. I still have a few comments though:
    • Maybe provide his full name in the lead sentence (I see from his article that he's called Benedict).
    • The final score in the match against Germany is wrong (check the source, it should be 2–4). I looked at a couple of other sources and the scores were all correct, but it might be worth taking a closer look.
    • Also, not all of the sources support all of the information in the row. For example, for goal 15, source 9 only gives the final score and that McCarthy scored; it doesn't mention the date (just the month), location or score after McCarthy scored. Source 6 is similar; it doesn't support the score that McCarthy made it, or the location of the match. These are the first two sources I checked, so it's definitely worth looking at the sourcing again. You could always add several sources for one goal if you had to. (Source 3 does support some of this, but not exact stadiums or the score after each of his goals.)

That's everything. Once these (and those of my earlier comments that haven't been dealt with) are addressed I will definitely support. N Oneemuss (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second response

• Fixed the goals against Turkey *properly* this time, as has been done with Germany. Is there a particular reason for Cape Verde and Burkina Faso to be linked, while the other nation's remain unlinked? I've also added his full name.
  • Only because those two countries are quite 'obscure', whereas something like United States shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Still, if you want to be consistent then I think leaving all countries unlinked would be OK too. N Oneemuss (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: location instead of specific stadium, the precedent seems to lean toward stadium names being used as is evident with Klose, Rooney and Torres. It's probably best to keep things uniform in this regard.
• It might be tough going that far back but I will try and find sources that are that specific and get back to you. Cheers for now, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N Oneemuss, just a quick one. The source in the the caption for the table, which serves sort of like an all-encompassing source, makes reference to the date, opponent, score and competition. Would this not be sufficient to address your concerns in the very last point? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that it might be hard to find sources for games so long ago, and I certainly wouldn't oppose based on this issue, but there are a few things missing from the source in the caption, namely stadium name and the score after his goals. How did you find this information in the first place? N Oneemuss (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*wipes sweat from brow* - all of the fixtures now have sources indicating venue, date, result, goalscorers, and order of goals. Please not that I've also fixed the issue re the record. The original was correct, it had only been distorted because of the mistaken inclusion of a goal scored by Shaun Bartlett. Let me know what you think N Oneemuss. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks good to me! I'm actually on holiday now (hence the late response) so I don't have time to check the sources right now, but I'll take your word for it and seeing as I wouldn't want to hold up this nomination any longer, I'll support. Great work with this list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – "Having previously represented South Africa at U-23 level" – might want to spell out "under-23" and pipelink it to South Africa national under-23 football team. "… and as a result missed the 2000 African Cup of Nations." – word placement is awkward. Suggesting either "… and missed the 2000 African Cup of Nations as a result" or "… and consequently missed the 2000 African Cup of Nations". "in friendlies, including two at the HKSAR Reunification Cup and one at U.S. Cup, seven" – might want to use en dashes (–) instead of commas to distinguish it from the rest of the tally. Final sentence of the last paragraph: Per WP:NUMNOTES, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures. Everything else checks out. Also, could I ask you for a favour of taking a look at my current football FLC nom? I'd greatly appreciate it! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Response Hi Bloom6132, thank you for the comments. I've made the edits as per your above recommendations. The WP:NUMNOTES guideline was new to me too so thanks for pointing that out. I'll have a look at the Community Shield nomination this weekend and give some feedback. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – thanks for the prompt response. One last (minor) comment – the image should have alt text. That, however, won't stop me giving (long overdue) support to this great list! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I spotted one issue in the references, but fixed it myself. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 08:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 14:20, 28 August 2017 (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, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk), Strike Eagle (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list. The list portraying the information about the air squadrons of the Indian Navy was created back in 2014, and has been significantly improved in November 2016. The article is well referenced with suitable citations from valid sources, and the images are appropriately licensed. The comprehensively summarizes the 21 naval air squadrons along with the aircraft used. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Link 'air squadrons' in the opening sentence.
• Are short forms necessary in every instance?

Yes, they are. They are the part of the squadron names. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are "SP's MAI" and "Brahmand" RS?

Yes, they are. SP's MAI is a fortnightly defence journal since 1964, and Brahmand is a defence magazine with a committed editorial board]. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text missing from images

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments List is an orphan, that needs to be fixed. Image captions which are fragments do not need full stops, e.g. "Mikoyan MiG-29K in flight over Indian islands". No need to link common geographical terms like Britain. "In 1961–1971" odd phrasing, maybe "Between" or "From ... to"? Super Constellation is piped to a redirect, just pipe it directly. Others not fixed, e.g. Kiran MK 1, Sea King (in caption)... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Fixed all of them I have observed. Please have a look, check if there any others. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Same applies to Sea Harrier and Islander. Check others. "Anti-Submarine Warfare", "Electronic Warfare" etc, over-capitalised. Still not fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] I couldn't get you exactly, I have already de-capitalized, if you feel it was not resolved, please elaborate. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] I'm still seeing things like "Maritime Patrol" which should just be "Maritime patrol". The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Page ranges need pp. not p., e.g. see ref 31. Category:Indian naval aviation is not required as Category:Aircraft squadrons of the Indian Navy has that covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Strike Eagle: comments have been outstanding here for more than two weeks. If I see no indication that either of you are willing to do anything about these comments, I'll close the nomination in the next 48 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I'm really sorry, I did not get the notification regarding these changes. Will address them soon. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support: I was browsing this list this afternoon and happened to visit the Tupolev Tu-142, which the list says is used by INAS 312 from 1988 to present. Visiting both articles says that the aircraft was decommissioned in March 2017, which the list does not reflect as it seems not to have been updated since November 2016. Is it possible that other squadrons might have decommissioned their aircrafts since November 2016 as well? — Iunetalk 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: @Strike Eagle: Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to make sure you had seen my comment. — Iunetalk 14:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: This nomination is getting a bit old without enough support- are you still working on this list? --PresN 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iune: Sorry for the delay, updated the list. I've checked all others, they're up to date. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Hi, I've addressed all the comments. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I support this nomination. — Iunetalk 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

• Instead of "(purple) This along with the *, indicates a helicopter squadron.", it would be clearer if you added a "|text=*" field to the legend2 template and changed the text to "Indicates a helicopter squadron"
• "The dates until when the aircraft were operated in unknown. But sources confirm that the aircraft were scrapped." -> The Fairey Firefly aircraft in use by INAS 550 were scrapped, though it is unknown when this occurred.
• Using the "work" field of references is inappropriate for organizations that do not have a publisher, like the Indian Navy; that organization should instead be in the "publisher" field.
• That's all I have; the lead is a bit of a slog to read, but you'd have to cut all the details out to fix it and then you wouldn't have anything. Source spotchecks revealed no problems. --PresN 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga and Strike Eagle: are you two still working on this list? I think once my above points are addressed I can promote. --PresN 01:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Hi, I actually somehow missed your last ping. Will work on these by the end of this week. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the review. Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 14:10, 28 August 2017 (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, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zootopia is a 2016 animated film released by Walt Disney Pictures which tackled racism and intolerance and received accolades including the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. This list gives a rundown of these as always look forward to all the constructive comments.Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some drive-by notes:

• Would it be possible to center the images in the infobox? They look weirdly left-justified.
• Refs 28, 29, 54, and 56 lack accessdates.

Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks for your comments. Centered the images. Added access dates for 28, 29. The other two are dead links which have archived links so access date would not be appropriate. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " 3D computer-animated buddy comedy adventure film..." a few too many categories for me here!
• A few short sentences in the opening para of the lead makes for slightly clunky prose.
• Does ref 4 really back up the fact the film received its global premier in Denmark?
• Would clarify that $ is US$.
• "the film won for Best Animated Feature" no need for "for".
• "included the film in their list of the top ten of 2016.[9]" -> "included the Zootopia in their list of the top ten films of 2016.[9]"
• Infobox and table will need updating tomorrow following Saturn Awards (I'm sure you're tracking that but just thought I'd mention it).
• "St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association" why is Gateway included in the title of this group? It's a redirect and the source itself doesn't use the term.*Split the refs by "|30em" rather than "|2".

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed the above. I copied the genres from the parent article and have cut it down. Changed ref for premiere. St. Louis Gateway I think was the old name, have changed it. Cowlibob (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work as usual, my comments addressed, with thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would recommend adding ALT text to the images in the infobox.
• In the sentence (The film was directed by Byron Howard and Rich Moore based on a screenplay written by Jared Bush (who also co-directed) and Phil Johnston.), I believe that you need "and was" between "Moore" and "based".

Aside from these two very minor notes, I believe that everything else in the list is very strong. Great work with it. Since my comments are minor, I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I think I've fixed the above. Thanks for the support. Cowlibob (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad that I could help. If you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – The count of nominations in the infobox is one short. After careful inspection, it appears that the Japan Academy Prize nom isn't listed, which is causing the count to be off. That was the only issue I found with the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for picking that up. Have fixed it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 14:24, 28 August 2017 (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 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Lugnuts and Khadar Khani (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded and polished the list, created by Lugnuts back in 2011. I am happy to have him as co-nominator. I think this list now meets the FL criteria so going to nominate this one. Review, suggestions and comments from any user are appreciated, as always. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Row and col scopes needed for each table per MOS:DTT. Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] " at three different venues, including three outside " something not quite right here... Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] "he took five "->"taking five" Fixed. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] " at the Old Trafford," NEVER "the" Old Trafford. Fixed. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Don't overlink "innings". Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] "As of 2017, the most recent bowler to achieve the feat was Sammy. He took seven wickets for 66 runs in his debut Test, against England in 2007.[5][1]" merge those short sentences and put refs in order. Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Bowler names should sort using {{sortname}}. Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the review! 10:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks Rambles - was just about to drop you a note about this nomination. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Hi Khadar Khani and Lugnuts, please find my comments below: Lead refers to a bowler taking five fix link to Bowling (cricket)  Done five or more wickets link to Wicket#Dismissing a batsman  Done in a single innings fix link to innings  Done As of July 2017, update to August 2017 and add Template:As of  Done 148 cricketers have taken a five-wicket haul on their debut in a Test match fix link to List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut  Done nine of them being taken by West Indian players fix link to West Indies cricket team  Done four times against England fix link to England cricket team  Done and Sri Lanka each.[6] replace ref with this link [6]  Done the West Indies won the match four times, and drew once added these two refs [7], [8] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] five of them have achieved the feat at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica.[7] replace ref with [9]a and reword as follows at Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] against England in 1950, at Old Trafford, Manchester fix link to Old Trafford Cricket Ground and change ref to [10] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Johnson is the most economical fix link to Economy rate (cricket) Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] with 1.17 runs per over added this ref [11] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Sammy has the best strike rate link to Strike rate#Bowling strike rate, "of 18.4 ball per wicket" and add this ref [12] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] As of 2017 add Template:As of I think it would be great to add that Johnson is one of only nine bowlers to take two five-wicket hauls on debut [13] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Key Add Bowler = The bowler who took the five-wicket haul  Done Date the match was held, or starting date of the match for Test matches change to simply "Starting date of the Test match"  Done The innings of the match fix link to Innings  Done overs bowled in that innings change to "in the innings"  Done Econ sharper link to Economy rate (cricket)  Done Bowler selected as "Man of the match" sharper link Player of the Match awards (cricket)  Done Table Need to add Johnson's second five-wicket haul. See List of England cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut (refer to Frederick Martin fifth on the list for what I mean) Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Fix the three links to Old Trafford Cricket Ground and add ",England" after Manchester to be consistent in the table Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Refs Ref 11 – add date=17 April 2007  Done Refs 12 to 17 – change Cricinfo to ESPNcricinfo to be consistent  Done Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Ian - appreciate your comments. Will start to work through them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Hi Ianblair23, thanks for the review. I hope your concerns are now resolved accordingly! Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks guys, I have made a few more changes including adding archive links for the refs. Could you please make one change and add this ref [14] after and Valentine are the only West Indian to take ten in a match wickets on debut. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job Khadar Khani and Lugnuts! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – "Johnson and Valentine are the only West Indian to take ten in a match wickets on debut". The grammar is faulty here; it should be "Johnson and Valentine are the only West Indians to take ten wickets in a match on debut". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my only quibble is this: "The players have taken five-wicket hauls at three different venues, three outside the West Indies" - this makes it sound like the fifers were taken at three different venues, of which three venues were outside the Windies, which isn't true of course. I would suggest reworking the whole sentence to: "The players have taken five-wicket hauls at three different venues, two in the West Indies and one overseas. The most common venue for a West Indies player to achieve the feat is Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica, where it has occurred five times. All three hauls which occurred overseas took place at Old Trafford in Manchester, England." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: done as you suggested! Thanks for the comment. Khadar Khani (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 12:04, 25 August 2017 (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, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [15].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it has now been developed to a point where it is comprehensive on the subject at hand, is neatly organized, and well sourced. This list is for the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe television series franchise (itself part of a larger media franchise), and with the article most likely to keep growing as the series expand, now felt like a perfect time to nominate, given the hard work various editors along with myself have put in over the years to make the list it is currently. Please leave any comments or concerns, and I (or another highly involved editor of the list) will do our best to address them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Psst- you didn't transclude this nomination. --PresN 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thank you! Sorry about that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments epic.

• I would restrict the TOC, who uses it anyway, so we don't have all that whitespace immediately after the start of the article.
  • I don't think we should limit the TOC, because users should have the ability to jump to each introduction heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • DIsagree. Have you ever found one example of someone who uses the TOC? The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:READERSFIRST. How can you make a blanket statement like "who uses it anyway" (which I assume was a questioning one) and think all readers do not use the TOC. I for one do on many occasions, so that there disproves your statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Could use some citations in the lead, e.g. " began airing on ABC during the 2013–14 television season"...
• " in 2018." avoid easter egg links like this.
  • How so? If earlier in the sentence/paragraph, we link the network shows to the television season article, the logic would follow through for the cable/streaming shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking just the year is an easter egg. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, how so? Per WP:EASTEREGG, a reader will be expected to be taken to an article about [Year] in television for the year links, given context. It won't be a surprise for them. An EGG link in this case would be something like this: "Netflix [[2015 in American television|released]]..." Readers would not be expecting to end up at the 2015 in American television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Clark GreggM [4][5]" loads of these, no spaces before refs please.
  • No spaces if you look in the wikicode. Byproduct of {{note label}} I believe, not our end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, well that needs to be fixed before I could support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is the proper implementation of a template used on over 10,000 articles going to prevent the passing of this for FL? If you have an issue with what the template does, please take that up on the talk page of that template. But don't let that be a hinderance for this article when myself and the editors of this article don't have any control on what the template does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• You mention ABC in the lead but not Netflix, yet there's a whole table of Netflix actors.
  • Netflix is mentioned in the lead, first paragraph: "Netflix's Marvel series began in 2015 with..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome, I missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly no appetite to work collegiately here. I was trying to do you a favour by reviewing it but I'll leave it to others now. Unwatching, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to discuss each point with you, but you leaving the discussion after I've made two responses isn't working collegiately. We can't do that if only one of us are bringing something to the discussion, and because you felt I was unwilling to work with you is a weak reason to oppose the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For the issue regarding the TOS, you could try following the same pattern done with List of Alien characters. I believe that would be a perfect compromise as it would keep the information already in the TOS, but make it leaner and take up less space than its current version.

• @Favre1fan93: I would actually say that this is my only real concern about this list. I highly respect The Rambling Man, and he/she is a much more experienced user/reviewer than myself. For me, I do not take issue with the links to 2018 (just make sure you keep up-to-date on this) and I understand the issue with the wikicode and I do not take issue with that either as it is consistent throughout the entire list. I would just suggest changing up the TOS as done in List of Alien characters as that would be appear to be a good compromise to me if that makes any sense. I will support this once my only comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Aoba. I will consider the horizontal TOC implementation. I still don't feel having it vertical is an issue. And even if the horizontal one is implemented as with the Alien article, a {{clear}} would still be needed for the pictures used, which would still have whitespace (though yes, slightly smaller than currently). And implementing the horizontal TOC, though parenthesis are used to distinguish subsection, I feel it is harder to follow the flow of the article than in the vertical position. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Adamstom.97 Do you have any thoughts on using the horizontal TOC? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all of Favre's comments so far, and hope everyone remembers that this is a discussion that everybody wants to be cooperative with. We just want the best result for the article. If we are talking about Template:horizontal TOC, I just did a test to see what it would look like and it seems to bunch all the links together in what seems like quite an unreadable way. I'm sure it would be appropriate to use this for some articles, but considering the nature of all the subheadings here (lots of long "Introduced in ... season X") I think we would be doing a huge disservice to our readers here, as I do think the TOC is used by many readers (I myself definitely jump to specific sections if that is where I want to go). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there was a way to better control how the sections appeared in the TOC horizontally, I think I would be in more support of doing that. But looking over the documentation of Horizontal TOC, it doesn't seem to allow much adjustments. And I don't think {{TOC limit}} is an option either, because we only have level 2 headings, albeit a good amount of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the discussion. I completely understand your point about the TOC. I just wanted to try to help by offering some ideas. I will actually support this nomination. I actually did not have any major issues with the TOC as it stood originally (I could see the use of a TOC to readers). I am not sure how it looks on mobile as I primarily access Wikipedia through my laptop, but I think everything is fine for promotion, at least from perspective. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. I hope your nomination gets more traffic and feedback in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments Aoba. FYI, here is how the site looks on mobile, which you can always look at for any article, by clicking "Mobile view" all the way at the bottom of a desktop article. I'll try to look over your FAC as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your response; I always wondering if there is a way to see the "Mobile view" of an article or a list so I greatly appreciate the link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Argento Surfer

I think the image for Krysten Ritter stands out in a bad way for lighting and angle. Is there a good reason for using it over, say, File:Peabody's 'Marvel's Jessica Jones' Night (27139382503) (edited).jpg? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file you linked to is a much newer upload and I personally have not checked in a while if new commons images existed that may be a better fit. I'll add in the one you suggested over what was there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I can support this nom. The TOC and template issues seem trivial to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and comment! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golbez

• Could we have maybe an N/A column, with a rowspan maybe so there's not a hundred N/As, for the seasons preceding the introduction? In fact I've gone ahead and added this for the non-Netflix shows, but leave it up to y'all if you want to continue it for the Netflix ones.
  • I understand the intent of this but have issues with it overall. First, "N/A" would not need to be used; the grey cell is enough. As for "rowspaning", I don't feel it makes much difference over having individual rows. Also if we do it as you suggested for before first appearances, but then not for after, it would look disjointed in my opinion. So I think as is, is okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it wouldn't make sense to do it after; doing it before is because, well, it's impossible to appear in season 1 if your first appearance was in season 2. (Of course, now I wonder if we even need the table divided into 'introduced in' tables. It's obvious when someone was introduced.) --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do some characters have multiple names listed? For example, Blair Underwood and Matthew Willig.
  • Blair Underwood portrays Andrew Garner, while Willig portrays Garner's alter ego, Lash. Per formatting in the character column, Underwood is first, with a break line indicating Lash. So the same is done in the season column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table needs to do a better job of explaining this, especially since Quake does not have two names, and Lash only has one name in one of its seasons. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Many of the citations are "X will be in this show". These are all predictive citations. Is there any chance that these can be condensed to ones that only say "X was in this show"? Descriptive, rather than predictive? Quick example: Scott Glenn as Stick, the only citations are, in order: "Glenn joins cast"; "Glenn returns"; "Glenn confirmed." In other words, all made before the actual show aired. I'd much rather have a source saying after the fact that they were on the show, rather than three sources saying they will be on the show.
  • I understand this, but if the predictive listing doesn't change from what did actually occur in the season, does it matter? If it had, the source would no longer have been used in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It matters because it's sloppy and inherently inaccurate. We have no source saying if it changed from the season, so the article doesn't know. Let me paint a scenario: Person A and Person B are both said to be in an upcoming show. Person B drops out. But we have a source saying "Person A and Person B will be in this show!" So now an editor might reasonably ask, why isn't Person A listed? And you might say, because they weren't in the show. But there's no source for that. All we have is a source saying A and B will be in the show. It doesn't make sense to then require a second source, which weirdly wouldn't even qualify for the text, to then say that, no, that previous source was wrong, because B didn't make it to the show. Predictive sources should be replaced with reactive sources where possible (and presumably it's possible). --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables get very tall; by the end it was easy to forget what show/season went with which column. Perhaps the header should be added to every section?
  • I'm not opposed to adding these in, but maybe not necessarily after every section. @Adamstom.97: your thoughts on doing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that there is near-zero overlap between the casts of Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter, having the columns arranged this way - which does make sense chronologically - makes for a very broken up table. You get no sense of continuity of characters or actors, and outside of one character from the movies, Dum Dum Dugan, there is zero overlap in casts. I think it might make sense for the ABC table at least to bunch Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter together. So, 5 seasons of Agents of SHIELD, then 2 seasons of Agent Carter, then Inhumans. This would get rid of all the skips in between columns.

• Now, I also see the argument of keeping them chronologically in order, like the film lists. But the difference is, due to the differing time periods of the shows, there is virtually zero overlap in the casts. So the pros are outweighed by the cons. If there were healthy interplay between the shows - like you see in the Netflix shows - then sure, go for it. But with the ABC shows there's zero overlap, so we shouldn't treat it like there could be. I understand why you're doing it this way, but I think the situation of the ABC shows indicates that it could be done another way.
• Another option is to give each show its own table in the ABC section. That way you don't get anachronistic with the column order, but you fix the fact that the three shows have zero overlap.
  • I can also see reasoning behind this. But if we do change, I feel it should be across the whole article, not just the ABC series. Adam thoughts on this too? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the Netflix shows do share a common time period. For example, Rosario Dawson plays the same character in three of them; Carrie-Anne Moss is the same character in four. There is literally zero overlap in the ABC series, apart from, as mentioned, two movie characters. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A few 'better source neededs' or 'citation neededs' to be dealt with.
  • The "better sources" are passable, but overall we prefer to use season press releases (which should be released in late summer). If you'd prefer we remove them until then, I can do that. "Citation needed" was taken care of (just the one yes?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: I've responded to each of your points. I've also pinged my colleague Adamstom.97 who works with me on this article to get their opinions on some of your points. And just so you know, I think both of us are on and off Wiki for the time being, so we'll both try to make timely responses as best we can (in case it has been a bit since we last did). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the big row-spanning in the tables. I understand the thinking there, but I feel it draws too much attention to itself and can also be a bit confusing by removing what I would consider to be guidelines from the character to the actor, showing readers who goes with who. As for splitting up into individual series, I have also been considering this recently due to the increasing size. If we do decide to do that, then I agree that we should be consistent throughout the article, and in that case we would have a lot of tables just for one or two columns (for now, at least). So I'm not exactly sure on that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overdo the push for consistency. The ABC series and the Netflix series are very different beasts, and should be treated as such. No one is going to be confused. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree with Adam that I don't think the big rowspan grey cells is any better than the individual rows, especially since it is used after first appearances in many cases. So the formatting would be disjointed. A reformatting of the article by having individual series tables, or grouping differently in single tables, isn't out of the question for me yet. I'd just have to create a mark up of it, to see if it seems more feasible to present as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: My apologies for finally getting around to answering some more here. Per a discussion I had separately with Adamstom.97 (link here), I reformatted the tables as I believe you suggested, which can be seen in my sandbox here. Firstly, Adam and I both agree the Netflix section should not be reformatted as such, but did agree we could probably split it to be series/seasons from 2015-2017, and then start a new table for 2018 onwards (much like the "Phases" sections on the sister List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors article). I am a bit more open to the reformatting of of the ABC series, but we would like to keep a similar formatting for the entire article, and in my eyes formatting by series for the ABC ones, results in what I consider "dumber" versions of the more extensive lists at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters and List of Agent Carter characters. Please let us know if you have additional comments on this, and any other remaining thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Looks like Favre1fan93 had a month-later response to your last comments (a week ago); are you still participating in this review? Have your comments been addressed? --PresN 16:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I'd accidentally not watched this. The sandbox looks ... I mean, I don't want to call your work ugly, because it's exactly what I asked for, so now that I see it I see the problems with it. :P I might be able to do something with it but that would be a big project with little, at this point, payoff. I like the split of 2018 onwards, it keeps things narrow and prunes down extra characters. Support. --Golbez (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist PresN. I'm sorry you maybe didn't get my initial ping for my response Golbez (that has been happening to me on occasion too). Regardless, thanks for the support and for participating in the review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Brojam (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not a fan of the use of "201X–1X television season" for the ABC series and not the Netflix in the lead. I see why it was used to differentiate the airing of the two, but wouldn't it be better to specify the month or simply just leave the year. Just a personal opinion, not a big deal. Looking at the cast tables, I like how you used this to separate the years since Netflix doesn't really follow the regular television season but ABC does. However, be careful because the Freeform table should follow the ABC table and say "television season". For a character list, the month of release is a bit too specific, so noting by television season (for the ABC series) and year of release (the others, which don't follow the network TV season release schedule) is the simplest. And to note on your second point about the Freeform section, that should be as it is, not with the television season link, because cable networks (which Freeform is) does not follow the same release "seasons" as broadcast networks do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Alright for the lead and while I don't necessarily agree about cable shows not being apart of the television season that runs from September to August, it doesn't really matter since Cloak & Dagger only airs in 2018.- Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] The rest of the lead looks good; great job on the infobox and the caption. Now for the cast tables, first off, some series include "Marvel's" before the series title. Those should be removed since you didn't include it for the multi-season series. This styling is per the consensus here, where the official names should be used for series until they are renewed for additional seasons, at which point it is dropped. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Alright. Didn't know about the consensus. I actually like this styling, just thought it should be consistent. - Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have no problem with the current TOC. It makes it very easy to jump to particular sections of the article. I've looked at the proposed reformatting, and I don't think it's needed. As is, I think only the Netflix table will need to be adjusted in the future (when new seasons/series are announced), since I see no end in sight for those shows unlike the ABC series that are nearing their end (if not this season, then most likely the next, and most certainly not more than the current Netflix seasons at 11 compared to ABC's 7 seasons). In any case, I'm confident that the editors of this article will properly deal with this issue when it becomes one. I like the idea of splitting by year (2015-17, then 2018-); maybe if they appear in Infinity War or Avengers 4 (unlikely) you could use that as the split since 2017-2018 is pretty random. For now, I think it's good as is. The Netflix section is pushing it a bit now with Iron Fist season 2, so I am going to implement the split by year very shortly, and I think that will be good going forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Looks good with the split. - Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Lastly, having the External links formatted the way it is currently makes it not fit nicely on certain screens. I would instead use {{Columns-list}}. It will also make it better when New Warriors and Runaways are eventually added to this list. The formatting was as such to separate out by network, but if you don't think that is an issue, we can change to the template you suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Ya, I think it would be best to change it. - Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] I've just moved C&D to under Inhumans. That is a good fix for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Brojam (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the responses Brojam, I've responded above as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left my final comments above, but nothing major so I can support this nomination. Great job! - Brojam (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Brojam. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – I'm seeing a lot of issues here.

• Refs 8, 45, 53, and 82 are tagged as being possibly unreliable, and I'd agree given that they are all Facebook or Instagram pages. We really need to see these replaced before considering promotion.
  • As I stated above, these are all from verified social media accounts, so they are acceptable per WP:TWITTER. However, ultimately they will be replaced with better sources (hence the tag). So if that means we need to hide the content until that time, that is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's do that then. I'd have a hard time promoting an article tagged in this way to FL myself, although I can't speak for the other closers. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will hide. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also not sold on refs 64, 119, 139, 145, 150, 218, or 232, as they are all to social media websites. They aren't much better (if at all) than the ones already tagged.
  • 64, 139, 218 and 232 also included per WP:TWITTER. 119, 145, and 150 have been replaced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave this unstruck for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The Daily Mail (ref 149) has had a whole RfC declaring it generally unreliable, and I don't see why this article would be an exception.
  • Taken care of with the above adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes BroadwayWorld (refs 52 and 56) a reliable source?
  • Both replaced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Monkeys Fighting Robots (ref 143) reliable?
  • It's a review of the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any random blogger or YouTube poster can make a review of a TV episode. That doesn't make those sources reliable. Sorry, but I can't say that I'm convinced on this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a potential alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure if that's much better. If you can't find sources better than these, you may consider just sourcing an episode itself. That strikes me as a situation where using a primary source would be acceptable. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought the same after my last comment, because luckily (outside of the opening credits), the Marvel series all have full credits at the end, to use as citations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Tyranny of Style (ref 183) reliable?
  • Yes. Direct interview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving this one unstruck too. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Is MCU Exchange (ref 187) reliable or just somebody's fan site?
  • Just removed entirely. No longer needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Teenplicity (ref 233) is another one that I'm unsure about.
  • Again, a direct interview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also leaving this unstruck for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• All caps in refs 28, 33, 52, 59, 93, 144, 154, 162, and 254 need fixing.
  • Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor, but the publisher of ref 245 (Parade) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Responded above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm tired of seeing this list hovering at the bottom of WP:FLC. I'm fine with the interviews being used as sources, and with the 3 twitter references. Promoting. --PresN 11:51, 24 August 2017 (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, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A while since I've delved into literary awards but here's one that was featured at WP:ITN recently. It wasn't far off so I've done the spit-and-polish job. It's completely different to any other existing nomination so I've been bold enough to nominate it knowing that I can handle simultaneous nominations. Thanks to one and all for any effort involved in reviewing the list, all comments will be addressed as soon as possible. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work from a very experienced editor. All of my commments are minor. N Oneemuss (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the title be the official name (i.e. with DUBLIN in capital letters)? I had a look at MOS:ALLCAPS and I couldn't see anything specific on not using capital letters in official names, but I might be wrong there.

  I think you might be right, the issue (for me) is that it is often not capitalised in reliable sources. It's something I'm more than happy to do, and if there's enough consensus during the FLC I'll do it then. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll leave this one up for other reviewers to comment on. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "City of Dublin" a proper noun? If not, decapitalise "Dublin". Also, be consistent about whether you link it (it's linked in the infobox but not the body).

  The official website says it's "sponsored by Dublin City Council" so I've changed it to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Euro needs to be linked; certainly not in an article about an award in Ireland, which uses the euro.

  Some of our less knowledgeable editors may not know or understand what the Euro symbol means, so I think I'll leave this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the translator of the most recent winner be mentioned in the lead and the infobox (and the navbox at the bottom)?

  Mentioned in the "History" section now, and I guess not in the navbox because no article for Hahn exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that there might be no information about this, but it would be nice to add information about how the public libraries and countries are chosen (there's a little in Source 3 about how they seek out countries that haven't nominated books before).

  I will see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The website for the official prize says that libraries can apply to be considered, so I've added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, I think the lead could do with a little expansion. For example, you could add a bit about the history (e.g. the start date, or former names), or mention the first winner.

  I'll see what's possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is public library linked in the body but not the lead?

  Linked both places. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "year following" sounds awkward, maybe swap the words?

  Okay, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link The Irish Times, and perhaps productivity.

  First done, second I think is sufficiently common to leave unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "calendar year" can be replaced with "year".

  That's the terminology used in the official website so I'm reluctant to change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that almost all readers will automatically assume that it's talking about calendar years if it says "year". What else could it mean? N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It could mean any year-length span rather than 1 January to 31 December. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the former name be in bold?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the quotation marks needed? N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Does IMPAC stand for something?

  Don't think so, just the name of the former sponsors. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What I mean is: does IMPAC stand for something in the company's name (because if it does, I think it should be spelled out)? N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what you mean. I think it's just the name of the sponsor. IMPAC. If that's what it's known by per RS and COMMONNAME etc, that's how it should appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Put a comma after "president of IMPAC".

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I might be wrong, but the capitalisation of Award looks a bit weird to me.

  Yup, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe mention who Michelle Pauli is (she's a journalist).

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You can call Dublin City Council "the council" after the first mention.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to make the double-dagger symbol into a clickable note (if this is a lot of work, then don't bother)?

  Don't know, it might be possible to embed it within {{abbr}}.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had some experiments here, nothing seems to match your "clickable note" request, can you be more specific or code it yourself if you have some particular ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid coding isn't really my strong point. How about moving the note from below the table to above it? N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The title for the 2002 winner is very confusing; to be honest, I'm not sure the alternative name is needed, but the actual name should absolutely not be given twice in two lines. Also, I'd write "aka" with capital letters.

  Just going for simple Atomised which appears in the RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of interest, why are some authors and titles redlinked while others lack links?

  Non-winning titles now delinked, non-winning authors linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the translations say "from the original"; I think they should all say "from" for consistency.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the languages should be linked in the bottom table (they aren't in the main one); certainly English language shouldn't be.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to the official website should probably be this [17] (the current one also works, but it uses the old name).

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this list very interesting and will happily support once these are addressed. N Oneemuss (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N Oneemuss, I've responded inline to each of the comments, mostly I've tweaked per your suggestions, some I've yet to do and a couple I have followed up on. Thanks for your review, I'll back to you when I've dealt with the outstanding issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through comments that have been addressed. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N Oneemuss I've replied further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All comments but one have been addressed, so I support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "The most recent winner of the award is José Eduardo Agualusa for A General Theory of Oblivion." This will become out of date. Below you add "As of 2017"

  As of 2017 is there now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the work must have been published in its original language in the same calendar year." This is not what the source says, which is that a 2018 nomination must have been published in its original language between 2012 and 2016, and translated in 2016.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This has been subject to criticism" I took "This" to mean the rules on translation, but the source appears to refer to the two year delay in general.

  Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The criticism that titles are already well known seems a bit odd, as if I understand correctly the point of the delay is that books should have been published long enough ago for library readers around the world to have formed a judgment on them. Is there a source to clarify?

  Not that I see. The point is that such awards are normally given to new works. Some of these books can be six years old. Hence the criticism. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Dudley Miles thanks, I've replied inline. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I could only find a couple of nits to pick here:

• Eligibility and procedure: "As of 2004, the former Chief Judge of a US Court of Appeals, Eugene R. Sullivan, is the non-voting chair." If Sullivan was the non-voting chair in 2017 (as is implied by the source's title), this should say "As of 2017" instead. If 2004 was the first year Sullivan had that role, perhaps that could be stated separately if you deem it necessary.

  Yep, check the edit history, this has been modified by a COI account a few times lately. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it that IMPAC was the actual name of the company in question and not an abbreviation that would need spelling out? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that was already asked, IMPAC is a company name. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources, and spot-checks of refs 14, 16, and 18 revealed no problems. The only issues I see are with the formatting: refs 3, 9, and 12 all need publishers; the first and last are from the Irish Times, and ref 9 is from the International DUBLIN Library Award Office. Also, I see inconsistencies between Irish Times and The Irish Times in the ref publishers (multiple uses of each), and if I was being really picky, I'd suggest that the Battersby link be in ref 3 instead of ref 2 (not that I'm known for being really picky :-)) So, only a few minor things to clean up. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed those issues Giants2008, thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my concerns have been resolved and I think the list comfortably meets FL standards. Also, I consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 11:51, 24 August 2017 (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, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [18].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): U990467 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is very complete and in the good shape. I believe this satisfies the required criteria for featured lists. --U990467 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Please use Ariana Grande's full name in the caption.

•  Done: Revised.

• Please use ALT text for the image, other than "Refer to caption".

•  Done: Revised.

• Instead of using "No.", write it out full as "number".

•  Done: Revised.

• Following the sentence (It spawned two more singles: "Baby I", and "Right There".), I would include more information on the chart performance of these two singles.

•  Done: Added.

• The wording (managed to reach) sounds very odd to me. I would just say "reached", as the wording "managed to" makes it sound like it was a struggle for the song to be successful.

•  Done: Removed.

• You have the following two phrases in close proximity (The fourth single from My Everything) and (the fifth and final single from My Everything) and it reads somewhat too repetitive to me so I would suggest revising. I do not believe you need to say the full album title twice in a similar sentence construction in the same paragraph.

•  Done: Revised.

• Following the sentence (The album spawned three more singles: "Into You", "Side to Side" and "Everyday".), I would more information on the chart performance of these three songs. The lead right now seems to be giving a lot of attention to her second album, so putting more information here would help to balance everything out.

•  Done: Added.

• In the lead, I would information about two Christmas-themed EPs.

•  Done: Added.

• The third paragraph is rather long compared to everything else, and I have concerns about it bordering on giving the second album and its singles undue weight compared to everything else. I would revise and shorten/condense this paragraph.

•  Done: Reduced.

• I do not believe the image in the "Music videos" section is necessary. It is not necessarily a good image as her face is mostly covered up by the microphone, and it does not add anything really new to the list. I would remove it.

•  Done: Removed.

Great work with the list as a whole. I just have a few concerns with the lead. Once my comments are addressed, I do another run-through of it. My review will be primarily focused on the prose with the lead just so you know. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. --U990467 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything looks good. I will support it. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

Note that I'm not doing any fact-checking so taking all chart positions and dates on faith.

• I appreciate that we're limited in terms of what we have, but there must be something better to use as a lead image. In the file currently used at thumbnail size one can barely make out her face, and the way her jacket is hanging makes her look like she's morbidly obese.
• Why Her first studio album Yours Truly? Was Yours Truly not her first album of any kind, in which case the qualifier isn't needed?
• having sold 138,000 copies in its opening week—since this is talking about US chart positions, presumably that figure is only counting American sales not worldwide? Do we know what the worldwide sales were for the same period? For most artists this wouldn't be an issue, but one of the striking things about Grande's career is that she became globally successful very quickly, rather than the usual "big in hometown, big in the area, big in the country, big in the continent, big in the world" route.
• This will be non-standard for music articles, but Grande is an exceptional case; the sales figures (at least for Dangerous Woman) probably need to have from-to dates clearly stated in the body rather than buried in the footnoted, and in particular Sales of Dangerous Woman in the United Kingdom as of May 2017 needs to specify whether this was as of the beginning or the end of May. For obvious reasons there will be a distortion in her sales figures in mid-May 2017, both through people who were previously unfamiliar with her work hearing her music on the news and deciding they like it, and from non-fans buying her music as a gesture of solidarity, and I suspect "sales as of 1 May" and "sales as of 31 May" are significantly different.

None of these are deal-breakers (although I really would do something about that image)—happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 10:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have revised the top and changed the image. --U990467 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paparazzzi

• Per WP:NUMNOTES, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". With that being said, it is either "one remix album, two extended plays, thirty-three singles" or "1 remix album, 2 extended plays, 33 singles". It's up to you to use either numbers or words.

•  Done

• Add EP in parenthesis after extended play, so people know you are referring to it while using the abreviation

•  Done

• Add a reference regarding the release of "Put Your Hearts Up". I would also write that the single was commercially unsuccessful

•  Done

• In December 2013, Grande released her first extended play Christmas Kisses, featuring four Christmas-themed tracks.[5] The EP was re-released in December 2014, exclusive to Japan, with one bonus track, Grande's Christmas single "Santa Tell Me". Change to: "In December 2013, Grande released her first EP, Christmas Kisses, featuring four Christmas-themed tracks. It was re-released in December 2014, exclusively to Japan, including the single "Santa Tell Me" as a bonus track.
• Grande released her second studio album My Everything in August 2014. The album became her second consecutive number-one album on the Billboard 200. You can change the last sentence to: The material became her second consecutive number-one record on the Billboard 200.

•  Done

• I would add this reference regarding the sentence that says that Problem "was an international hit and nearly reached the top ten spots of every major chart"

•  Done

• The fourth and fifth single from the album... Use plural here

•  Done

• Is "Bang Bang" a single from My Everything? I mean, Grande is one of the main artists but that does not mean it was released to promote her album; it seems more likely that it was only considered to be the lead single from Jessie's album. Besides that, who includes one of her most successful singles as a bonus track? That was the case of this particular song in My Everything. In my opinion, it has to stay as a single by Ariana as a lead artist, but not from her second album. I'm curious about what you think about this.

• See Billboard

• I think you should expand (or split into two) the sentence about the commercial performance of Into You and Side to Side, since it only covers the latter's commercial performance

•  Done

• I made a series of corrections in the lead. If you disagree with something, let me know.

This is only the lead by now. I will continue to review the rest of the list later. Paparazzzi (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• Why is every EP splitted into two?

• They are reissues. The former release was only made in digital download while the reissue was released in both CD and digital download format.

• Why is "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" listed as a single from Dangerous Woman? Isn't it a buzz track?

• See Billboard

• Ref 27 claims that Yours Truly was released on 1 January 2013
• I would suggest to archive the links of the release dates of the albums

•  Done

• Ref 9 does not claim that "Problem" peaked at number 2 on the Hot 100

•  Done Revised.

@U990467: These are my comments. Once they are addressed, I'm going to support this. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.--U990467 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added yet the reference regarding "Put Your Hearts Up" release. Besides that, everything seems fine, so I'm gonna support this nomination. If possible, could you look at my FLC? Regards and have a nice day. Paparazzzi (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting. --U990467 (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

A few points to fix before this can be promoted:

• Please explain how zobbel.de is a reliable source; it appears to be a single person's personal website with a text database of UK chart listings.

• Since the site has not been listed in WP: BAD CHARTS and is also used in other FLs like Lady Gaga discography and Madonna singles discography, I think that it's reliable (even though I'm not the one who added this source).

• Hmm, those FLs were promoted in 2009/10, and without a source review, so I'm not inclined to let that be enough to swing it. The site isn't listed one way or another on the CHARTS page, so, not really helpful. Again, this appears to be some random German website with a text dump of UK chart listings. What evidence do you have that it's an RS? Are there any other sites that other FLs use for their UK charts? --PresN 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Iggy Azalea discography, Kelly Clarkson discography and Christina Aguilera discography. --U990467 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are other lists, yep. Which means that, if you're unable to show any reason why the random person's blog is an RS, then it's going to be a fairly widespread problem. Again: What evidence do you have that it's an RS? Are there any other websites or sources that other FLs use for their UK charts that you could use instead? --PresN 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The reliability of zobbel.de has been discussed and proved on the Wikipedia talk:Record charts, and the result is reliable.--U990467 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally wouldn't characterize a discussion between two people, primarily about whether Zobbel is illegally hosting the material as having the reliability "proved". That said, the point was made that he's getting the information from UKChartsPlus... so why not just cite them? E.g. for [19], make the reference <ref>{{cite magazine |magazine=[[UKChartsPlus]] |date=September 14, 2013 |issue=629 |url=http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/130914cluk.txt}}</ref> (issue number taken from [20]). I'm much more comfortable using Zobbel's site as a "convenience link" with the actual data being sourced to the actual source. I'm a little disquieted that WP:MUSIC is apparently ok with citing random people's blogs as long as they think the information is true. --PresN 21:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done --U990467 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, the "work" should be Zobbel, not zobbel.de

•  Done

• Similarly, other "works" should be the site name, not the url- Idolator, not idolator.com, etc. There are quite a few of these. Exceptions are only where the name of the site includes the ".com"; most don't.

•  Done

• Please fix the ALLCAPS in reference titles such as "ARIA CHART WATCH #410" -> "ARIA Chart Watch #410"

•  Done

• It doesn't really matter much, but note for future reference that if you archive a url that's still live, you can add "|deadurl=no" to the reference to make the "main" link go to the live site instead of the slower archived url.

•  Done: Added some.

• Spotchecks: 6, 10, 11, 16, 42, 57, 116. 16 does not appear to contain the billboard chart positions in the sentence it covers, the others had no problems. --PresN 17:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done: Thanks for your review. --U990467 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:15, 21 August 2017 (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, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [21].[reply]

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2013 Indian Tamil spy film, Vishwaroopam starring Kamal Haasan and Pooja Kumar. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my sixth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Can't we just limit the supporting actors to three or four? There are six entries at present, and each has a citation at its back. That does look something not alright.
• Plot summary, if available, is advisable to be placed before the details about the technical crew.
• No comments on anything in the second paragraph. It is fine.
• "... Lalgudi N. Ilayaraaja and Boontawee 'Thor' Taweepasas received the award for Best Art Director" -- Why are you mentioning their full names again here?
• Refs look fine, and anyways the one doing a source review would comment on issues if any.

Well written one, on par with the standards you usually exhibit. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. Glad to support this nomination. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks, Pavan. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would include a period in the caption for the photo as it is a complete sentence/thought.
• I am uncertain about the wording of the first sentence. It makes me think that Haasan wrote and directly the film by himself, even though he wrote it with someone else. You address this in the next sentence, but it seems a little contradictory to say that he wrote the film, and in the next sentence say that he co-wrote it.
• I am confused by the placement of the references in the sentence on the supporting role. Why not just put Reference 2 at the end of the sentence, rather than repeating it for only some of the actors and breaking up the flow of the content?
• In the first two sentences of the lead's second paragraph, I would avoid repeating the name of the film twice (especially as a way to start the sentence).
• Would it be better to move the last sentence of the second paragraph to the start of the third paragraph? The second paragraph appears to focus primarily on the release and commercial performance, while the last sentence would seem better suited for the third paragraph's focus on the awards and nominations for the film.

Everything else looks good. Wonderful work with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. Great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work on the list but I think you should link Haasan in the image caption and the currency sign only once. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 and FrB.TG: Thanks guys. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Frank, I have resolved your comments BTW. Can you guys also take a look at my other FLC too (Pavanjandhyala too)? Thanks again.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "screenplay and dialogues with" by "dialogues" do you just mean "script"?

@The Rambling Man: Yes, but I am making it specific as screenplay is also part of the script. I have changed "screenplay and dialogues" to "script".  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to abbreviate to RAW when you don't use it again.
• Is caesium really spelled without an a in Indian English?
• "A bilingual, made" missing "film" after bilingual here I think.
• " was done by" reads clumsily to me.
• "film had its release on " -> "film was released on"
• "Recipients and Nominees -> nominees.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: The rest have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Although I had read the list way back in July, when Ssven2 asked me look, I was not able to put my comments. After reading this again, I think it has only got better. Sorry for the delay Buddy!Krish | Talk 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to promote- can you add on "|language=" tags to the non-English refs, like the Ananda Vikatan ones? Source review passed other than that. --PresN 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 20:08, 17 August 2017 (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, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [22].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies all of the required criterion and is well sourced and worded. Any constructive criticism and comments are highly appreciated. Thank you! Carbrera (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I guess "After singing to" should be "After signing to"? Done The word "release" appears 13 times in 15 sentences. Sometimes twice in a single sentence. This is somewhat repetitive, needs mixing up a bit. Done – Reduced to seven times. Carbrera (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply] " music video was Ivy's video to be" missing something here. Done " to the public" not sure this is strictly necessary. Done "were made available for purchase as its singles" I find this awkward reading. Done "the UK Singles Chart in the United Kingdom" I think the "UK" gives it away that it's in the United Kingdom... Done Tables need footnotes explaining the purpose of the (em?) dashes. Done Promo singles table caption needs "promotional" in there. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man – Thank you very much. Please let me know if anything else needs to be completed. Carbrera (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would rephrase "Additionally, the accompanying music video was Ivy's first video and was released in 1995." to avoid the repetition of the word "video".

Done

• I would rephrase "to record Apartment Life, their second album in October 1997." as "to record their second album Apartment Life, released in October 1997." as the current phrasing could be read as their second studio album in that specific time period.

Done

• All of the band's music appears to be available on iTunes so I believe should you add "digital download" to the first studio albums with additional references to support the new information. Same comment applies to the EP Lately.

I actually did not include "digital download" on the first two since the original release did not occur digitally, but for Realistic it did occur originally on cassette, CD, and LP... etc. I don't know if that makes sense or not. I've noticed how that's also how it's displayed on FLs like Madonna albums discography. Let me know. Carbrera (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments are addressed. I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 – I addressed your comments. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IndianBio

• I'm confused by their single releases from the lead. Lately was their first EP, but its single was not released until 1996, so singles from their first album Realistic—"Get Enough" and "Don't Believe a Word"—was released first. The problem is that the prose here gives the feeling that "I Hate December" was the first single to be released while the table shows something different. I believe a copy edit and restructuring of this portion is needed.

Done

• In 2000, Long Distance was sold in Japan --> Do we really need this info? I could have understood if it was only released in Japan, but it was released in the US also. Why don't we simplify it as "Their third album Long Distance was released in Japan in 2000, and the next year in the US".

Done – revised accordingly. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• In a joint venture between Unfiltered Records and Minty Fresh --> This is WP:OR because neither the album article nor in the lead there is a source that this was a joint venture. Multiple records can be associated with a project if the artist hsa signed to both of them, which seems the case here. Does not mean that it was a joint venture per say.

Done – removed. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• I am curious now, what is the reason that the band has signed/changed so many record labels? Their first four releases all have different labels so if we have that information it would be a good addition. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio – I addressed your first three comments in the list; thank you. Regarding your fourth one, I cannot find anything specific regarding their label switching, although I'm sure it has something to do with their lack of commercial success. They might have left Atlantic due to studio fire that occurred in 1997, but I can't say for sure and I don't think that piece of information would work well here. Thank you for the review. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Support – Looks fine to me. I'm actually a fan of your work on Gwen Stefani & Barbra Streisand related articles for quite some time now. Good luck with your upcoming projects. Damian Vo (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Didn't spot any problems with this one. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Vo, Giants2008 – Thank you both! Carbrera (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:25, 17 August 2017 (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, 18 August 2017 (UTC) [23].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a big one. But if this passes you will have been a reviewer for the first ever featured glossary. I hope any reviewer enjoys the read. Take it on if want to learn what a cloacal kiss is and the related answer to the age old question: "do birds have penises?"; that pigeons blink but most other birds don't; that a bird's rump can be called a pope's nose and lots of other information you will be able to use every day in casual conversation and to lord over your bird-ignorant friends. I can't even estimate the time I have into this but well north of a hundred hours. Writing it – doing the research to do so – was like completing a college major. I wrote it with featured status in mind and was endeavoring for perfect sourcing for everything. There's a great deal of integration and cross-referencing between definitions. By the very nature of a glossary, comprehensiveness has to be viewed a bit differently than for a "regular" list article. It is impossible to cover every potential term because there are literally thousands. That being said, I've attempted to cover everything that should be covered, and I've included definitions for all the terms people suggested or thought should be included when discussed at Wikiproject:Birds. The criteria are in the lead and expanded by discussion at the talk page. As to the lead, it may be seen as a bit short. I have brainstormed a bit to try to think of what else I could include there (I also asked the question on the talk page) but have rejected everything I thought of as really asides. It's a glossary. The terms and their definitions are the content and the normal function of a lead to provide a canonical summary is a mismatch. But if anyone has a suggestion I'm all ears. All of the images are from the Commons (so no fair use review is needed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

characterized by feathers and the ability to fly, but not all can fly. To me, "characterized by" suggests that it is a universal. Even if I am wrong, this impression may be shared by many. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Peter. Does this edit adequately address the issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well enough for me, though I have added a comma to reduce a possible ambiguity, and corrected spelling • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead serves an acceptable and appropriate alternative function for a glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ToC after the lead has no numbers, which is appropriate, as there are no number entries, but all the other ToCs have a number section. Is it reasonably practicable to standardise this?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this. All fixed and neater because of it. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beak: Would "snout" not be a better analogy than "nose"? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. A snout is a wholesale elongation of the bone structure of the face itself, where both beaks and noses are autonomous projections from the surface of the face. To think of it in the reverse, a big human's nose is often called [analogized to] a beak; it is rarely if ever called a snout because it's just not a neat fit with one, grossly anatomically speaking).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, no nose includes a lower jaw, which is as far as I can see, a part of a beak. Or am I missing something? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course we're not talking apples to apples. But snout does not work and would sound very odd, and nose doesn't, not only for the much closer anatomical fit (again grossly anatomically speaking) but because of the language use I also mentioned, that we often analogize this in the reverse (for human noses).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch: Awkward first sentence. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and restated. I think all that was needed was removal of the trailing "in a nest", which is quite tacit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crissum: The feathered area between the vent and the tail a/k/a the collective name for the undertail coverts. seems a bit redundant • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the sentence is topography location information. The second part if the sentence is the type and name of the feathers found on that identified external part of the body, which only an ornithologist or a preternaturally observant reader with eidetic memory from reading another entry would know solely by reading the first part of the entry. In other words, I don't think there's any redundancy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"also known as the undertail coverts". or

"the collective name for the undertail coverts", are both clear and read well. Both refer unambiguously to the undertail coverts.

"also known as the collective name for the undertail coverts" diverts attention from the feathers to the name. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were talking past each other. Breaking it into two sentences with "also" is fine, and done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cryptic plumage: such as male birds in colourful nuptial plumage for sexual display, making them stand out as much as possible. Is this what the source actually states? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Access to this part of the book is now restricted. I have swapped it out for a different source and tweaked it to match this source's focus on such plumage making the bird quite conspicuous rather than "as much as possible".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As much as possible is somewhat teleological. Better avoided. Current wording is much better. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, this drives me to distraction when I watch many nature documentaries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

diastataxis: The explanation is duplicated under "secondaries", but the bit about "twisting of the feather papillae during embryonic development" does not clarify it for me in either case. Possibly I am lacking in some essential background knowledge, but I would guess this will be the case for a large proportion of readers. Is it possible to briefly explain how the putative twisting could have this effect? Alternatively, does that part of the text actually explain anything to anyone? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see edits and edit summaries here and here--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dietary classification terms (-vores): Is food storage a feeding tactic or strategy? I am unsure, so leave it as a question in case someone has the answer.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any distinction in use, and found multiple interchangeable uses (as was my use). They are synonyms (as are broadly the plain words tactic and strategy). See e.g. here (the headline might make you think two things are going to be defined, but no, the headline is used to define the same thing by both words). Here they are being used interchangeably; so too here (PDF), in an article on birds titled "resource use strategies of wading birds", where both are used multiple times without distinction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy, as I understand it, is the bigger picture, while tactics are more detailed, localised, and immediate. As in strategy being the plans for a war, and tactics the plans for a battle. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it has such nuance when in the context of war tactics/war strategies, but I don’t think there’s any ambiguity in this biological context, where my research indicates interchangeable use is correct, and not uncommon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

egg: Same point about distribution of references. Currently all at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

filoplume: description would be greatly improved by an image if possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember looking for one, and rejecting all (free ones) I found as rather useless, but I'll look again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've uploaded and added: to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flange: The explanation unfortunately leaves me without a mental picture. An actual picture would be ideal, failing which, a bit more explanation. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The interlocking of feathers diagram associated with the entry for barbules should help (see figures 3 and 6). I've simply referred to it in a parenthetical for the flange entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what is referred to as "folded edge" in fig. 3? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I have tweaked the parenthetical to clarify this, here.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flanks: The explanation contradicts what I understand as flanks in other animals, being the posterior part of the sides, and not of the underparts.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across a source that actually talked about the idiosyncratic use of "flank" in birds as compared with other animals. I'll see if I can locate and cite (maybe as a parenthetical).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Glossary of bird terms#cite note-200--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gular region: The definition refers to :"the angles of the jaw" which are undefined. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I think it's fairly straightforward. The angles of the jaw are where the back of the jaw protrudes under the skin (on you that would be just below and sightly forward of your earlobes). On the other, despite this, I used a quote because when I'm not 100% certain, I can't paraphrase properly. Plenty of anatomy and medical books use the term, but none I found define it; all seem to assume it's obvious and tacit. I have looked and not found any source defining it further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add it without sourcing? Maybe do, in parentheses, the definition you just gave? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be original research? I know, we don't need to cite the sky is blue, but here I would be making an educated guess rather than observing the sky's color. Maybe I can post to the reference desk to see if some doctor can find a definition somewhere. It doesn't necessarily need to be bird related. It's an expression that would seemingly be true of any creature with a jaw.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Angle of the mandible linked to phrase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lores: For consistency should this not be singular? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did this one earlier. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

migration: Multiple references clustered at the end. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have added a new entry here (moult strategy), so it might need to be reviewed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: Excellent entry. I made a structural change for clarity and flow that removed some repetition, without any change to the information content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nail: Would be improved by an image if available. There should be something suitable in one of these images at Commons which can be cropped for the purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I've cropped and used this image for the definition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pileum: Why the specific reference to the Manual of Ornithology? is the term not used elsewhere? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in-text attribution for a direct quote. See also the edit summary that accompanied it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pin feather: Explanation of the growth process is somewhat confusing. I don't follow the bit about lengthening helically. Is there some helical structure on a mature feather that I haven't noticed, or does it straighten out later or what? What happens to the growth plates? The barb plate is mentioned without explanation of origin. I guess that this is the central structure of a barb, and that there are lots of them - 1 per barb, and that each one differentiates into hooklets and cilia, but then where is the rest of the barb? What are the marginal and axial plates? where did they come from? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

prebasic moult: Description is OK until postjuvenal moult is mentioned, then I get confused. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you have to understand a number of concepts to understand the definition, I've read it a number of times, and I think it's rather clear. Can you read it again, and see whether you can describe further what you find confusing? In Humphrey-Parkes the moults after the breeding season have just one name, numbered 1, 2, 3... In traditional, the first subsequent moult has a particular name, and all subsequent to that one have another name, numbered 1, 2, 3...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

precocial: " but still able to move" implies that others are not able to move? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artifact of a dispute over the language to use in the definition (on the talk page), and it now has a Frankenstein's monster compromise to it. I will tweak.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the altricial and precocial definitions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

primaries: "friction barbules", and "lobular barbicels" are not defined or explained anywhere. The glossary seems a good place to do this. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See entry for friction barbules. ("Lobular barbicels" is not a stand-alone term but just a description for lobe-shaped barbicels that friction barbules host.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pterylae: Singular: pterlya. Is this a typo? I would expect pteryla following standard Latin. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reversing something here? An "a" ending for the singular and an "ae" for the plural is standard Latin. Alga/algae, antenna/antennae, etc., and I know that you already know this because your use below shows you do—so yes, the singular of pterylae is pteryla, as this definition states. See further here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I was asking. I think pterlya (sic) is a typo of pteryla. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pterylosis: Spelling: "pterylya and apterylae". Is this also a typo? also appears to be suggesting singular pteryla(?) and plural apterylae, but the associated image seems to show more than one of each. Consider alternative "pterylae and apterylae". • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a typo. I've added the "e".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the extra "y" that bothered me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

secondaries: Quill knobs is not adequately explained by the link used. If there is no better link for the term it may be appropriate to define it in the glossary. It may not be necessary to do more than add an anchor and a note that it is defined here in one of the other definitions already in the glossary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I grok you here. If all you mean is that links should serve the function of directing readers to a page that has more information (or why else link), and since you're right that the pennaceous feather article, where the links redirects, says little more about them, I agree and have simply removed the link. But you also imply that the term is not adequately explained in this entry for secondaries. Since it already says "...the ligaments that bind secondaries to the bone connect to small, rounded projections that are called quill knobs", I think you must think there's something more to them than that. AFAIK there isn't—that is an adequate definition for quill knobs, à la: "bumps on wing bones where feathers anchor" (source).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vaned feather: They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, and the flight feathers. If the main article on pennaceous feather is correct then flight feathers are pennaceous feathers, so it should read: "They include the pennaceous feathers a/k/a contour feathers, which include the flight feathers". • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. And actually it flags a deeper problem with the definition in that all pennaceous feathers are vaned feather and only pennaceous feathers are vaned feathers, but they are not used as direct synonym. "Vaned feathers" describes a specific property of pennaceous feathers. I have tweaked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to the etymology of pennaceous. This has a clear definition, which implies that vanes are what makes a feather pennaceous. This has a nice diagram showing not only the pennaceous and plumulaceous parts of a feather, but also the mechanism by which the hooked barbules interlock with the adjacent grooved barbules to support the vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wing coverts: It is not clear what "inner" and "outer" are relative to in this definition. It is suggested that bow coverts will be defined, but they are not. Why are they in single square brackets? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bow coverts are another name for lesser coverts. Thus, "[bow coverts]" was intended to indicate this for what it immediately proceeded, and I thought it would make it more clear to use brackets given the multiple uses of parentheses already in the preceding text (as an extension of the common convention to use brackets for nesting a parenthetical within another that already makes use of parentheses [like this]). Obviously it did not make it more clear for you. I have tweaked. As to inner wing and outer wing, as you can see from those links' existence, I have added a definition in the glossary for them (in a single entry), and have linked each of their uses in the definition for wing coverts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wings: i) Each wing has a central vane to hit the wind, is a strange way to express it. Both "vane" and "hit the wind" do not feel like natural use of descriptive English for this application. So much so that I am at a loss to suggest an improvement. I am familiar with basic aerodynamics, but do not understand what this is supposed to communicate.
ii)soaring wings with deep slots—favoured by larger species of inland birds - "favoured" is a bit teleological. Can we find something that suggests that it is an adaptational advantage for the flight patterns which suit these birds' ways of life?
iii) by "capturing" the energy in air flowing from the lower to upper wing surface at the tips, does not actually explain anything, and could be left out without reducing real information value. If I remember correctly, wingtip vortices are the mechanism of induced drag, so reduce the induced drag and wingtip vortices might be better expressed as "reduce the induced drag of (or caused by) wingtip vortices". • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. All of them were easily removed with no loss of meaning I could see, which tells you they were fluff. I've simply replaced "favoured with "common in".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

• Status comment: @Pbsouthwood: I'm not quite done addressing everything above, I will get to it in the next few days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be getting there. No rush, but let me know when you are done with this round. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a problem with the use of "vane" for the skeletal structure of a wing. The bones do not comprise a vane by any definition I have been able to find. A vane is a relatively thin, flat or smoothly curved structure, usually stiff enough to hold a working shape under normal load. The whole wing, or the feathers in place on the wing, could be described as a vane, but the bones support the vane, without the feathers there is no vane. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to “axis”, which better captures the actual structure of the bones, rather than the surface they support, and avoids any conflation with the use of vanes in the ornithology context to refer to the vaxillum.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I believe I've addressed everything above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Will look at it tomorrow. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of FL criteria

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Complies.
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Complies.
3. Comprehensiveness.
   • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
   I think it is sufficient.
   • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
   As far as I can tell, complies.
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Complies.
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
   Looks good to me, but I am not an expert.
   • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
   Complies.
   • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly
   Looks OK to me but I am not expert.
6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Complies.

Support. Looks good to me. I am sure I have missed something but it gets my support. I have considered mainly whether the information provided makes sense to a person with reasonable biology background, but no specialised knowledge of birds. Language seems grammatical, correctly spelled, unambiguous, appropriate and logical. The references I checked were good and no copyright issues noticed, but I only checked those that are on-line, and possibly not all of them. Images appropriate and useful, but did not check for copyright issues other than that they seem to be appropriately licensed on Commons. I cannot speak for completeness, but have no objections. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to give many comments, but here goes.

• The last part of cloaca should be sourced. Even if it is sourced somewhere else, nobody will take the time to search for it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking RileyBugz. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of crest feathers, you don't need four sources. Two should do. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. Every one of those cites verifies separate facts in the paragraph and removing any one would make part of the information unverified.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do all four sources verify parts of the last sentence? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may read into the question, it appears a prelude to asking whether I could place the sources next to each part they verify: yes I could (no they are not all needed for the last sentence), but if memory serves, the reason I did this was because it was quite a blend and I would actually need to cite a few of the four multiple times if I took that path. In other words, were I to do so, the four cites would become six footnotes or more in the paragraph. I believe it is fairly standard (even for featured content) to cite at the end of a paragraph where there is no direct quote or controversial material that is likely to be challenged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be much better if it were a blend. It allows readers (and editors, for that matter) to easily find, in a reliable source, what they want to know. It makes it much more annoying when you have to look through four sources. Also, for my featured content, you rarely see one citation next to another. And in all of the featured content that I have reviewed, everything is sourced in the "blended" way. Overall, the blended way is much better and the norm, at least as I see it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I am a strong proponent of enforcing verifiability (with sharpened fangs, not in the milquetoast manner we have and currently allow, which is one of the chief reasons we now face a near bottomless pit of unsourced content), so, while there are multiple FACs where this has been discussed and found to be fine, anything that calls for more transparent verifiability goes with the grain for me and feels hypocritical for me to push back on. I will fold the cites into the paragraph (though probably not today).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You understand my intention correctly. I am not fanatical about this, but I do think it is better over the long term to be as specific as reasonably practicable. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In sternum, why does ii precede i? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a typo. Fixing it now, thanks for noticing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No real issues. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this must have been a huge endeavour. Still, I can see how useful this could be for bird articles, and this list looks excellent on first glance, so well done for the great work. I've made a few small edits (mostly just things like punctuation); I have one question, and will have a closer look at this soon.

• In the Contents (not the one at the top, but the rest), why are J and Y clicakble even though there are no entries for it? This is inconsistent with X, which is not clicakble. Also, the first Contents section has links to the Footnotes and Bibliography, whereas the others don't. Would it be possible to just use the version of the Contents found at the top of the page throughout the article (though the link to the top of the page should definitely be retained)? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking N Oneemuss and for the copyedit. This was my lack of familiarity with this less common TOC scheme. I didn't want to use the same one from the lead because it contains that extra line at the top, and doesn't have a link to "Top", However, I studied the template documentation and figured out how to do it. A decided improvement. Thanks for the suggestion!-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been making suggestions to this one for a while now, all of which have been included. It's got just about everything I can think of now! An enormous effort, resulting in a very useful glossary; this should certainly prove useful to anyone reading our various bird articles (and wondering where the mantle, or lores, or supercilium are, for example). Clearly organized, with links to the main articles that provide more in-depth information. Judicious use of images. MeegsC (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if Pbsouthwood can parse through this whole list and still pick out problems, then I can parse through the 400+ references...

• Fixed a few minor errors
• Also converted all ISBN10s to ISBN13s
• Also fixed a bunch of instances where you used the Citation template instead of your more commonly-used Cite X template
• ref 127 ("Mysteries of pigeon milk explained") isn't filled out, and also has the wrong date style (everywhere else is is D-M-Y)
• Well, not everywhere- ones useing M-D-Y: 2, 176, 216, 242, 243, 270, 280, 288, 289, 329, 396, 403. If you wanted M-D-Y, then... there's a bunch of others that are in that format instead
• And 345, 346 have yyyy-mm-dd
• I think in ref 184 (Turkeys: Behavior, Management and Well-Being) you're mis-citing it; it's throwing an error about invalid language code (you need a script to see the error). I believe it's because you're using the "|in" parameter, though I may be wrong- regardless, you're citing the work as if "Turkeys: Behavior, Management and Well-Being" was the book title, but unless I'm mistaken that's actually the chapter title, and the book title is "The Encyclopaedia of Animal Science". An easy switch- move the book title to "|title", and the chapter title to "|chapter".
• ref 404 you just cite the whole book, no page number. Can you add one? --PresN 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PresN. Thanks for looking! I have addressed everything above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good! Lets get this massive list promoted! --PresN 20:05, 17 August 2017 (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.