Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:30:39 29 August 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Welsh national side related list for me, inline with the numerous other international top goalscorer lists that have been promoted recently. I believe this meets the same standards that the rest have achieved. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "scoring a hat-trick in a against China" - spot the missing word ;-) - Woops, done
• "every FIFA World Cup and European Championship they've entered" - don't use contractions
• In fact are the words "they've entered" even needed? It's not like there have been World Cups/Euros which Wales haven't entered..... -Removed
• "The side reached the semi-finals" - could be made slightly clearer which tournament this actually refers to - reworded
• "He has scored more times in qualifying matches than in any other type with 20 goals. His other goals include three in friendly matches, three in the China Cup and two in the UEFA Nations League" - might be worth mentioning the three goals at Euro 2016 again, because my first thought on reading this bit was "hang on, that doesn't add up to 31??" - Added the extra goals
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've fixed all of the above issues. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KingSkyLord

Hey @Kosack, I noticed that you reverted my good faith edits from yesterday, and I honestly think that that was not a great idea. There are a lot of apparent flaws with the prose that should be fixed.

Hi KingSkyLord, I reverted your additions as there were some questionable terms introduced, such as "since Robert Earnshaw put three past Scotland" and "helping Cymru successfully qualify". I did reintroduce some of your additions immediately after. Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The goal was his seventh during the qualifying campaign." → "The" should be changed to "That" OR that sentence should be combined with the first one OR removed entirely. Scoring 7 goals in 10 games is impressive, but that would only place him joint-sixth (in qualification statistics) with four other players.

I don't particularly agree with some of one but I've expanded the sentence slightly to add more relevance. Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the tournament, Bale scored in all three of Wales' group matches, victories over Slovakia and Russia and a defeat to England, as Wales reached the semi-finals." → Yikes, this sentence is bad and should be rewritten to "At the tournament, Bale scored against all three group stage opponents: Slovakia, England, and Russia, as he helped Wales reach the semi-finals."

Again, I'm not convinced your alternative is an improvement but I've reworded slightly, hopefully as a compromise. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bale started the match on 26 goals, having not scored an international goal for nearly two years,[7] two short of Ian Rush' s record tally." →
  • First off, references should not be placed mid-sentence. It should be placed at the end of the sentence.

The ref is not mid sentence, it's after punctuation which I believe is perfectly acceptable. Kosack (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Second off, that sentence is also really awkward and sounds weird. I would much prefer if it were rewritten as: "Entering the match he had not scored an international goal in 18 months, having only scored 26 international goals since 2006; leaving him two goals short of Ian Rush's record tally."

I don't believe "having only scored 26 international goals since 2006" is suitable. Sounds almost like you're saying his 26 was a poor record. Reworded slightly Kosack (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "to equal Rush's record before overtaking" → Comma after "record" - Done
• As a result of his hat-trick, he has scored more times against China than any other opponent with three goals. → This is wrong. He has also scored three goals against Andorra. So, the sentence should be removed entirely. I would say to correct it and add Andorra as well as China, but that has no relevance with the previous sentence. If you are going to keep that sentence, it would be better to add that to the third paragraph rather than the second, since the third paragraph talks about his general statistics and the second talks about his Euro 2016 run and goal progression. -Done
• "the finals of one tournament, Euro 2016" → Comma should be changed to Colon - Done
  • Honestly, those are my only problems with the prose. If you can fix that, I will support this list's promotion. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 01:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KingSkyLord: Thanks for the review, I've fixed most of the issues listed above and made alternative changes to some of the proposed fixes as noted above. Kosack (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kosack: Eh, good enough for me. I support this list's promotion featured status. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 00:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SounderBruce

Just a quick look, mainly focusing on sourcing.

• Citations 7 and 34 point to the same match on Soccerway, but with different links.
• Links to some of the sources would be appreciated (e.g. RSSSF).
• Is "South Wales Argus" supposed to be an italicized publication or just a publisher?
• Last sentence in the first paragraph could use an inline citation.
• The date that Bale surpassed the Welsh record is worth listing; also, "2018" can be omitted from China Cup.

Looks good aside from those minor details. SounderBruce 21:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the review, I've addressed the issues you listed above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Support and good luck. SounderBruce 16:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Refs 8, 18, and 26 are lacking access dates. That's the only issue I found while reading through the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks, fixed those refs now. Kosack (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:34:41 27 August 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): NicklausAU 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive and thorough list that I have put an incredibly large amount of time into. I believe I have increased the standards considerably to the point where it may be considered for featured list status. I'm eager for feedback and am more then willing to address any areas that need work. Thank you for your consideration. NicklausAU 06:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments I have been made aware of that were given to previous FL nominations for awards lists, I have proactively begun reformatting this article into a singular table. This reformat is available here and will likely take a couple of days. Comments otherwise are very much appreciated until this reformat is completed. NicklausAU 11:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reformatting of multiple table into a single table, requested of previous FL nominations, has been completed. I look forward to receiving feedback regarding this nomination. NicklausAU 00:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General observations

Many refs were missing info for 'last' and 'first' even though the reporter/writer names were located in the articles, others had the wrong name in the wrong parameter.

Consistency was the biggest issue, from the choice and order of parameters in references to the data entered in them, eg. 'language' varied with 'ko/Ko/ko-KR/Korean', 'work' versus 'website', 'language' being included in Eng refs (only needed for non-eng ones, I've made this mistake before myself simply because I followed what I'd seen other editors do). I looked for the earliest citations in the table and tried to use thier format as the pattern for the rest of the article, the only variations being where certain parameters aren't applicable.

Completed up to Melon awards in main table, V-Y awards done, Other Accolades section fully completed. Will continue tomorrow. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished my review last night. Cleanup is done, ref formatting corrected+made uniform, filled in missing info/parameters, replaced some urls+their respective archives+tagged for replacement cite needed where I couldn't get one. From the article's talk page you'll seem an admin gave me some advice but I need to be on desktop to implement it. Other than that, @NicklausAU: all that's left is for you to address my comments above. Once that's done I can support. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the article :) I believe all of the above comments are now completed! NicklausAU 01:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support!!! - with the application of that date template I am all done. Sorry again that it took so long NicklausAU, my brain is really picky about details T_T -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, NicklausAU. Support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KingSkyLord

• I have read the introduction and looked throughout the list for any major or insignificant mistakes, and I really couldn't find any! So, I support this article's promotion to a featured list. KingSkyLord (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support :) NicklausAU 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made a small sorting fix, but source review passed and promoting. --PresN 18:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:34:45 27 August 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it matches the Featured List nomination criteria as well as fits with other similar articles on club seasons. —Chrisportelli (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• The lead image's caption isn't a complete sentence, so it needs no period.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It does need alt text.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The club's fortunes quickly turned in the early 2000s as they entered administration in the wake of the 2001–02 season." - This hardly seems like a quick change (going from a successful 1955–56 season to the misfortunes of 2001–02. Perhaps it would be helpful to add prose covering each promotion and relegation (only some are currently covered) as well as a general overview of successful & less successful periods in the club's history.

 Reworded the introduction to include more details —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that the count of seasons played in each Serie is correct (or maybe it is). It says 6 seasons were played in Serie B, but I count 5, unless the 1945–46 Serie A-B season is counted. If is counted as a Serie B season, shouldn't it also be counted as a Serie A season? Maybe it's the "or equivalent" part at the end of the sentence. If this is the case, it would probably be best to indicate in parenthesis which former classifications are counted toward each current classification.

 The Serie A-B was the highest level of league football in Italy, equivalent to today's Serie A, so the count has ben added for Serie A —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Several top scorers are still in need of {{sortname}}.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any links to players on Italian Wikipeida will need to be formatted such as this: {{sort|Casarsa, Gianfranco|[[:it:Gianfranco Casarsa|Gianfranco Casarsa]]}} in order to sort by last names.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the three instances of shared capocannoniere awards, it might be interesting to know what club the co-winner played for.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a problem with the ISBN on reference 6.

 Not sure if correct ISBN, as the one used is provided by FIGC —Chrisportelli (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - My concerns have been met. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude

• • "After a 55-year spell in the top division, Fiorentina was relegated to Serie B" - you still need to say when this actually was. Readers shouldn't have to look back to an earlier paragraph and then do mentally arithmetic to work out when "55 years later" was

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • "saw him finish as the club top-scorer" => "saw him finish as the club's top scorer"

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • " the fourth-level" => " the fourth level"

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Records of competitions such as Mitropa Cup and the Anglo-Italian League Cup are not included." - except they now are :-)

 :) —Chrisportelli (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, owner family, the Della Valle family," - this is still not correct English grammar. It should be "With Serie B set for an expansion to 24 clubs for 2003–04, the club's owners, the Della Valle family," (as I believe I said above, in fact)

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Think that's it - we're nearly there now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think that List is well-reasonably good enough to be a Featured List KingSkyLord (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the 1955–56 season" season should be within the pipe. Many examples of this.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Real Madrid is piped to a redirect.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "(lost 2–0 to ..." losing ... Plus link to the article about the final. Or if not, the specific Champions League (like you do to the Coppa Italia articles linked in the lead).

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Their second league title" Reiterate Fiorentina here, the last club you mention is Rangers.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " near relegation finishes" near-relegation should be hyphenated in this context.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "third Serie A title in the 1981–82 season, however they lost the title " repetitive use of title, needs reworking.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " losing again to Juventus 3–1 on aggregate" they didn't lose 3-1 on aggregate last time.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fiorentina was relegated" previously you've referred to Fiorentina in the plural.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Supercoppa Italiana" specific year article should be linked.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "played 82 seasons in Serie A, seven in Serie B and one season in Serie D " MOS:NUM cats and dogs (82/7/1) or (eighty-two/seven/one).

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would much rather see the use of the {{ill}} template for those articles which only exist at Italian Wikipedia. That way it encourages someone to create the articles rather than just rely on it.wiki.

 Done —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some top scorers in bold?

Top scorers in bold are those who were also top scorers within Fiorentina's league division that season. This has been added as a note in the introduction. —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisportelli: Are you still working on this? --PresN 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Apologies, wasn't keeping track of the article. I have completed the necessary changes as suggested —Chrisportelli (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; not yet promoting due to one issue: you're using bolding to denote information, but that's not enough per WP:ACCESS as it's invisible to people with poor eyesight or an audio-based browser. You'll need to denote that with an additional sign, like is done for the color coded cells (i.e. put a {{dagger}} or * or something in the cell). --PresN 01:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a dagger symbol next to the top-scorers so it should be easier to notice. —Chrisportelli (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:11:10 25 August 2019 (UTC) [4].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if people but are getting bored of these lists by now, but here's #31 in my run of "US country number ones by year" to be brought to FLC. All comments as ever welcome....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the Reba image in the lead, I would use a period for the image caption as it is a full sentence.
• For this sentence ( In the fall, Conway Twitty achieved his fortieth and final Hot Country number one with "Desperado Love"), I would say "40th" instead of "fortieth" as elsewhere in the lead, larger numbers are represented in numerals rather than words, and it would be more consistent to change it here.
• For this part (Upon its initial release the song had), there should be a comma after "release".
• For this part (At the time he held the record for the highest number of chart-toppers by a single artist), there should be a comma after "time".

Great work with the list as always. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That was very quick! Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Looks like you are going to get all the Hot Country Singles numbers one to FL status soon lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno, it's been going for an awfully long time ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't see any issue with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Great list like always. I've a couple of minor comments: I think using {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} will be better than just Ref. Also, shouldn't the alt text be something more than just "A middle aged woman...."? WP:ALT specifically states this in "Importance of context" section.

  Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"

  They are famous people, it should be "<name of person> doing <thing>" or "<person> holding <thing>" or something like that. Also, if you reply, please ping me. TryKid (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: - all done. It's years since I looked at the alt text guidelines, they must have changed. I'm sure back in the say it used to say that you should simply describe the visual content of the image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great list. TryKid (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. – zmbro _(talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All looks good. But maybe consider: the second sentence in the opening paragraph is quite long and adds more after a semicolon. Splitting it may improve readability (personal preference, up to you). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources is up to the standards established by the other lists in this series, and there are no dead links. Everything looks up to FL standards in the sourcing once again. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 02:00:55 22 August 2019 (UTC) [5].

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nashville Sounds minor league baseball team was known in its early years for its ownership by several country musicians. This list is the final piece needed before an attempt at a team featured topic. It follows the same style and formatting in use in other team featured lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the table, I think the asterisks to indicate new owners should come before the commas, not after. Putting them after the commas almost makes it look like the asterisk relates to the next person's name.
• As the key only relates to the first table, put it just above it, within the "owners" section
• "along with help from" - don't think the word "along" is needed here
• "Richard Sterban of The Oak Ridge Boys" - maybe clarify here that the Oak Ridge Boys are a country music group
• Think that's all from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Numbers 0–9 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS (in owners section)
• Lowercase "the" on "the Oak Ridge Boys" mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC

Great job on this. Should be FL in no time. – zmbro _(talk) 03:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 23:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – About the only thing I can nit-pick is that Schmittou's first name probably doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Otherwise, the list looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources, and the links are all in working order. My only (minor) complaint is a formatting one I should have caught while looking at the article before: the second book reference should have the same 13-digit ISBN formatting as the other one. There are converters available online that can convert the numbers for you, if needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say the source review has been passed, in that case. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! Nice use of thematic colors in the table headers, by the way. --PresN 02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 02:00:53 22 August 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second FLC nomination, my first, Districts of Bhutan, is at four supports and a source review support. I've made some changes to this list, to be more in line with List of chief ministers of Karnataka, a featured list. I think it meets the criteria. TryKid (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• Your link to bifurcated is an WP:EASTEREGG. Not sure if this is the best word anyway.
• In 2018 the current incumbent... 2018 is not current.
• No need for sub-sub headings. One subheading for notes and one for references should be enough. Mattximus (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, I've tried to solve the first two issues, let me know what you think about it. I think the sub headings are simply stylistic choice, it's not needed, but looks good, especially on mobile phones, at least to me. If it is causing any problems, let me know. TryKid (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"bifurcated" can be replaced with "carved out of", if you think that is better.... Thanks for the quick review though. TryKid (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks a bit better. But I'm sure someone can suggest something better. TryKid (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a more encyclopedic word for the creation of the state, it is "partitioned", which is much better than "carved out of". Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: When I hear the word "partition", it reminds me of India-Pakistan partition, and that wasn't very pleasant. I don't think partition is the right word. I've read a lot of news reports about the creation of states (Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttranchal, etc), none of them use "partition". See this report from The Hindu. The Hindu is very reputable source and it uses "carved out of", "bifurcation" and "separate"; never "partition". I don't think the word "partition" should be used out of the context of Pakistan or sometimes the state of Bengal (in British Raj). Regards, TryKid (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about split from? "Carved out of" is not encyclopedic and needs to be replaced. Mattximus (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, That's better I think, done. Thank you. TryKid (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, If you have time, you can check out the list again. I've made some minor changes and hopefully you'll like the new wording. TryKid (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, just a few little things.

• The wording is a bit strange. Maybe this is a bit better?

"The first chief minister was Ajit Jogi of the Indian National Congress. He was succeeded in 2003 by Raman Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party who served three consecutive five-year terms. His successor, and current incumbent, is the Indian National Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel who was elected chief minister in 2018."

Or something like that? Just to make it a bit easier to read.

• I still think you should have a subheading for notes and one for references, instead of both of those inside a third subheading (at present there are too many subheadings, and such a small article does not need sub sub headings)
• I think you should remove the external link subheading since it's just a link to some guy's personal website?

Just those three comments and the rest looks good! Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, I've solved the two comments. I've copy pasted your version with some modification: I removed the two instances "chief minister" for better flow. I've also retained the first sentence of original paragraph, since information about the birth of the state seems important. If that is not okay, you can suggest something. I really appreciate you giving some time to me. TryKid (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now, I just reworded the first sentence so it is not passive. Mattximus (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support. TryKid (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The infobox image needs an alt text.
• "Following elections to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly." The word 'Chattisgarh' is getting repetitive here. Removing it will create a better flow.

This hasn't been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Chhattisgarh is used three times in the first paragraph of the lead, one time in the second paragraph and two times in the infobox. I don't see where I can replace Chhattisgarh with something else. Maybe replace "Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh" with just "Chief Minister". But the current usage is consistent with two other featured lists — List of chief ministers of West Bengal and List of chief ministers of Karnataka. TryKid (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yashthepunisher:, forgot to ping. TryKid (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Given that he has the confidence of the assembly". --> Given that they have the confidence of the assembly. It should be gender neutral.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yashthepunisher:, I've added alt text. I've replaced the lead with lead of List of chief ministers of West Bengal, I hope that's better. Thanks. TryKid (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fixed the above issue myself. Rest looks fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Regarding note b, is it common in Indian English for the hyphen to be in "MLA's"? I'm not sure it would be in U.S. English, but if it is used there that would be fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that was a mistake! Thank you very much for pointing it out. TryKid (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The only issue I saw has been fixed. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the support. TryKid (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (with only the most minor of change); promoting. --PresN 02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 02:00:51 22 August 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've not done one before and would be interested to know if this comes anywhere near reaching the criteria. This list combines two of my main interests, architecture and Monmouthshire, and I've been adding to this, and to its Grade II* companion piece, for quite a while. My aim for the II* list is to have an article, and an image, for every entry. Having got there for Grade I, I'm keen to see what else it needs for FL status. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have just had a thought. Although I’m the main editor by number of edits, I’m not by added text. That honour belongs to User:KTC who created the table. Should I consult with them before nominating? KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude - Really helpful. I shall amend as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think my only comment now would be that you have note (1) and note (a), which looks odd...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude - It does indeed! The issue is that Note 1 is embedded in the template and I just need to work out how to match Note a to it, so that it becomes Note 2. Shall get on to it asap. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I can't work it out quickly, so have moved the content to the main text as a temporary fix. Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. And thanks for your interest and encouragement. KJP1 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a number of Harv errors in the references and sources. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script which flags these errors.

To do - need to run this.

• "the authority for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sits with Cadw." "sits with" sounds odd to me. How about "lies with"?

Done.

• "There are 53 Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire.[7] The buildings include twenty-six churches, including a priory and an abbey, eight castles, seven houses, two bridges, a barn, a cross, a farm, a folly, a gatehouse, an hotel, a municipal building, a stables, and two elements of town walls." 1. I do not think you need to repeat "buildings" 2. As you list all the types, "consists of" would be more correct than "include". 3. As priories and abbeys are establishments including a church and other buildings, I do not think it is right to say "churches, including a priory and an abbey". How about "They consist of twenty-four churches, an abbey, a priory,..."

Done, as per suggestions.

• "The county has a "fine collection" of castles, mostly dating from the Norman invasion of Wales,[8] with Chepstow "the glory of medieval south Wales"" These and other POV comments should be cited inline to named authors.

Done, to Simon Jenkins.

• What is a "rood arrangement"?

Have bluelinked which I hope will help.

• "One of the county's two Grade I listed abbeys" You say above that there is only one abbey.

Done - mixing up my abbey (Tintern) with my priory (Llanthony).

• "hung, drawn and quartered, the last such sentences to be passed in Britain." I think you should say that the sentences were not carried out.

Done, by way of a footnote.

• I think a column for the completion date would be of more interest to readers than the date listed, as in the FL Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor.

Not sure about this. They'd be pretty vague, e.g. Sedgemoor has a lot of "X century". On top of that, I'm afraid I lack the skill to amend the template.

• Knowing whether a building is twelfth century or sixteenth century is of great interest whereas whether it was listed in 1952 or 1964 is of little or none. The only change which would be needed to the template is to alter the heading which I can easily do. However, it is not a deal breaker if you prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that I was wrong to say that it is easy to change the template as it is a strange and inflexible one which I am unfamiliar with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent whether the first word of notes on each site is capitalised.

Done.

• A first rate list, especially as it has photos of every building. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your interest, excellent suggestions and kind comments. Have taken all on board except where noted. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A splendid effort. Leaning heavily to support, but a couple of points first.

I did some minor tidying up of the sources as a couple of errors (this lot here), so please check I've not erred with the corrections. There is still a problem I cannot sort: FN15 has Hando 1951; FN16 has Hando 1961 and the sources list Hando, Fred (1944), so pick a number, any number! (or is there a missing source?) The second point is that I wonder if there a reason you give English locations for sources as "Woonton Almeley, Herefordshire" and the Welsh equivalents as "Monmouth, Monmouthshire"? I'd pick one format and stick with it (London, England and Cardiff, Wales or just London and Cardiff). That's it. Everything else looks tidy, as my old gran would never have said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Schro, excellent to see you here and many thanks for taking an interest. Been a bit busy with visitors over the weekend but I shall attend to your very helpful suggestions/corrections/queries asap. While I've got you on, I wonder if you might be able to advise on the other list I'm working on - Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire. This isn't ready for FLC yet as I'm still to write about 8 articles and I don't do the articles until I've got the photos. It's only taken about 5 years of trips to Monmouthshire, but hey ho! The problem I've got is that I've screwed up the table somewhere but I can't see where. You'll see that, at present, neither the refs. nor the sources display. But if you go back to the last version on 20 July, they're fine. I was trying to correct the CADW cites which require "access-date", whereas I'd previously not used a hyphen; the English Heritage template doesn't. But I'm blowed if I can see what I've done wrong. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note about the Grade II* list on your talk page shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Hando now sorted, and added to, and consistency achieved with the publisher Locations. Your Source amendments are spot-on. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work, and meats the FL criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to support, of course, but can I just say what a waste of a column "function" is. "Abergavenny Castle" is unlikely to be a supermarket, is it? And I would envisage that by the very name, "Church of St Bridget", the building is going to be a church, rather than, say, a nightclub. Also, the column with the listing date in it: is this article about the listing of the buildings or the buildings themselves, that just happen to be listed? If the latter, then the listing date column is, again, a waste of space. I'd rather see that column blitzed which would free up some more room for the "notes" section. And in place of either of these columns, I'd rather see the year or century that the building dates to, as at the moment I am having to click away to find out. I'm sure this is a feature on other FA lists of the same type. Cassianto^Talk 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto - Hi Cass, and thanks for taking a look. I appreciate the points, and you'll see above that Dudley Miles was similarly sceptical as to the value of the Listing date column. As to the Function column, it may be thought a bit more useful for Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, where there are lots more "farm buildings" of various types. But the central issue is that I just don't have the skills to change the table. Dudley looked at it, and found it to be a complicated one. Another issue with it can be seen at the Grade II* list, where Tryptofish has explained a problem with over-templating which I'm going to have to address - very laboriously! So, in essence, the table structure is what it is, and I don't have the ability to change it. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the eminent RexxS who usually sorts all my coding issues out. RexxS, is this a big job to do? Cassianto^Talk 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto and KJP1: The table that holds the list is implemented by means of a template that defines the columns, fontsize, etc. That has the benefit of ensuring a standard presentation across all of the articles that use the template, but has the disadvantage that changes to it will be reflected across all 40 articles that use the template. Changing the template itself is not a difficult job; the problem will be getting consensus across all 40 articles that use it. One partial solution to this would be to make the header template use a parameter that altered the display of the columns. It seems that somebody has been looking at that previously because this article has the parameter |subdivision_iso=GB-MON which currently doesn't do anything.

If you get consensus for changes, I'd be more than happy to implement them for you, so don't worry about doing laborious work – I have tools to do those jobs quickly. I would look at the over-templating for you, but I'm rather busy at Wikimania for the next few days. If you ping me next week, I'll do my best to help out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS, KJP1, I think this would be a benefit and will do away with the rather pointless columns that I mention above. Dudley Miles, would you agree with this? I would assume consensus is needed here rather than somewhere more central. Cassianto^Talk 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands I agree with deleting, although I think it could be useful with more attention. For example, Great Castle House could be classified as a museum and Mathern Palace as commercial (as Abbey Hotel is). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, RexxS, Dudley Miles - I really appreciate the interest, and for RexxS's insights and offer of help. But I am very cautious about changing the table format, given that would require changing the format of 40 other articles. As RexxS notes, this template is used by the lists of Grade I and Grade II* buildings for every other Welsh county. We would therefore first need to get consensus for the changes, and other editors would then need to put in considerable effort to amend the format/content of these tables to bring them in line with the new set-up. I am really not sure either that consensus for this would be forthcoming, or that other editors would have the time/inclination to make the necessary amendments. Although I appreciate that elements of the table, particularly the Function and Date listed columns, don't meet with universal approval, I wonder if these are deal-breakers for Featured Lists? If they aren't, perhaps we could finalise the FLC and I will start a separate discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales to see what appetite there may be for making the suggested amendments across the full set of lists? KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The online sources, being almost entirely official government sites, are clearly reliable and are consistently formatted. (Ought there to be a vertical line in citation 8, though?) The printed sources cover a wide range of dates from recent to historic, and most are clearly by established authorities and published by mainstream publishing companies. I hesitated over the three Clark books—local historians and historical societies are not automatically to be taken as RS's—but given the large number of university libraries listed by WorldCat that have thought them worth acquiring I think they pass muster. I have complained before about blue links that seem to promise readable text of a source but deliver only bibliographic details (e.g the Hando and Mitchell books) and I still find them mightily irritating, but by no means grounds for the thumbs-down in a source review. I have some other general comments, which I'll add below, separately, but so far as the source review is concerned the article is satisfactory, in my opinion. Tim riley talk 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended the error in Cite 8. I take the point re. Arthur Clark. He was not a professional historian, but rather a schoolmaster/local historian in the mode of Keith Kissack. Indeed, he was senior history master at West Monmouth School, founded by my alma mater when they were flush with cash! But I think he is sound and his work was a valuable contribution to the county history of Monmouthshire. In this, he stands with those other notable Monmouthshire authors, Kissack, Lord Raglan and Sir Joseph Bradney, rank amateurs all! KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Cassianto about the "Function" column. It does no great harm, but is a waste of space, in my view.
• The image captions seem most peculiar: why have "Upload another image" under each? I don't recall this in analogous articles I've previously reviewed. You might as well say "Add another sentence" after each paragraph in the text.

Yes, this is an issue. However, the "Upload" text is another embedded feature of the table, see centring below. With great assistance from User:Tryptofish, who worked out how to remove them, I'm in the, slow, process of taking them out of the Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire article. I shall see if I can do the same here. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And presto - carefully following Trypto's guidance, the extraneous wording is gone! KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead
• "some 60%..." – though it is not mandatory the MoS suggests words, not symbols, for percentages in the text: "some sixty per cent...". I agree (for once) with the MoS: words are easier on the reader's eye.

Done.

• "Once listed, strict limitations are imposed on the modifications" – dangling participle. This should be something like "Once a building is listed strict limitations etc"

Done.

• Bulleted list: I think the % signs and numerals look OK in a list like this, and I wouldn't particularly urge you to change them.

Many thanks.

• "an hotel" – you dear, old-fashioned thing! Do you actually omit the aspiration when you say "hotel"?

I do not! Changed.

• "focussing" – yuk! "focusing", I implore you.

Done.

• "William Wordsworth undertook the Wye Tour in 1798 ... while Walter Savage Landor sought..." – According to the WP article on Landor he didn't try to set up at Llanthony until 1811, so "while" is not the word you want. A simple "and" will do the job more accurately and get us out of "Miss X sang Mozart while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory.

Done.

• "hung, drawn and quartered" – "hanged", please.

Done. Don't remember why I did that, given that the Bluelink is Hanged.

• Main table
• General: I don't know if the MoS expresses a view on the matter, but to my eye the centred text, particularly in the Notes column, is hard on the eye. Having the text aligned left as here looks pleasanter, I think, and is easier to read.

Take the point, and don't disagree, but I've afraid the centring is embedded in the format of the table and I lack the skill to change it.

• Notes column: I can't work out why some buildings are "Situated" and others aren't. Compare Abergavenny Castle and Court Farm Barn. Neither needs a "Situated" to my mind, and similarly passim.

Done, in their entirety, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a litany of disapproval, but in fact I have much enjoyed this article, and expect to be supporting its elevation to FL in due course. Meanwhile, over to you, KJ. Tim riley talk 06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, greatly appreciate both the Source review and the very helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all, except those which relate to the formatting of the table. This is a bigger, and more complex, issue, partly because of the technical complexities, but more because the table is used in 40 other articles, namely all of those on Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Wales. Thus, any changes made to this one would also affect those, which means such changes would need to get consensus, and would involve other users doing quite a lot of work to bring the format/content in line with the new arrangement. I've discussed this further above. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say! I had no idea the table would present so many problems to authors who use it. I entirely accept the points you make about having to live with it, and my views on the formatting are not so strong as to prevent my supporting promotion of this excellent article to FL. I have refreshed my memory of the FL criteria, and this page seems to me to meet them. Tim riley talk 10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the "—" shorthand in the sources list bothers me, but I'm pretty sure it's not against any rules as that's not a dynamic list like the references, and can find nothing else to complain about, so promoting. --PresN 02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PresN - Many thanks indeed for passing this. If the "authormask" approach for single authors of multiple Sources isn't favoured, I can certainly take it out. I've used it previously in FAs, however, although I've equally seen others that list the author multiple times. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:03 18 August 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another song list. Another British artist. This time the legendary Starman himself David Bowie. After seeing that his discography and awards lists are FLs and his main page is an FA, I felt his song list should be the same. It covers Bowie's entire career, from 1965 to 2016, and includes the material from his 1989–92 band Tin Machine. As always, I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. Happy editing! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "including producers Tony Visconti and Brian Eno and singer Iggy Pop". Replace the first 'and' with a comma.
• Period missing in alt texts.
• Note no. t should be sourced.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks very much :-) – zmbro _(talk) 17:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Only got time to look at the lead now, will do the rest later.....

• "Beginning his career under the name "Davy Jones"" - don't think the quote marks are needed, especially given that it was his real name
• "Bowie released several singles with multiple backing bands" - lose the word "several", as it could be taken as meaning that he recorded several singles, each with multiple backing bands
• "Following his psychedelic pop self-titled debut album" is a little bit "sea of blue". Maybe slip "-influenced" after psychedelic pop to break it up a bit.....?
• "the album introduced the world to Bowie" - not sure this wording is 100% accurate. His previous album had hit the top 10 in the UK and the top 40 in many other countries, and if anything Ziggy wasn't significantly more successful in chart terms at that point. Obviously it has gone to be regarded as a legendary album, but I am not sure it's true to say that in 1972 it "introduced the world" to Bowie

• Yeah you're right. Changed to "the album launched Bowie to international stardom and introduced his glam rock style" that better?

• "notably on its title track" => "notably its title track"
• "throughout the 1980's" - no apostrophe in 1980s
• "Tin Machine, who explored alternative and grunge styles before they were particularly well-known" - it took me a couple of readings to realise that you mean that the styles were not well-known, as opposed to the band. Any way this could be re-worded?

• Changed to "who explored alternative and grunge styles before the genres were particularly well-known;"

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• Writers for "Without You I'm Nothing" and "Sorry" should be coloured blue but currently aren't

• Whoops

• Some covers aren't denoted as such. For example, "Working Class Hero" is a John Lennon cover and "Love Missile F1 Eleven" is a Sigue Sigue Sputnik cover, but neither is noted.

• Fixed

• On the subject of covers, "I Wish you Would" is listed as a Yardbirds cover, but their version was itself a cover of the original by Billy Boy Arnold.

• My bad, fixed

• Notes b, m, t, w are not full sentences so don't need full stops
• Conversely notes c, e, g, n, s, u are missing full stops

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks very much! – zmbro _(talk) 13:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can still see some covers which aren't noted as such, e.g. "Try Some Buy Some" is a Ronnie Spector cover, "Dancing in the Street" is a Martha and the Vandellas cover, etc. I would suggest double checking every song not written by Bowie himself...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Alright I think I got all of them. Can't believe I missed those, but with over 400 songs in one table I'm bound to miss something. Thanks so much. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Ref 13 has an incorrect year of publication for the Buckley cite, and refs 18 and 24 are also generating red error messages for me (you may not see them without a script, but they should still be fixed). It looks like you didn't put rev=harv into the full source citation for the book used in refs 18 and 24; maybe that will fix the issue with them. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Whoops must've missed those when adding them. All good now, thanks. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Car & Murray refs are still coming up with error messages for me. I think you have to go into the bibliography and add Template:SfnRef to each entry to create an anchor for the cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Fixed – zmbro _(talk) 01:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now, so I support this for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Great work! Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Since nobody has done one yet, I suppose that I'll jump in here. After the fixes earlier, the formatting is now fine throughout. The references are all reliable, and the link-checker shows that the links are all in working order. In short, everything looks good on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:08:04 18 August 2019 (UTC) [9].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 29 of these year-by-year country number ones lists at FL status, so here's what will hopefully be #30, covering a year when Keith Whitley hit his commercial peak before sadly drinking himself to death the following year :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great. Care to check out my new FLC? – zmbro _(talk) 22:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Reference column could be centered but other than, great list.--Lirim | Talk 03:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs are now centred -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wonderful work as always on these lists. In a way, this one honors Whitley's legacy to try and find a silver lining to it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks great. Damian Vo (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the links are all in working order. Everything looks like a pass here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:03:55 11 August 2019 (UTC) [10].

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) & DiplomatTesterMan[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of one of India's leading journalistic award. As usual, hope to receive constructive feedback's. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I'm experienced enough to do a full review, but the first thing that jumps out is missing alt texts from the two images in Recipients section.
• Space after comma in "Since it's inception in 1981,".
• Some explanation for why it wasn't awarded in 1987 would be good.

Reference given. It is not specific in the book as to why the award wasn't given that year.

• Some earlier entries in "Associated media houses" section are empty, but newer ones contain "Independent Journalist". Is Independent Journalist name of an organisation?

I could not find proper sources for them. Independent journalists mean journalists who do not work under any organisation. Sort of freelance. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be consistent. If they weren't associated with any organisation, then it should be either Independent Journalist or empty across the board. Maybe an en dash. But it needs to be consistent. TryKid (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid Done. Thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast, Yashthepunisher. I've added two more points. TryKid (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid Please have a look now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great to me. TryKid (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is the award called "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediapersons" or "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson"? The title and the first sentence do not agree..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Renamed article name. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Infobox still says "Mediapersons" (as I'm currently looking at it)
• Table needs scope rows
• Ref. → Ref.
• Ref col would look better centered
• Why was there no winner in 1987?
• Should probably archive all website refs

Rest looks good. – zmbro _(talk) 17:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro I haven't been able to find a source that specifically mentions the reason behind no award in 1987. The rest has been fixed. Thanks for your queries. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yeah I had the same problem with the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award so all good. Happy to support. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson is" => "The Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson is"
• "a Indian journalistic award" => "an Indian journalistic award"
• Italicise Business Standard
• Don't italicise The Media Foundation
• "The award was instituted at an initiative" - no idea what this means, can you elaborate?
• "The criteria for selection includes" => "The criteria for selection include"
• "journalists in regional Indian language" => "journalists in regional Indian languages"
• "A Pakistani journalist, Rehana Hakim, won the award in 1996." - why is this significant? Is it because she is the only Pakistani winner to date? If so, make that clearer?

Remove the entire sentence. It isn't of much significance.

• "Priyanka Dubey of BBC" => "Priyanka Dubey of the BBC"
• Caption on first image has "the the"
• The same caption should not have the award name italicised
• Why no winner in 1987?
• ref column should be centred
• Is there a standard English-language name for the award? Currently the title is "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson" which isn't grammatically correct English. Some of the refs use alternative titles such as "Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Woman Journalist" Business Standard themselves (ref 38) seem to just call it "Chameli Devi Jain Award"

ChrisTheDude The original title is ""Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediaperson" which is widely used by most sources. Some refs use the shorter name, the "Chameli Devi Jain Award". I have also come across some refs that mention it as "...Journalist", but they are few and far between. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One other thing I noticed - the name column sorts on first name (e.g. Alka Dhupkar sorts under A). It should sort on surname.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The title of reference 2 could use an en dash for the year range.
• Ref 9 needs an access date.
• Ref 10 is missing a publisher.
• Refs 11 and 19 need page numbers.
• Source reliability looks okay, and the link-checker tool doesn't show any problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 All done. Please have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issues have all been resolved. I'd say the source review is a pass now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:03:47 4 August 2019 (UTC) [11].

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A well written and well sourced list of Saif Ali Khan's film career. Another nomination of mine has received three supports, so I think I am good to go. As always, looking forward to some constructive and helpful comments. Thanks! Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be more specific in the infobox image caption by saying where the picture was taken. See something like a List of Emily Blunt performances as an example of this.
• I would add ALT text to the infobox image.
• I think a verb is needed for this part (and then in Aashik Awara (1993).). Maybe something like (and then starred in Aashik Awara (1993).)?
• For this part (Khan played the supporting roles ), "the" is not needed.
• I would add a citation for Sacred Games as everything else in the lead is cited.
• Since there is an entire section (i.e. Non-Fiction) about how he has hosted multiple Filmfare Awards ceremonies, I would add a short sentence to the lead about it as the lead should reflect a part of every section of the list.

Great work with the list. I have only looked over the prose, and I have not looked through any of the sources. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Thanks for your queries. They have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the photo caption, "inaugural" is not a noun and really isn't the right word to use here. "Opening" would be more appropriate
• "as did his other three releases" => "as did his next three releases"
• "leading a setback" => "leading to a setback"
• "It also marked a turning point in his career" - how?

As per the sources, DCH brought a dramatic change in Khan's approach to work and established him as a serious actor. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to say that then. Just saying "it was a turning point in his career" doesn't really tell the reader much.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs on the first sentence of paragraph 3 are not in numeric order
• Same again two sentences later
• And again on the first sentence of the last paragraph
• Cocktail wikilink is wrong
• In the TV fiction table, the year is the first column, whereas in the other tables it isn't - be consistent
• Non-fiction should not have a capital F
• Note a needs a full stop
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Made this edit for consistency
• Aashik Awara is spelled with a k in the lead but a q in the table (and table one is a redirect)
• Ref dates for Sacred Games aren't consistent with the rest

Everything looks good. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 19:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I found one formatting issue: the publisher of ref 59 (The New York Times) should be italicized since that is a print publication. The reliability of the references looks fine, and the sources are well-formatted other than that one item that should be easy to fix. The link-checker tool indicates that ref 61 isn't loading for it, so it's worth a quick check to see if the archive version should be the one highlighted. So, just a couple of quick fixes/checks and this will be a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Fixed both the issues. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fixes look good, so I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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