Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2015

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) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan is considered to be one of the greatest actor of this planet. He has nearly 220 acting credits, including films like Sholay, Agneepath, Aankhen, Sarkar, Black and Paa. This list a well-written and well-sourced listing of his career. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Given the length of his career, make sure that all his films are listed in the chronological order of release date. Also, you might want to move the films that he had produced to a separate table to avoid confusion. Also, I cannot find any of his minor works (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) of the pre-90s era. There must be a few, I guess. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have arranged the films according to there release date. Out of nearly 220 films under his belt, he has only produced 15 of them. So, i don't think another table is necessary. About his TV work, KBC was touted as his television debut and he had only produced one show before. Also i'm still trying to find any of his work related to documentaries of pre-90's, but most are like his appearances on simi grewal kind-of-shows. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table lists Saat Hindustani first. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the release dates of Bhuvan Shome and Saat Hindustani; the latter was released in Nov 1969. There are sources which say he actually entered films through Bhuvan Shome. I know it's a tedious task, but you are going to carry out this check for every single film of his. I'm not a big fan of unreleased films, but you might consider including this one as the failure was quite notable. I'm saying this because you currently have one uncredited appearance in the table. Coming to the producers list, it should be moved to another table for ease of navigation as he never acted in a few of those. If you're not very keen to have a separate table, make sure that you have secondary, tertiary, etc., sorts, separately for his on-screen and off-screen roles. I'll do a full review if time permits. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Khabardar. Almost every source claims that Saat Hindustani was his debut film. Even in an interview with barkha dutt, he himself said about his experience on his debut film with Khwaja Abbas. Those film whose release date's are available, i have listed them accordingly. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4] say otherwise. What about films whose release dates aren't available? —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing them after the one's who have a release date was the only choice I had. What should be done about his debut film then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the criteria doesn't specifically mention this, I think this should really be taken care of. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should have sources verifying the same. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I have taken care of his debut film issue, with two sources supporting it. Also, if there are any other issues, you can mention them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed your own comment which was about creating a separate table for 'produced films', with a hasty edit summary. Before I can proceed further, this needs to be taken care of. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony! you didn't had the time to reply here, but Right after i deleted my own comments, you responded. Anyway, you know what i deleted so, you might wanna create the table for its betterment. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was quite busy for the past three days; I was constantly travelling. You might want to check my edit history. My routine editing resumed just this morning. What's the irony here, care to explain? —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the case, please accept my apologies and help. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, but please assume WP:AGF with reviewers. I'll review this one in the next couple of days. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

• "Lift Kara De (Remix)" missing from "Music videos" section.

The video features the look-a-likes of Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Ajit Khan and Dilip Kumar, they aren't real ones.

• "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" missing from "Music videos" section.

Added.

done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Naam Kya Hai missing from "Films" section.

This film don't even have a wiki-article, also i tried to find any source that says he was in this film; but i couldn't. So, its not important to mention it coz every film cannot be mentioned here.

Wikipedia is not complete. ref. Every film can't be mentioned. But how do you gauge which should be and which shouldn't? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any further information regarding the release date or the director of the film. If you find one, you can add it yourself. I don't, but i have been trying my best to make this list as comprehensive as i can. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• March of the Penguins missing from "Films" section.

Added. It was missing from the documentary section.

done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also feel that his non-acting roles of being a narrator in films should be separated out.

I don't think so, because the title says "Role" and his role in these films are of a narrator.

Being producer is also a "role" in filmmaking. You need to separate out on-screen and off-screen roles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read above.

• Sometimes "Narrator" is written in Roles columns and sometimes in Notes column. That should be uniform.

Done

• Are off-screen works, like concerts, etc. omitted from this list on purpose?

Yes, because its a filmography not a discography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discography won't include the concerts where he dances either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a "filmography", take a look at other ones. If there are any concerts and other stuffs, they should be mentioned in the biography or god-knows-which-graphy, but not here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And continuing what Vensatry said, how are we ensuring that the list includes most of the works? I know that not all works can possibly be included. But what are we doing to make sure that not a large chunk is missed out? My quick search shows 4 missing entries listed above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 8-10 films were missing before i started editing this list, which i added later. Most of films that are important and are known and most who don't even have a article here; all are mentioned. I have also added many uncredited roles of his. But, looking at the gigantic size of his career, again i'm saying its not nearly possible or necessary to add every film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review the list when all of the comments above are addressed. -- Frankie _talk 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: and @FrB.TG:, If you have any issues, please proceed with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments from FrB.TG It is best suitable for the third and fourth sentences to be merged. The third sentence mentions Anand, while the fourth one is written about Zanjeer; how can they be merged? Still I have trimmed the former one. Nope, my comments were based on this revision. You seem to have done what I suggested. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] "In 1973 Bachchan portrayed the role of Inspector Vijay Khanna in Prakash Mehra's action drama Zanjeer" – it should either be "played the role of" or simply "portrayed" as "portrayed the role" is pretty vague. Done "The same year, Bachchan appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam. For the latter, he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor." – again, they can be merged. Merging it will look something like "..appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam; for which he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor". It can create confusion among the reader on whether he won that award for Abhimaan or Namak Haraam. "Sholay (1975), which is considered to be one of the greatest films of all time" – I am not sure people other than those familiar with Bollywood or Indian film industry have heard of the film. It should be one of the greatest Indian or Bollywood films of all time. Done "the romantic film Silsila (1981), the crime drama Kaalia (1981) and" Done In the same sentence, all of the films' genres are included but Shakti's – pretty inconsistent. Added "him the nominations for Filmfare Award for Best Actor" – definite article needed for the award. Already mentioned in the 9th sentence. So? -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] The issue is resolved. Right? Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] "In 1990, Bachchan portrayed the role" – again, "portrayed the role"! Rephrased I think you should write about how Agneepath despite being a box-office failure, has developed a cult status in India. Done The last sentence of second para is pretty short; you can combine it with the preceding sentence. Done I think you forgot to italicize Kaun Banega Crorepati in the lead. Done Wiki-link Hindi in the Documentaries section. Done Reference 8 needs to have a page number. It's not available I think. It sure is. Page no for ref 8 is 163 while source 9's is p. 99. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done Bollywood Hungama – italicize it in ref 20 and de-italicize in ref 22. Done Ref 26 needs a page no. The same for references using {{cite book}}. -- Frankie talk 17:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Again, I can't see any. Sure, they can be seen. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Page no. should be mentioned at the top or bottom left-right side of a page. I just can't see them there. Please add them yourself. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] You can use this tool. -- Frankie talk 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I am not sure Amazon.com (in ref 219) as a source is acceptable. If possible, find an alternative. Its a case of WP:OSE, but Amazon has been used here. Still i'll try to replace this source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Can't find another on to replace Amazon. It should be ok to use, as there is no clear consensus that restricts us from using it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – above are my addressed comments. -- Frankie _talk 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• To the best of my knowledge, Zanjeer is an action film. Though it had enough drama, i feel that "action film" can be a better choice.

Done

• Why Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor and Filmfare Award for Best Actor are wikilinked more than once in the lead section? Any reason?

Delinked. My mistake.

• "These films established his image as the angry young man"—What do you mean by "These"?

Rephrased.

• Is Kaalia an action film or a crime drama? I think it is the former.

It's actually an action film with a lot of crime in the backdrop. So, "action crime" should suffice.

• "Despite being a box-office failure, the former garnered him the National Film Award for Best Actor and has since developed a cult status in India." Is this statement reliably sourced?

Added.

• Who is the director of Paa?

Mentioned.

• "appeared in the comedy-drama's Shamitabh and Piku."—comedy-drama's? Something is wrong here. Also, i don't think Shamitabh is a comedy drama. It was moody and tragic.

Rephrased.

• May i know why there was not at least once sentence about his limited work in the South (includes his debuts) and in English?

He has either produced or made cameo appearances in south indian films. I have intentionally restricted his production work with Tere Mere Sapne only, for the betterment of the lead-size. Also, about his hollywood debut, It was a five-minute role. Looking at the size of his career, i can't mention special appearances in the lead.

• Why Ra.One is missing in the lead as his films as a narrator? It might be a failure, but it surely gained recognition.

He wasn't its narrator, per my knowledge. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This says something else. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead cannot accomodate more than this, considering his work. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That 2011 image of Bachchan can be placed beside the "Television" section where you can mention him as the host of KBC. That would be more appropriate IMHO.

The image's size is bigger than the the "television" section table. Placing it there will look bloated.

• Is there any reason behind the usage of that 2013 image? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the beautification of the article, like these: [5] [6] [7]. But, I agree with you, and I feel that both those images look unnecessary. Will remove them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is a decent list, considering Bachchan's work in multiple fields. IMO, it satisfies the FL criteria. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support Pavanjandhyala, much appreciated. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• 'who has had a prolific career.' So he's not acting any more? If so, to what point?

Rephrased

• The following sentence is unclear; there is a discussion at the top. The nominator doesn't seem to have clarified this in the article either.

Which sentence? If you are talking about his debut film, I have clarified it per suggested by your sources.

• In the given context, I'm not sure if 'dubbed' is encyclopedic.

Replaced with "cited". Hope that's encyclopedic.

• Either 'Two years later he appeared' or '1975' is redundant.

Fixed

• 'Bachchan then acted in Ramesh Sippy's Sholay (1975)' Are we sure? Sholay appears to have begun filming in 1973.

The film was released in 1975.

But you say 'acted'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't write "He started filming Sholay in '73", as it more belongs to his biography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we should follow chronology here. This can be rephrased in a better way to provide clarity. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is chronological, as i have mentioned both Deewar and Sholay according to there release dates. If it's not good enough, any suggestion then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not getting my point. When you say 'acted', it has a different meaning. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with "starred". Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• After 1982, you suddenly shift to 1990. What about Coolie and the injury? It's worth mentioning here.

Added.

• The article mentions nothing about his retirement and comeback.

Added.

• 'In 2009, he received another National Award' - He received the award in 2010.

Rephrased.

• Why is 'p' capitalised in 'Progeria'?

Fixed

• As I said earlier, 'films produced' should be moved to a separate table or a separate column should be added in the existing one as there are issues with navigation/accessibility in the main table.

I have already requested two editors to do that, including you. As I'm unaware of the length, rowspans and such things.

• Silsila and Baghban linked twice in lead.

Delinked.

• • I don't think the lead adequately summarises his film career. Plus, there are accessibility issues with the table. He surely deserves far, far better. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the notable films from every decade of his career is mentioned here. So, no further expansion is required. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem of coverage alone, the lead needs a complete re-write. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? But It's nice to see opposes based on personal preferences. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're welcome! Editors support/oppose nominations based on their opinions of whether or not the article meets the criteria. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: If you have further issues, you can point them out and I'll try to fix them. Also, your issues are resolved except for the "table" one. But saying "the lead needs a complete re-write.", is not making sense. Can you elaborate? Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my comment doesn't make sense to you, why bother about it? —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you opposed without a proper explanation? The "lead needs a complete re-write" bit should be justified. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it look like a 'proper explanation'? —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any such issue in this article that is not easily fixable. It would't have got 2 supports if that was the case. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support After reading through the prose and checking out the references, I'm certain this meets the FL criteria. The references are all formatted correctly (I couldn't spot one issue) and the prose is well written. I couldn't find anything wrong with the table either! JAGUAR  14:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the delegates – There is some indirect form of canvassing by the nominator. —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked him to leave his comments, which you have misinterpreted for your convenience. It's clear that you don't want this list to pass, but i'll leave this to the delegates to decide. Also, its everyone's own choice whether they want to support someone's work or not. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it doesn't look like a neutrally-worded request at all! It does border WP:CANVASS. I don't really intend to pinpoint your past actions, but have to quote this behaviour here. Do we know who User:Deniroish is? —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame how you are trying very hard to prove me wrong and to make sure you ruin my works. As I had clarified earlier, the account Deniroish was made by someone from the same IP address, who has been performing some other edits as well [8], [9], [10], [11]. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they co-incidentally supported your FLC? —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (to justify my oppose)

• 'who is known for his prolific career in Hindi cinema.' Really, was he an unknown figure in the 70s?

Rephrased

• Bhuvan Shome or Saat Hindustani? Which one came first, this is not clarified till now.

Bhuvan Shome, per suggested by sources provided by you

• Four 'Bachchans' in seven consecutive sentences in the opening para. The second para contains just one mention that too coming inn the middle.

Removed

• Given, Anand was an important film of his, why not mention the character he played. His first major award came for that performance.

Done

• You say a Filmfare Award for ... as well as the filmfare award for...

Fixed

• The bit about Deewar could be elaborated as it was a cult film.

Done

• 'considered to be one of the greatest Indian films of all time' - By whom?

By the sources

• 'During the 1970s, he was cited as the "angry young man" for his roles in action dramas' This should really come right after Deewar.

Done

• What's special about his dual role in Kasme Vaade? Why not mention the earlier ones - Bandhe Haath and Adalat?

Removed. Neither of them are notable films.

• About Don? - same as Deewar

Done

• 'In 1984, he took a break from movies and turned to politics' - Why did he take a break? Is it because of the injury or his political ambitions?

He took a break from movies and turned to politics at the behest of Rajiv Gandhi. Should I mention this?

• How was Shahenshah (and his performance) received?

Mentioned

• His 'second retirement' (spanning early to mid 90s) is not covered. After Hum we make an jump to Tere Mere Sapne (1996) and then to Mohabbatein.

Mentioned his brief retirement. He made his production debut while he was absent from screen, and Mohabbatein was a turning point for his career.

• 'The same year, he made his television debut as the host of the game show Kaun Banega Crorepati.' - Television debut is not sourced in the table either.

Done

• Year needed for Bhoothnath 'sequel'.

Done

• Oxford commas missing at various places.

Mentioned at many instances, but this is optional.

• I've not looked into the sources yet. My primary concern is the lead just reads like a list of cherry-picked facts. For an actor (what one would call one of the biggest superstars of Indian cinema) whose career spans close to five decades, this could do more with how he entered films, how he managed to overcome his struggles in the early part of his career (of course, the films should talk for that), and his comebacks after those two retirements. Another thing I found is the introduction to the subject. It reads very vague – 'AB is an Indian actor ... who is known for his prolific career in Hindi cinema.' I know this isn't a parent article, but this is not the way how we introduce the subject to the readers. As for the table, his acting credits are clubbed with 'Narrator only' and 'Producer only'. This is a serious accessibility issue, if someone wants to group them accordingly. Given all these concerns, I stand by what I said previously about re-writing the lead. Hence my oppose stands. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it reads like a list of cherry-picked facts as its supposed to, because it's not a biography. Also, I wanted the lead to be as concise as possible. Jaguar had also supported your FAC without any query, is that also invalid? No matter how hard I'll try, you will come up with something and cherry-pick off-topic instances to make sure this nomination fails. As you only appear here, when someone lends his support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, editors are entitled to have different opinions. Where have I said Jaguar's support (or the other two) are invalid? I've never commented about those editors who lent their 'supports'. Just that the list isn't FLC-ready, IMO. As for the prose, one of the prime criteria says the lead (prose) should be engaging. By saying that 'Yes, it reads like a list of cherry-picked facts as its supposed to", you agree that the lead is dull and not engaging? You should understand that we are not going to compromise on the prose aspect in FLCs. I'm sorry, but I think you may have to reread the criteria and make yourself familiarize with the process before attempting further nominations. None of my point are 'off-topic', it's rather you who is quoting such instances. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you understand things better, I'm quoting this: Despite one 'support' your first FAC failed. Unless you have a valid argument from your side, you can't really question either Krimuk90 or Cowlibob for their opposes. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning my first FLC here is redundant, there is a huge difference between this list and my first one. Why are you mentioning Cowlibob and Krimuk here? when did I question there oppposes? And you got to stop putting words in my mouth. If you never had problem with the supports, then why did you left a note to the delegates? Looking at the size of his career, the lead is okay and I don't want a unnecessary expansion. Also, i don't think every filmography lead should be the same, and yes It covers everything and is engaging IMO, and of three others as well. All this would have been better, if your actions were in good-faith and you wouldn't have taken everything personally. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I brought out that just to give an example while trying to explain things to you. If you feel it's redundant, why did you bring the totally-unrelated Pinto FAC in first place? Same with Cowlibob and Krimuk. But then, why did you quote jaguar? Care to explain? —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 'Note to delegates', I felt it was some sort of canvassing. You are not supposed to tell me that I shouldn't express my views. It's clearly not your business. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you. Anyway, the things you are demanding belongs to the parent article, not here. Like how he struggled, how where his early years. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being childish. I was only trying to make you understand how things work here. It is up to you to decide whether or not to listen to it. Anyone who goes through this discussion will understand things. My last comment here! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it in that way. All i'm saying is that the writing style of this list is very similiar from this and this FL. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from an IP - Good work! 1.52.120.50 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note

Okay; this nomination is getting a little out of hand. Vensatry are you still opposing this nomination? Please base your decision solely on the list's content, not on actions the nominator may or may not have taken in regards to this or prior FLCs; that will be taken into consideration separately from the list's quality concerns. --PresN 01:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: User:Krish! is willing to leave his comments here, I think that can make a difference. Can you please wait for a while before reaching any conclusion? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This is really long article. I must say Yash, you have done a great job. It surely deserves that star. It would be nice if you can completely remove the line about his roles as a narrator.Krish | Talk 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Krish! for the support, but I think Big B is also known for his voice, and has done voice-over's in some notable films. So, I think it should stay. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose concerns after re-visit

• 'He made his debut as a narrator for Mrinal Sen's Bhuvan Shome (1969), and acted in Saat Hindustani (1969)' - The comma before 'and' should be removed.

Done

• 'He has since appeared in twenty films with the character name "Vijay"' - The source says twenty-odd.

Rephrased

• 'The same year, he appeared in Abhimaan, and Namak Haraam.' - Why is there a comma after Abhimaan?

Removed

• 'During the 1970s, he was cited as the "angry young man" for his roles in action dramas' - It's wise to name the films that helped him fetch the title rather than the decade.

Done

• 'Later he starred in Ramesh Sippy's Sholay (1975)' - Did he star in the film? Dharmendra was the actual hero.

It was earlier "acted" which was questioned by you. Any suggestions then?

• 'including the action films: Dostana (1980) and Shaan (1980), the romantic film Silsila (1981), the action crime Kaalia (1981), and the drama Shakti (1982) with Dilip Kumar.' - This is awkwardly phrased. It can be separated with semi-colons to avoid ambiguity.

Done

• 'His roles in Dostana and Shakti earned him the nominations for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor.' It is worth clarifying that it was AB who received those nominations, given that Dilip Kumar too was nominated for Shakti (and eventually won it).

Done. Its already mentioned that it was AB who received the nomination, but I can't mention more about Dilip Kumar.

• It's not advisable to start a sentence with 'In 19XX'. Three of the last six sentences (of the second para) are phrased this way.

Fixed

• 'In 1990, Bachchan portrayed the gangster Vijay Deenanath Chauhan in Mukul S. Anand's Agneepath' - Unless the gangster is a real-life character, you cannot say 'portrayed'.

Rephrased

• In the same sentence, the comma (before and) should be removed.

Done

• 'and has since developed a cult status in India' - Just one ref. for this exceptional claim? Also, the source doesn't say India. The film and the jury's decision to give him the award was in fact heavily criticized in South India.

Added more sources. Its a sourced fact, and can't be changed because of criticism.

• 'After 1991, Bachchan took another break from acting' - The source doesn't say he took a break during this period. TO be mroe precise, the break came after the following year.

Rephrased

• 'Bachchan appeared in a supporting role of a university headmaster' - Either one article needs to be either definite or indefinite.

Can't understand, can you be more specific?

• Four sentences begin with 'In 20XX'

Removed from two instances

• 'He then went on to play the role of a short-tempered banker in Aankhen (2002), an ideal father in Baghban (2003), and a conflicted cop in Khakee (2004).' - It should be roles. Except for 'conflicted cop', rest are not as exact as in the source; it says disillusioned father in Baghban, the diabolic puppet-master in Aankhen.

Added "disillusioned father", but I don't think "diabolic puppet-master" is encyclopedic. As his role was offcourse of a banker with temper issues in it.

Final take

• The primary concerns are still unaddressed: All his films are clubbed together in the table. This was raised multiple times, but the nominator appears to have taken this lightly. This has some accessibility issues as it would be difficult/impossible for the readers to separately find out acting credits, narrator and producer.

I'm aware of this issue and has asked you and another editor multiple times, as i don't know how to do it.

• Given his prolific career, there should be stuff that explains his ups and downs (obviously not like a bio, but in a line or two). A fine example would be Laurence Olivier on stage and screen. To be very honest, this list doesn't employ that kind of a writing as the nominator says.

Laurence Olivier has done a far lesser number of feature films than him. So, looking at the size of his career, this one seems the only way. A fine example is Morgan Freeman on screen and stage, and I have modeled it on Freeman's one.

• After Paa, none of his performances from other films are discussed (not in detail, but in a line or two). In the lead, films and performances are arbitrarily picked up.

Bhoothnath and its sequel are mentioned and I have added Piku. Its because after Paa, none of his work were notable.

• Given all these concerns after multiple reviews, I feel the list isn't FL-worthy. Hence my oppose stands. Not to demotivate the nominator, but the problem with this list is it can't be modeled based on the younger-generation actors' that we have. The list would've largely benefited if he had gone in for a peer review. —Vensatry _(Talk) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best to resolve your queries, and have succeeded in them. Peer review can be only opened if there are multiple issues raised by multiple editors, which is not the case here. It has got 5 supports, the rest is upto the delegates to decide. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last call. Vensatry: still opposing after these last changes? It looks like the one outstanding is that the producer roles are in the same table as his acting roles, which I agree is strange, and you also seem to want narrator roles split out, which I'm more ambivalent about. Is there anything else?

Yashthepunisher: just to correct you, peer reviews can be opened for any reason at all; you don't need to have "multiple issues raised by multiple editors". Also, am I reading correctly that you don't know how to split the film table into two tables- one for acting and one for producing? That's... odd, but if so I can split it for you. --PresN 17:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PresN Sorry I didn't know that, and I didn't clearly understood if he meant splitting them or doing something like this. But, please do that If you don't mind. Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: While I agree that no article needs to be 'perfect', it should at least be close to the criteria at the time of nomination. In this case, it clearly wasn't. By no means, FLCs shall be deemed as a substitute for peer reviews. I'm re-visiting the article for the fourth time and can still see unaddressed issues. I'm unlikely to change my opinion. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry Can you please be more specific with the "unaddressed issues"? Re the table issue, PresN is gonna do that, as I'm unclear whether you are asking for a separate table or something else. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point #2 of 'Final take'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have answered that. But its your POV. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question – "He returned to the screen after a five-year absence with the box-office success Shahenshah (1988)." This sentence implies that he had no releases until 1988 – what about Geraftaar and Aakhree Raasta? "He also earned the Filmfare Award for Best Actor for Hum, following which he took a long hiatus from acting". He had five straight releases after Hum. Not sure if a three-year period could be termed 'long hiatus'. But then, he made 'special appearances' in a few films during this period. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its per the source, he reduced the no. of films he was doing and entered politics at that time. Rephrased the "long hiatus" bit, which wasn't written by me. Yes, they were just special appearances, no major acting roles. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've split the producer roles out into their own table. I'm going to be closing this nom today; I want to write up something talking about my reasoning and my thoughts on this nomination. --PresN 17:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I wasn't suggesting to completely fork out the 'producer roles' from the main table. That isn't be a great idea because he starred in some of those films as well. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roles he acted in and produced are in both tables. I'm not sure what else you wanted; you actually explicitly state that the producer roles should be moved to another table earlier in this nomination. I'm closing this nomination below, but if you figure out a better solution, the list isn't set in stone now. --PresN 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Notes

This nomination is a hard one to close (any nomination with multiple supporters and one oppose is), but now that we've finalized on one sticking point that the nominator and final reviewer can't agree on, I think it's time to do so. Before I come to that sticking point, though, there's something I want to address- the interactions of the nominator Yashthepunisher and the reviewers, especially Vensatry. On one hand, Vensatry got pretty harsh in their review, at times crossing the line into condescending or paternalistic. It's a little much, and I think the reason behind it is that sometimes you're not as clear when you ask for something as you think you are, and you get angry that the nominator doesn't understand you because you think they're just avoiding the issue. That's rather understandable, though, because even just reading this nomination, I got kind of frustrated with Yashthepunisher.

Yash- this is your nomination. When you nominate a list, you're agreeing to fix issues that the reviewers bring up, or explain why you disagree if you do. It's not really cool to try to brush off any problems that seem difficult to fix by asking the reviewers to fix it themselves, or find the sources themselves. There seemed to be a lot of problems around missing entire roles and getting dates wrong, which are kind of the point of the list and kind of on you to fix when the issue is found. It's also not really cool to brush off prose concerns with "I didn't write that"- the lead is only four paragraphs. It's concerning that this nomination is so long, and due to factual concerns more than grammar or formatting.

In the end, though, everything got cleared up except for one thing- the style of the lead. I find it a little disappointing that the nom thinks that the lead is "acceptable", but not actually "good", and is fine with that, though I think Vensatry could have been clearer on what exactly they were looking for earlier on, instead of just "written better". I agree with Vensatry that the Laurence Olivier list is a much better lead example- he had a similarly long and full career, and the lead is well-written, talking about the overall shape of his career. Morgan Freeman's career isn't as long, and has the same issue as the lead here- the lead is just half of the tables, with content chopped out and shoved in a prose format that's harder to read than the table. It just an overlong summary; it tells me nothing about Amitabh Bachchan that I don't then find out reading the table. Literally; all I know about the man after reading the article is that he's been in a ton of films; I don't know why his career shifted over time, not really. Apparently, that's "acceptable", and has passed for other FLCs. I don't like it, but I'm a delegate, not the dictator of lists.

Since the remaining problem is "acceptable", I guess I have to pass this as an "acceptable" FLC. You should consider making the lead more than a list of roles, though, in case consensus changes in the future and FLRC comes knocking. --PresN 18:20, 29 December 2015 (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) 00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiplash is a 2014 drama directed by Damien Chazelle about a jazz drummer fighting to survive in a studio band led by a tyrannical conductor. The film received many accolades especially for the performance of J. K. Simmons in the latter role. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support about the Academy Award, I didn't see that article is FL, so it's fine to me! By the way, I have a FLC, and I would love to read your comments. It would be great if you'd review Gaga's awards list! GagaNutella^talk 13:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think one is allowed to have more than two open nominations. As this is your third, the other two being this and this one, I think one of these should be taken care of. -- Frankie _talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I don't think there is a rule preventing more than two if so could you point me towards it? All the FLC says is you shouldn't open a second one until the previous one has gained substantial support and concerns are resolved so it follows that you could open a third one if the second has gained enough support. Cowlibob (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the rule is that there shouldn't be any more than two, to improve the odds that all FLC contributors will have the opportunity to have their articles reviewed with our limited resources. Having three FLCs open at once is pushing things a bit, and is the sort of thing the 2 FLC rule was designed to prevent. If you want, you could address the remaining comment at the Blue is the Warmest Colour FLC, which is close to a promotion that would leave 2 of your noms open; otherwise, I suggest taking this off FLC until one of the other lists is promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for the clarification. Blue is the Warmest Colour accolades list now has 4 supports with everything resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support excellent work on an excellent film. All my comments have been resolved. If you could review my Lost in Translation accolades list, that would be great. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Commas are needed before and after "also written by Chazelle".
• The box office gross amounts, as dollar amounts, should have non-breaking spaces per the Manual of Style.
• Ref 63 (Village Voice Film Poll) needs an access date. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for the review. Have resolved the above comments I think. Cowlibob (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The list looks good to go now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, skimmed through the list and didn't see anything I had a problem with, so closing this nom as passed. --PresN 17:29, 28 December 2015 (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) 03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1988 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And the big five go to? And I've heard so much complaining about Cher getting an award I am surprised it isn't covered in here. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: Done: Added the major winners in the intro. As for people objecting to Cher's Best Actress win, that is a point of view issue that will not be covered due to Wikipedia:NPOV.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Johanna(talk to me!) 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Johanna "(commonly referred to as Oscars)" why is this necessary? It's also a bit of a disruption for me…if you want to refer to them as Oscars at some point, put it closer to the top. That's just my opinion. In your refs, you seem to include the owner of the publication, a field that I have never seen before? Is this generally accepted and standard? It's not a necessity, but according to Cowlibob it can be useful in determining credibility. --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I would add something about the ceremony's negative reception in the lead, as it does make up a substantial part of one of the later sections. After you list the major awards, there's a space that shouldn't be there. "He previously won a Best Picture award as co-producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Who was the first person to achieve this feat? Done: Added Olivier reference. --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] "In view the 60th anniversary of the Academy Awards," I'm not sure what you mean here, and it's clearly grammatically incorrect. If you mean "Because it was" I'm not sure what the hiring of Goldwyn, Jr. has to do with it. I'm not really seeing anything in the sources that says that Chase was hired directly by Goldwyn. "Despite the Writers Guild of America refused" it should be "refusing" Done: Changed refused to refusing. --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] "the three head writers for the telecast" should be a comma before and after the names of the writers. Done: Added commas. --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Out of curiosity, how were you able to access ref 27 (the USA Today source)? I obtained the information using ProQuest NewsStand available through the Los Angeles Public Library's online database (only library cardholders can access the database, unless you know of a local library that provides acceess). According Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS, "The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL." --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Like the multiple awards and nominations tallies, I'm assuming that your observations about the nominations of top 50 box office films are standard, implied across sections, and not OR, right? That's not meant to be a patronizing comment--I'm just making sure. :) If you can't find any mixed or positive reviews, that's fine of course, but I would remove the "most" from media outlets. Done: removed "most" --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] A lot of the verbs you use to describe the commentary are a bit questionable in terms of POV, in my opinion. I particularly don't like "whine" and, to a lesser extent, "bemoan" and "lament". "Complain" is fine, but for the others, I would tend towards words like "criticize", "denounce", or "comment negatively", as they are more encyclopedic IMO. Done: Changed negative sounding words to more neutral verbs as per previous nominations. According to Cowlibob, we have to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content. --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Birdienest81: This looks like a very good article! As you can see, I just had a few prose comments. The tables look great and it's well on its way to becoming an FL! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Johanna: Thanks for the feedback. Right now, I have school-related work to do, but I'm addressing your comments one at a time. --Birdienest81 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Birdienest81: Thank you for the replies. For the ones you did not change, I think they are fairly minor and am fine with them remaining the way that they are. If you could review this for me (an accolades list for Lost in Translation as a QPQ, I would be very grateful, as it desperately needs a couple more reviews. Thanks! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johanna: Thanks for the support. I'll try to like at your FLC (barring Christmas festivities and parties). I also added a few more citations regarding Goldwyn and Chase being selected as producer and hosts. So there you have it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "became the eighth film to win Best Picture without any acting nominations" when was this achieve last? "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" should be probably be put in quotes. Also, might be outside the scope of the current nomination, but did anybody suggest that "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" might lead to decreased viewership the following years? Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: Done: Added mention of Gigi being the last Best Picture winner without acting nominations in the intro. As for the "dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" in the reviews section, those words were not found in the actual review. It was just me paraphrasing a section of the review to summarize what he was saying. Also, insinuating that a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere would lead to decreased viewership in future years is false. Five of the eight following ceremonies had increased viewership (exceptions were 1990, 1994, and 1996). Furthermore, we can't synthesize or suggest questionable facts without verifiable information (Wikipedia:SYNTH).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What were the two special awards for? Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Added explanations for the non-competitve awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good to go now Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comment – nice work. I've got a few concerns with references but they are not major anyway: Wiki-link USA Today and Ganenett Company in ref 2. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not need italics in source 5. Reference 10 – wiki-link The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia Media Network). Reference 27 – de-link USA Today (Gannett Company). -- Frankie talk 19:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Done:Fixed everything you mentioned in the comments. Thanks --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – great work. -- Frankie _talk 08:44, 20 December 2015 (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) 01:32, 21 December 2015 (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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Azealia911 _talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the discography of American R&B singer Tinashe, perhaps best known for her breakout single "2 On". Since then, she has gone on to collaborate with the likes of Iggy Azalea, Calvin Harris and Chris Brown. Thankyou for all comments in advance. Azealia911 _talk 11:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Calvin999 Here are some quick initial comments at a glance

• The lead looks disproportionate. One line, then a big para, then a short one. Try to a avoid one line paragraphs.

Done. Azealia911 _talk

• (including five as a featured artist and two promotional singles). → I'm not so sure that this is completely relevant or needed.

Removed. Azealia911 _talk

• In the singles table, I'm pretty sure you're only supposed to include U.S. and then one component which is in their genre, not five of the same country. Fore example, Mariah Carey singles discography is U.S. and U.S. R&B (as she is an R&B artist and has prolifically charted on it). Celine Dion singles discography has Canada and Canada A/C (she is an adult contemporary singer)

The closest thing we have to a discography MoS is WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which explicitly states any combination of charts can be used for artists, using their success on the chart as a common sense guideline. Azealia911 _talk

• Are HotNewHipHop and InTheMix reliable sources? I didn't think Muu Muse was, either. But maybe it is now.

Switched Muu Muse, the other two references don't bring up any red flags to me in terms of reliability. Azealia911 _talk

 — Calvin999 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IndianBio For the urls which require subscription, can you please have it as part of the {{cite web}} template itself? Use subscription=yes and it will auto generate the string. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Thanks for your comments SNUGGUMS! Azealia911 _talk 11:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome, Azealia, and I can now support this for FL. Well done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 20:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eurofan88

• I don't think "Vulnerable" was released as a single. I mean she never said it's a single. It's like Taylor Swift's "You Are In Love" [15], available on iTunes but was never announced as a single.

Someone 'never said it's a single' is irrelevant. It received singles release on iTunes, while Taylor Swift announced that all of the Target bonus tracks would be released as iTunes singles. Azealia911 _talk

Iggy Azalea's "Impossible Is Nothing" was also released on iTunes but the article says it's a promo single. You reviewed that article but didn't tell the nominator to change it as a Single instead of Promo single.

That's because it was released as an instant-grat track, was the track of the week on iTunes for free at one point, hence followed the conventions of a promotional single. "Party Favors" meets none of these criteria, and I can't find any sources naming the song as a promotional single. Azealia911 _talk

Okay fine. A few months ago when i asked you if a song remix which is available on iTunes is a single you said yes. Tinashe's remix for "Jealous" was released on iTunes as a single. So are you going to add it in the 'As featured artist' section?

Done. Azealia911 _talk

I've reverted my edit, I can't find the Jealous remix single anywhere on iTunes, only in an EP with multipe remixes. Azealia911 _talk

Never mind, found it lol. Azealia911 _talk

Anyway i wish there was a consensus at the WP:Discographies if we should count songs remixes as singles or not :/ I pay too much attention to this kind of issues :D

I agree, do you have any other comments for me to address? Azealia911 _talk

• Only the remix version of "All Hands on Deck" features Iggy Azalea, so i guess it's not necessary to mention Azalea as a featured artist. Plus she shot a music video for her solo version.

Azalea is credited in all the chart history from the US, Australia and the UK. So if I remove her name, I'd have to only report on the solo charting history, which was one chart, the rhythmic chart. Azealia911 _talk

• Why not to mention "Body Language" and "Drop That Kitty" in the lead, as they are the only two sperate articles of songs where she's a featured artist.

It didn't seem completely relevant to her career. Drop That Kitty flopped dreadfully and Body Language wasn't a huge worldwide success so it didn't seem necessary to include. Azealia911 _talk

• Why UK R&B Singles Chart is not linked in the lead?

Linked. Azealia911 _talk

• Travi$ Scott, A$AP Rocky → Travis Scott, ASAP Rocky; no need stylizations. --Eurofan88 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Azealia911 _talk

• Is that really necessary to mention singers and rappers' nationality in the lead every time? Also 'and featured' is used too many there, try changing it up like: 'and featured a guest verse/appearance from' for example.

Removed nationalities, switched up "and featured". Azealia911 _talk

• Remove "Dollar Signs" from the section 'Guest appearances'. It's already under the 'Other charted songs'.

It's deliberately in both sections, Guest appearances are non-single collaborations, it happened to chart as well so it's listed in both. This is common in discography articles. Azealia911 _talk

• "Party Favors" was commercially unsuccessful, failing to enter any worldwide charts. If that song flopped then no need to write about it with separate sentence.

Leaving it at just "The first was titled "Party Favors"" felt too short, plus the sentence about "Player" faring much better on the charts would also need changing to the very general """Player" entered...". It's fine. Azealia911 _talk

music charts? oh come on Azealia, remove that music, it's not like the other times when you used just charts they were not music charts lol.

Done. Azealia911 _talk

• Thankyou for your comments Eurofan88! Azealia911 _talk 11:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks fine to me! Though i would still change some things, but i won't mind to see this as a featured list as i like her songs. :) --Eurofan88 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GagaNutella It looks great after the edits above. Now I think you need to add her music videos in this article. Here are some FL examples you can follow: Gotye discography, M.I.A. discography, LMFAO discography. GagaNutella^talk 18:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully decline to do so. Music videos should technically not be apart of a discography. By definition a discography is "a descriptive catalogue of musical recordings", of which music videos are not. If I see a FL with music videos already in I just tend to ignore them as a rule of thumb and will not remove them, but adding them seems redundant to this type of article. If she ever releases enough to make her own videography, perhaps I'll add them there, or even to her main bio article in the filmography section. I again bring up the closest thing discographies have to a MoS, WP:DISCOGSTYLE which doesn't mention music videos at all. Azealia911 _talk 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no requirement for including videos. However, remember that directors and release years would of course need citations if videos are listed. I personally wouldn't include videos when already listed in a videography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't see anything such in the discographies of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga 'cause they both have thier respective pages for their videographies. -- Frankie _talk 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that because I've seen many articles which include the videography. You can't just compare Gaga and Katy, who have a BIG VIDEOGRAPHY and global success, to Tinashe, who is getting fame now. I'm not saying x is better than y, but is like compared Madonna's videography, sales and other aspects, who is on music industry for more than 30 years to Gaga and Katy who have less than 10 years. Whatever, I support this list because despite this, I thinks it's all right. PS: If I knew my comment would cause all this trouble, I definitely wouldn't have come here. Like I said, I don't like to review discographies. I just did it for consideration to Azealia who reviewed our FLC and asked me on my talk page. So long! GagaNutella^talk 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

I would probably remove Done. Azealia911 talk " "Pretend" was less commercially successful than its predeceasing single, failing to enter the Billboard Hot 100 and appearing at number 36 on the UK R&B Singles Chart." – this is a bit odd. The "failing" part is not quite necessary to me, the "and" after Hot 100 would seem more relevant if it is replaced with "but". Done. Azealia911 talk "and featured an appearance from rapper Iggy Azalea" – it could be replaced with something like "and featured Australian rapper Iggy Azalea in a remixed version of the song". Done. Azealia911 talk I don't think there is a difference between first and lead single. I would suggest you replace first single with lead single (if it's the case here) as it reads better. Done. Azealia911 talk Ref 26 – Australian Recording Industry Association does not need to be linked. It's a pre-determined template, I can't unlink it. Azealia911 talk I have never worked on a discography so forgive me if I have missed something. Is HotNewHipHop a reliable source? Yes, it's a regular Hip Hop news site, I often liken it to sites like HipHopDX. Azealia911 talk ""Player" fared much better on the charts, appearing on" → ""Player", however, performed better on the charts, appearing on". -- Frankie talk 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. Azealia911 talk Thankyou for your comments FrB.TG, I've addressed them all. Azealia911 talk 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – with my comments addressed, I can endorse it now. -- Frankie _talk 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13 - lead image needs Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It already had it. Azealia911 _talk 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, my apologies and my error.--Godot13 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Azealia911 _talk 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

• The infobox picture is not very helpful in establishing who the artist is and what she looks like. Is there a better one?

Swapped. Azealia911 _talk

• There are subjective comments which form original research, such as "was a commercial success" and "commercially unsuccessful".

Removed OR comments. Azealia911 _talk

• The number of similar charts is ridiculous at some points. There are five US singles charts listed, including Digital Songs (a component of Hot 100) and R&B Songs (a subset of R&B/Hip Hop Songs). I can understand having a country's main chart and perhaps one genre chart, but anything more is superfluous. Consider that tables of peak chart positions in song articles shouldn't contain these minor subsets per WP:USCHARTS; it seems even more bizarre to list them here.

I've removed The R&B Songs and Digital Songs charts. Azealia911 _talk

Can there be some sort of consistency between different tables? Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? Azealia911 _talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US,US R&B/Hip Hop, US R&B, AUS, AUS urban for albums versus US, US R&B/Hip Hop, US rhythmic, AUS for singles versus US R&B Digital for promo singles versus US dance for other charted songs. Why are they different in every section?

Why on earth would I include charts in sections that she didn't chart in? Azealia911 _talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you should include entire columns of em dashes, but pick a number chart types and use them throughout (perhaps exception for other charted songs). If a chart is not relevant for a given section, just remove the column. Basically, what I'm saying is to remove US R&B from albums. I thought "2 On" would've appeared on the Australian Urban chart but upon a closer look it seems that ARIA doesn't consider it an urban single. Strange... Adabow (talk)

Done. Azealia911 _talk 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all website titles should be italicised per MOS:T#Italics.

How do you propose I fix this? Azealia911 _talk

Deitalicise names of organisations which do not produce original content, such as the iTunes Store and HotNewHipHop (which, by the way, should be replaced with a more reliable source if possible). Adabow (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you were requesting, what I'm asking is, how do I do that? Azealia911 _talk 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the publisher parameter of citation templates instead of the work one. Adabow (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per {{cite web}}, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work". Before suggestion arises, I can't use {{No italics}}, or manually use markup to change the display either. Azealia911 _talk 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Never mind for now, then. I've asked a question about this at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Work parameter and italics, in case anyone's interested. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments, Adabow. Azealia911 _talk 09:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Director question – Has Adabow's comment about table consistency/removal of the US R&B chart from a table been addressed in any way? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Azealia911 _talk 18:24, 11 December 2015 (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) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, back again with the 8th World Fantasy Award list, and #34 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This list is the counterpart to the recent FL World Fantasy Special Award—Professional, and acts as the non-professional "other" category of the World Fantasy Awards, covering your editors of non-professional magazines, heads of hobby fantasy publishers, and general amateur contributors to the Fantasy literary field. If you saw/reviewed the Professional list, this is basically identical with different names/contributions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

• "..and one of the three most renowned speculative fiction awards.." I assume this is meant to read "and are one" – if not, it certainly reads oddly the way it is.
• "..fields related to fantasy that is.." "fields" is plural, so it should be "are", not "is".

Other than that, I really can't see much wrong with this. Harrias ^talk 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias:

• It was meant to continue on from "critics have described it as"; now has an explicit "as".
• Fixed.

--PresN 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that first one does make sense when read like that, but it is more obvious now!

• Support, a good solid list, you obviously know what you're doing! Harrias ^talk 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

• Looks good to me. The only comment is have to make is that it makes no mention of the objections that some winners expressed over having their home decorated with a bust of a racist like H.P. Lovecraft. As I understand it, the prize was changed two weeks ago so the paragraph is out of date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hawkeye7: I don't want to go too into it in the individual category lists, and instead go deeper into it in the main WFA article, but I've adjusted the text (+ new cite) to say that they gave out Lovecraft busts through 2015, and going forward they'll give out something else, as yet unannounced. --PresN 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you say why they decided to change it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hawkeye7: I didn't want to (though it's pretty clear why they did, the title in the citation makes it plain), since the WFC actually carefully didn't say why they dropped him, but I've now added that there were a lot of complaints about his pretty appalling racism. --PresN 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wrestlinglover

• Lead
  • Found no issues
• Winners and nominees
  • Found no issues
• See also
  • Found no issues
• References
  • Found no issues, assume all are reliable.
• External links
  • Found no issues
• Support: I honestly didn't find anything out of place. Interesting article though.--WillC 09:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "Winners were presented with a statue in the form of a bust of H. P. Lovecraft through the 2015 awards, though future ceremonies will present a different, unannounced statuette; while no explicit reason was given, numerous complaints had been raised regarding Lovecraft's suitability as a symbol, given his outspoken racism." This seems a bit clumsy. Also the source did not say that another statuette would replace it - indeed it did not say anything would, although that seems to be assumed. How about: "Until 2015, winners were presented with a statuette of H. P. Lovecraft, but at the 2015 ceremony it was announced that the award would not be made in future years. No reason was given, but many complaints have been made that Lovecraft is an unsuitable symbol in view of his racism. No announcement was made about a replacement award."
• "R. B. Russell and Rosalie Parker have won four times out of eight and seven nominations, respectively, for their work at Tartarus Press." Perhaps: " R. B. Russell has won four times out of eight nominations, and Rosalie Parker four out of seven, for their work at Tartarus Press.2
• A few other nit-picking points. I do not see why you use a coloured box and a star for the winner - I would use one or the other. Also some more information in the reasons box would be helpful. Presumably all not in italics are publishers but this could be clarified. What does "Scream/Press" mean? A publisher called Scream? In the publication names you might distinguish between magazines and one offs such as collections, criticism etc. However, I realise some of these suggestions may conflict with the house style you use in similar articles.
• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Responses below.

• Done, with minor modifications.
• Done.
• The color/star is because a) you can't just use color to distinguish something, per ACCESS, but b) just the star is hard to see for the majority of people.

• As to the publishers- yeah, the reason column is worded the way the WFAs worded it, but it bases a lot on formatting. Books and magazines are italicized; everything that isn't is a company (such as a publisher) or plain words. "Scream/Press" is actually the name of the publisher, unfortunately. I've added a note to this effect to the column header. --PresN 15:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2015 (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) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): GagaNutella^talk and Frankie _talk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC), IndianBio[reply]

Lady Gaga in less than ten years has won several awards such as the Grammys, Brits, and VMAs. After a long work, we believe it meets the criteria. The awards in this list are reliable and we've added sources for all of them. GagaNutella^talk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Maile — Maile (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments by Maile The lone image has a caption, alt text, and is licensed on Commons. Earwig's tool shows no real areas of copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns. Seems to be a lot of blank spaces in this list on either side of all the vertical bars. Tedious to deal with, but eliminating the blanks could reduce the byte size of the article.— Maile (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi, Maile66. Thank you for your review. About the last point, what do you suggest? Because we use {{Awards table}}, which adjusts the size of the tables automatically according to what is written. For example: Emmy Awards and Japan Gold Disc Awards there is no blanks, while Grammy Awards and Songwriters Hall of Fame there is, because they have few words in the tables. GagaNutellatalk 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @GagaNutella: You can't see the excess white space when you're viewing the article normally. Open ADL Awards in the edit window. There is excess white space between the vertical bars and 2015, Lady Gaga, Making a Difference Award and style. All the tables on this list have excess white space like that which serve no purpose except to increase the size of the article. On Page/History, you will see the size of your article in bytes. Size matters, and the bytes can be reduced by eliminating the excess white space. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Maile66: I guess it's done. Good catch! GagaNutellatalk 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - — Maile (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Johannatalk to me!see my work 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Johanna On the lead, I would just ask why you are including some of these accolades here up top. For example, why is the "100 Greatest Debut Albums of All Time" there instead of another similar accolade. Currently, standalone accolades like this seem kind of arbitrary. Another example of this is 'such as a Do Something! Award." I respectfully disagree! Honors of this kind should definitely be mentioned in an awards page received by a person especially when they are so major. Since this list is the "awards and nominations" received by here, I don't think we should miss any of the notable "honors" she has received. It's possible there's more, but the only grammar thing I noticed was in the Virgin Music Media Awards in the first sentence. Replace "awards" with "awards group". What is Daily Contributor and why is it an RS? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks very much Johanna, much appreciated. I have fixed your above comments. -- Frankie talk 21:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from an IP with a few comments:

• "It also won Best International Album at the 2010 BRIT Awards"- this sentence is a bit confusing as in the preceding sentence you talk about "Poker Face"'s win while here is an unknown "it". Please replace it with "The album" or "The Fame".
• Please fix the red link in FiFi Award.
• Little Monsters are not the recipient of the iHeartRadio Music Award for Best Fan Army but Gaga herself.
• Links for Beyonce need to be removed from the Billboard Music Awards and Grammy Awards.

• Done, thank you!!! GagaNutella^talk 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support . Well-written list, good work! TheFame08 (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates please take into consideration that the above Support is not even remotely credible checking the user's contribution and the fact that it passed an article as GA without even reviewing it. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:18, 5 December 2015 (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. (Talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (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) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [18].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a 2011 film about self discoveries of three friends during a trip in Spain. It is the recipient of several National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards and other major Indian awards. As this is for featured list, I am expecting constructive criticism from reviewers and I will take care of them in its entirety. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie _talk 15:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fixed a few minor issues myself. Can't see much ado about this list. Well done, Frankie. Keep up the good work.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: As per criteria 3b, why can't this list be reasonably included as part of a the main article at Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara? The main article is less than 50kB and this list, including the lead, is about 22kB and lead would not be required if it is part of main article. And why is NDTV Indian of the Year notable enough to mention? They seem to be giving awards in different possible categories every year. Sometimes the "Entertainer of the Year" goes to a film and sometimes it goes to a person. Some year they give "India's Heroes" and then no heroes are worthy the next year and some "Daughter of India" is given. Awards by media houses should be gauged properly before giving undue importance in an encyclopedia. They at many times tend to be just promotional get-together of friends and family utilizing their in-house resources to satisfy our "GNG" requirements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a film with over 34 awards can be merged to its parent article as it, including the infobox and the third paragraph, will clutter the the ZNMD article. Besides, I have seen worse cases where they have been successfully promoted. -- Frankie _talk 11:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't merge it along with the infobox and few awards are already mentioned in the main article. The FA E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial also has 34 awards; but that's wins+noms. And what is the limit for forking it out? Do we have a fixed number for that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea about the required size as I have worked on a few film accolades list, but The Dirty Picture's and its accolades size are almost the same. Nevertheless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very good justification so I will leave it on @Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN: to judge whether or not this list is content fork. -- Frankie _talk 13:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I have no experience of creating any featured content or awards-lists. So let them decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are over 60 noms and over 30 awards here, and that such a table was not present when the main article became a GA, I think there's enough here to justify a separate page. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giants for the clarification. @Dharmadhyaksha: You may continue your review if you wish to. -- Frankie _talk 18:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any other comment as NDTV one is also removed now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• "...written and directed by Zoya Akhtar". It should be "co-written and directed by Zoya Akhtar", as the co-writer is Reema Kagti. You can mention her name also, somewhere.
• Delink ensemble cast, as it looks unnecessary.
• "..featuring as the leading ladies." It should be "...featuring in supporting roles."
• Authorlink Raja Sen and Mayank Shekhar.
• You can elaborate the plot synopsis by adding that they explored themselves while overcoming their problems and insecurities. As self-discovery is the main theme of the film.
• Wikilink the author at ref 22.
• Publisher of ref 24 should be youtube, per ref 28. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of the latter is YouTube while the former is a video footage posted in YouTube.

Thank you for the comments, which were quite helpful, and have been addressed. -- Frankie _talk 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Its in good shape now, all the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Johannatalk to me!see my work 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Johanna Is there any way you could cite the translation given for the title? Why are the musical score and cinematography particularly relevant? I would also include something on reviews in the lead. Roman numerals seem to be a bit of a nonstandard way of doing explanatory notes. I would change it, but I guess you can keep it if you want. Speaking of these footnotes, two of them work well (1 and 2), but I don't believe the other two to be necessary. I don't see why we particularly need to know the former name of the Star Guild awards, while there is a less intrusive way to put an award for multiple films—listing it as for "{{sort|Kaif|[[Katrina Kaif]]<small>(also for ''[[Mere Brother Ki Dulhan]]'')</small> That's about it for me. I'll be happy to support once this is fixed. Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Johanna: Thanks again for the comments. I have addressed them all. -- Frankie talk 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Support Thanks for the timely replies. As a QPQ, I would appreciate it if you reviewed this for me. It only has one review so far. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala Indian cinema has multiple languages. Please mention the language in which this film was made. Can you please add the producers in the lead? It looks incomplete when a film wins/gets nominated for "Best film" award and the producers are not available. "The film stars an ensemble cast of Hrithik Roshan, Farhan Akhtar, and Abhay Deol, with Katrina Kaif and Kalki Koechlin in supporting roles." Dont you think three references for this single statement would be a case of WP:OVERLINKING? When a cinematographer, whose article soes not exist here, can be credited in the lead, why not the editor? I don't know if that would be wise. I added the cinematographer's name as s/he won a few awards but the editor's work wasn't recognized very much. Since we have this statement "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, and the performances of its cast", i think it would be beneficial if we mention the one who provided the screenplay. In the very first sentence, it is mentioned "Zoya Akhtar, who also co-wrote the film along with Reema Kagti". Generally, Rotten Tomatoes issues a "fresh" rating for films which received such positive reviews. If it did, mention it. Mostly articles provide the ratings based on critics reviews so I think that's enough. How many nominations the film acquired at the Filmfare and Zee awards should be specified in the lead. I don't think that would be needed as there is already an infobox. No dead/problematic links and that is appreciable. Who reviewed the film on behalf of TOI? Mention the reviewer's name in the citation. It's not clear who reviewed the film It's Nikhat Kazmi. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I dunno how you figured it but it's done. -- Frankie talk 15:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] No credit for Indo-Asian News Service in citation no. 6, 17 and 18? Ditto for Press Trust of India for citation no. 23 I don't usually write the publisher of a reference's publisher as that's not quite necessary. Let me know when you are done with all of them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job on the list. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Reference 1 should be moved outside the parentheses mark.
• "and" is needed before "how each of them discover...".
• All caps in refs 7 and 26 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both @Pavanjandhyala and Giants2008:, for your comments. I believe I have addressed them properly. -- Frankie _talk 13:00, 9 December 2015 (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) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, this is the first list of nature reserves managed by a British wildlife trust nominated for FLC. It includes photographs of all the sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a lovely page, and much more than a mere list. Plainly meets the FL criteria in my view. Only two comments. At Pryor's Wood, should "sparrowshawks" be "sparrowhawks"? And the absence of a Description for Rye Meads looks like an unintentional omission (FL criterion 3 (a) came briefly to mind), though I am perfectly prepared to be told it isn't. – Tim riley talk 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. I don't know how I managed to miss Rye Meads - very careless. Both your points dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another interesting list.

• I think we have discussed the capitalisation of Local nature reserve before. On this list it is capitalised but on the relevant wp article it is not.

• Site of Special Scientific Interest is capitalised and it would be odd to have SSSI and Lnr (or lnr). The authority should be the source not Wikipedia, and the official source capitalises. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the MOS may have something to say about this but I can't find it at present.— Rod ^talk 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Lechworth be Letchworth in "Mr Fordham of Lechworth"?
• In the table "Description" column some of the species and habitat types are wikilinked in some entries and not in others (eg "Water rail" is wikilinked in Lensford Springs but not in Oughtonhead)
• The lat & long is given to six decimal places which may be too exact particularly for sites which cover 100 + acres.

• Can you advise how many decimals I should have for different areas? All the advice I have seen is vague on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there is no clear guidance on this. I have been told (not RS I know) that six decimal places will narrow it down to within a few feet - probably OK for a small building, and for a large city to use two decimal places. In my opinion a site of over 100 acres I would use 3 decimal places and for small sites 4 decimal places. Template:Coord just says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines is better with "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object" and a table of differences, but the variation from the equator to 45 degree or 60 degrees may be a bit more detailed than needed.— Rod ^talk 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. The location of the smallest reserve, Barkway Chalk Pit at 0.3 hectares, is slightly out using the only map which shows the reserve, Streetmap. As an experiment I tried finding the exact location using Grid Reference Finder, which gave coordinates accurate to 6 decimal places latitude and 10 longitude. Putting these full coords in the table for the site I tried again but it is still out, and Streetmap seems to give a slightly different position for coordinates from Grid Reference Finder. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found this before for any conversion from grid ref to Lat & Long (or visa versa).— Rod ^talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the other lesser known species (eg Hornbeam) could also be wikilinked for those less familiar with the content area.
• In Hunsdon and Eastwick Meads, I'm not sure about the wikilink to Lammas in "managed by the old Lammas method of hay-making followed by winter grazing" as this seems to be the day or celebration rather than a method for hay-making?
• What is the rationale for the inclusion of specific sites in the see also? I thought initially these were other LNRs or SSSIs in the area not managed by the Trust, or those not included in List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire or List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire but that doesn't appear to be the case
• Ref 3 (Charity Commission) doesn't have an accessdate (this may be a function of the template used)

• This was added before I started working on the article, but checking the template documentation I see it is intended for external links, not citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7 ("A Geological Conservation Strategy for Hertfordshire") seems to have a stray ">" before it

Most of these are minor quibbles and shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.— Rod ^talk 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for you review Rod. Sorry I forgot to do the final checkover before nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All the issues I identified are now resolved so I can support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13

• Images need Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

FLC is running a bit slow right now, so recusing myself as a delegate to review this list.

• The first sentence has it as Herts & Middlesex, but the list title is Herts and Middlesex - why is this?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the flow would be improved by swapping the second and third paragraphs in the lead- talk about what it is/does before getting into its history

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two of the Trust's nature reserves are Ramsar sites, internationally important wetland reserves, fifteen are Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and five are Local Nature Reserves." - uses commas for multiple purposes; try "Two of the Trust's nature reserves are Ramsar sites, internationally important wetland reserves; fifteen are Sites of Special Scientific Interest; and five are Local Nature Reserves."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Heathland is a threatened habitat in southern England, and this site is a good example." - odd tone; maybe "This site is an example of heathland, a threatened habitat in southern England."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Patmore Heath doesn't mention that heathland is a threatened habitat, and since the table is sortable this may not be the second example the reader hits

I prefer not to repeat information as this makes the article less interesting, and the Natural England citation for Patmore Heath does not mention that heathland is threatened. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much overall! If this was helpful, consider optionally reviwing my FLC up above. --PresN 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, Support. --PresN 21:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (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. 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) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (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) 19:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [20].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another association football club's list of notable records and relevant statistics nominated for featured status. This one belongs to FC Porto, an historical Portuguese side with a vast domestic and European palmarès. I created this list from scratch and followed other similar and already featured pages during its development, so here's hoping that this one may have the same fate. Thank you in advance for your reviews. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite "to become the first "Portuguese champions"": perhaps remove the quotation marks, or reword to "to become the first champions of Portuguese football"? Quotation marks removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "five consecutive top finishes": I think "five consecutive top-place finishes" would read better. Reworded. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "The club's attendance records since moving to the Estádio das Antas in 1952 are also included": as are the records since moving to the Estádio do Dragão. I thought the way it was included every venue since moving to das Antas, but I added do Dragão to make it clearer. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Looking at MOS:BOLD, I don't think we can justify using bold for the total number of wins or for the records further down the article. Boldface removed; used extended footnotes to point out competition record wins instead. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] There's a few players whose names should be written out in full, including Drulović and Folha. Fixed those and other examples. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fernando Gomes needs a wikilink in the first instance. Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Would it be possible to have a table for players with the most appearances for Porto? I cannot find a single source with such a list, but I can try to assemble the various items from different sources. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Added a table with a ranking list that is provided by a single source (see table caption), and further per-competition stats are sourced individually for each player through this same source ("Ref" column). Parutakupiu (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:OVERLINK, we should not link to the "names of major geographic features and locations". Therefore, I would remove the country wikilinks in the tables. So far, I've never seen that being extensively applied for tables, but I've removed the links (together with the flags). Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] OK, I decided to use {{flagu}} to show flag+unlinked country name. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Top goalscorers in international club competitions": source was published in 2012, yet the table includes a player who played after then. Another source is needed. Spot on. I've now individually sourced each listed scorer. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "National teams": does this section refer only to caps earned while with Porto? If so, could this be stated? Clarified that. I also changed the section heading to "International caps". Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] There are a few articles linked more than once, e.g. 1942–43 Primeira Divisão, which is linked three times. "currently ranks currently": "currently" used twice. Corrected the above two issues. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] One more comment: for rounds that are two-legged, should the leg be specified? Not least because readers might be confused as to how the 1981 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira was played on two different dates. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I had them before, but them I took them out thinking they were not that necessary. Added them back again. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] All images except the first are lacking alt text. Jesús Corona leads to a dab page. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done, Mattythewhite. Thanks again. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lemonade No need for "first-ever" where you see "the club beat Bayern Munich in the 1987 European Cup Final to win its first-ever continental silverware" and "first-ever league and cup double" and when first would just suffice on its own. "Porto won the inaugural José Monteiro da Costa Cup tournament in 1911, securing its first-ever trophy" is perfectly fine though. Changed as suggested. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "José Maria Pedroto is the club's longest-serving coach, with 327 matches in nine seasons," with doesn't add anything here, how about 'overseeing'? Changed to "overseeing". Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "and with this win secured their first-ever league and cup double" how about "and in doing so secured their first-ever league and cup double" Followed your second suggestion (with "first" instead of "first-ever"). Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Porto currently hold the record for most wins in this competition," use precise language as currently can be open to interpretation. See WP:AO. Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is it possible to have the transfer fees cited from one source/publication? That way you won't run into conflicting numbers. I can try to check prominent online national or international sports news websites to see if one can source all of these transfers. I'd like to keep the fee values in Euros, so British media might be difficult to use. I'll get back on this later if I can find something. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is Footballzz.com considered a WP:RS? Well, it is actually the internation English version of a Portuguese website ("Zerozero.pt"), which houses a huge football database that is run, maintained and updated by football journalists and statisticians; it is not user-generated. My view is that they are quite professional and accurate and data are up-to-date. Many Portuguese football articles and lists here in Wikipedia have content taken from here. Besides this, I cannot attest further for their reliability. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ref 147 needs correct dash Lemonade51 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support satisfies the criteria's style and structure policy. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from an IP with a few comments:

• I think Porto needs to be de-linked as it's a well-known city.
• "The club played its first match in 1893, but had to wait until 1911 to win its first trophy"- you mean to say that they knew they were going to win 1911?
• References' abbreviations should either be "Ref" or "Ref." to be consistent.
  • All fixed. Thank you for your comments and support. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nothing major jumps out at me, great work. NapHit (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, NapHit! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, closing this nomination as passed. --PresN 17:56, 11 December 2015 (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.