Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2016

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article as it is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities, towns and villages within the state of Mississippi. I have modelled this list off of my recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and List of cities and towns in Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated templates into the tables which allows the list to be updated quickly after the next census to keep it the information up to date and to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wow, this is an incredible list, Mattximus. It is well-referenced, attractively arranged, and well-composed. I support it. LavaBaron (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking good. Only quibble is Mississippi is the 32nd most populous state with 2,968,103 inhabitants but the 31st largest by land area spanning 46,923.27 square miles (121,530.7 km2) of land - the "but" is contrastive, and I don't consider the difference in rank enough to be contrastive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support then...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "The largest municipality by population in Mississippi is Jackson with 173,514 residents, and the smallest municipality by population is Satartia with 55 residents." I don't think you need to repeat "municipality by population".

• Changed

• I assume CDP means census designated place but it would be helpful to explain it.

Removed acronym, added link to page explaining what it is.

• The note on Byram says it incorporated 16 June 2009, the incorporation date column 15 June 2009, and the article on Byram in 1870 but surrendered during the Depression. This needs looking at.

Yes it appears the official source from the State of Mississippi is actually wrong, the correct date is 16 June, this is confirmed by the US census and various local news reports. I linked the US census table instead of the local news sources as it seems most official.

• According to the note on Walls the incorporation date of 12 April 1972 (sorry I use British style dates out of habit), but the note says that this date is for the village of Memphis, and the larger town of Walls did not incorporate until 2003. Should the date not therefore be given as 2003?

This is very confusing to me too. I tried to clarify it in the note. From what I understand, Memphis incorporated in 1972, then later amalgamated Walls (which, since it was larger, the whole lot retained the name Walls), so this corporate entity, though name is changed, is indeed incorporated in 1972.

• As population figures for two municipalities in 2000 are not available, the total percentage figure for growth between 2000 and 2010 is inaccurate and should be omitted.

Yes I noticed this and have done this on one other list with clear missing data. However in this case, there are indeed new incorporated regions which adds very little to the population total. I suppose we can view this as an "increase in the number of people under municipal government" rather than absolute population growth rate. What do you think? Any alternatives to deleting the percent change? Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you can say it is the increase in number under municipal govt as you include the change for Diamondhead, which was only incorporated in 2012. If the missing figures are similar to the 2010 ones, that would reduce the increase from 3.6% to 2.7%, which is significant. I think the only alternatives are to delete the percentages or insert estimated figures for the missing ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds reasonable Dudley Miles, removed the percent change to keep it simple. Mattximus (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dudley Miles once again for your reviews of my lists! Great catches. I addressed everything but the last one which is absolutely up for debate. If you think strongly there is no alternative, I will just delete it. Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The references are well-formatted, although having Town of Walls repeated as the publisher and work of ref 7 is a bit awkward. Not sure there's much you can do about that, though.

• Yeah I'm not sure what to do about it, it's written that way on the website as well.

• Since it's that way on the site itself, you're probably best off leaving it as is. We'll just have to live with it looking a bit odd. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the organization behind ref 6 (Mississippi Rails)? Is this an actual organization or a hobbyist's website? If the latter, I'm not convinced that it's reliable enough.

• I'm also not happy with that source, however it's the only one that lists the day and month for incorporation. I cross-checked it with the official website which states the same year, so as far as I can tell it is accurate. But yeah, I agree. Would you rather I delete the date altogether? Or keep it with this questionable (but cross-referenced) site. I'm happy whatever you recommend.

• If the site is questionable and a more reliable source can't be found, I suggest dropping the date. It's better to not include an item if it can't be reliably sourced. Take care of this and I think we can consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Found a much better reference site, which quotes the "Charters of Municipalities, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Mississippi", and gives the same date. I am now more confident that it is the correct date.

• I don't know. This makes it look like the site is composed of user-submitted content, which doesn't make it the most reliable source in the world. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I've now used the cite US Bill template to cite the bill directly, unfortunately I cannot find an online version of it... if this doesn't work I'll just delete the day and month and leave it like that. Thanks for your keen eyes. Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5 isn't connecting properly on the link-checker. Do me a favor and double-check that the page is still working; it may well be, as the link-checker sometimes has bad connections that turn out to be false positives. The rest of the links are in working order.

• You are right, the site has died, however I've added the internet archive version and kept the reference as it was the official website for the county.

Giants2008 (Talk) 03:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the source review! I've addressed all your points, and await your advice. Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Room is a 2015 drama directed by Lenny Abrahamson. It is best remembered for the Oscar winning performance of Brie Larson as an abducted woman forced to live in a small room with her child born while in captivity. The film received many awards which are listed here. As always I look forward to the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would love to support but I would like to address Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 5a. The table is squeezed badly, largely due to this edit. There may be a "norm," but national awards are worth a para, and when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it Ribbet32 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: Thanks for your comment. I've adjusted the size of the infobox size image so now the table is not cramped. Also moved Academy Awards to fourth para so that the third is only the national awards. Cowlibob (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "an abducted mother held captive for seven years with her five year old son" - either five-year or five years.
• I don't think it would be bad idea to combine the second para with the first.
• "Larson went on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress" - the Academy was just mentioned in the previous line. No need for "Academy Award for".
• "Larson also received" - using the pronoun will also do.
• When I sort Recipient(s) and nominee(s) the first one to appear is "Jack's escape and rescue", followed by "Outside" and "Room". I think it is due to the quotation sign.
• The Golden Trailer is a bit confusing to me; did the film win the same award (Independent Trailer) for "Outside" and "Room"? Are they the titles for the trailers?
• For the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television Award for Best Achievement in Direction, I think it should read as Best Achievement in Direction not simply Best Direction.
• The names of the recipients for Casting Society of America's Feature Film Studio or Independent Drama appear in random order. It should be arranged in alphabetical order (last name wise).
• Ref 15 and 34 - Entertainment Weekly. I think you know what to do.
• Is News Blaze a reliable source? – FrB.TG (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. The order of nominees in Casting Society of America Awards is per the source which is the press release of the organisation. The about page for NewsBlaze I think provides enough information that it's a reliable source as it shows they have an editorial policy. [[3]] Cowlibob (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support sorry for the late response. Also, I hope that you can review my and Famous Hobo's FLC for listings of Bradley Cooper's films. Cheers! – FrB.TG (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First para of lead reads really clunkily to me, lots of very short, almost disconnected sentences. Otherwise this is top notch. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for having a look at the list. I've made some tweaks to the lead, let me know what you think. Cowlibob (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a shade better, so I'll support this nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list based on the successful nomination of the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. Another Believer, who has worked on many Grammy-related lists, provided a quick review and gave me the encouragement to nominate this list. The first nomination failed to due to a lack of activity. Erick (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like just to note that User:AJona1992 supported this list's promotion in the first FLC round. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, support this list's promotion assuming concerns by all other editors are resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Another Believer! Erick (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I still do support this nomination, I see no issues for its second run here at FLC. – jona ✉ 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Wonderful job with this, and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I echo the previous reviewers, nice job Magiciandude. My review found the following: (1) Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, (2) W3C finds no dead links, (3) the lede is concise, relevant, and compliant with WP:LEDE, (4) I did not locate any (uncorrected) spelling or grammar issues), (5) content that is uncited in infobox is cited in body of article, (6) all claims in table are supported by RS, as is the lede, (7), good categorization, (8) article is stable with only the nom doing substantive recent work on it and just a short discussion on the Talk page. It would be nice to see some more images but I don't have any bright ideas of what could be included. It appears, from my own search, that the LGHOF doesn't have a brand logo, for instance. Anyway, I think this is a short and concise, but very well constructed list and good FLC! LavaBaron (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: passed. Alright, second time's the charm, promoting! --PresN 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo and FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am returning to FLC after a break of a month and a half. I thought I should finish the work on this list with Famous Hobo (who has done most of the work for the list BTW) since I have also written his FA-class biography. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks great.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Can't find any major flaws here. Maybe a keener pair of eyes can spot things out, but this list looks solid to me. Just one query though — "played a dual role in a 2006 onstage production of Three Days of Rain" — You didn't mention Broadway there. You actually mention that "Cooper returned to Broadway for the 2014 run of The Elephant Man". Either you can mention Broadway in the first bit or you can simply say "Cooper returned to stage work for the 2014 run of The Elephant Man".  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Sven. Thank you both for your reviews. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A pristine list. While I was checking the on-screen appearances, I was wondering why the details for A Star is Born (2018 movie) have not been included...[6][7]. Thanks. Lourdes 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess that is because filming for A Star is Born has not yet begun. It will be added as and when that happens. Cheers! – FrB.TG (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Lourdes 02:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• "although he only played an active role in the" -> what is an "active role"? Maybe "a recurring role" would be slightly more clear?
• "His performance in the latter in particular was widely praised, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor, among other awards" -> it sounds as "his performance was nominated for the award", but I believe it should be "he was nominated for the award for his performance". maybe change to "...praised, gaining him a nomination for..."
• Last sentence in the introduction needs a ref.

Mymis (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mymis. I have adapted your suggestions. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few minor issues: in references, E! -> E! Online, you use screencrush.com twice but with different publishers, and I believe regular dashes (-) should be changed to en dashes (–). Besides that, great job on the article, and you have my support. Mymis (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, I just found out that The Daily Telegraph interview was used twice in different instances in the list. This has now been fixed. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks fine, although I think you should give his year of birth at the start. I did wonder whether when you say "x episodes" it would be helpful to say out of how many, but maybe that is not usual. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• This is more of a clarification/style preference question, but do you think that it would be better to replace "a brief role" with either "by appearing in an episode" or something to clarify that he appeared as a guest star? I could see "a brief role" being read somewhat ambiguously (even though it is made very clear in the chart/body of the article). This may be more of a personal preference, but I just wanted to raise this point to you.
• I would suggest revising the sentence about Alias in the lead to better reflect his role on the show. He was actually one of the main characters (included in the main opening credits and everything) for the first two seasons and then made a few guest starring appearances in subsequent seasons. It may be better to say something along the lines of "although he only played a lead role in the series for the first two seasons." I know it is really nitpicky, but just trying to help to make sure everything is being represented accurately.

These are the only two points that I could find. Otherwise, great work with the article! I primarily know him from when I watched Alias all of those years ago, so it is cool to see that his career became so successful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba. Both alterations have been made. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for your quick response and great job with the article. If possible, could you help me with my FLC for Alyssa Milano discography? Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting: passed
• Spotchecks: The NYT refs seems to have gone all wierd. For example, ref 24 (Case 39) - you have two NYT refs, but when I click on them I'm redirected to the same article, [8], a review of the movie. The bottom of the review seems to have the cast/crew information you were citing separately, so it looks like you just have to replace the double-refs with a single reference to the review page(s). Other than that, looks fine; will promote once this issue is resolved. --PresN 21:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PresN. I have replaced all three double-refs from NYT with the review links. - FrB.TG (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, promoting. --PresN 22:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list in June 2015 and actively reworked on it in April 2016. It has been copy-edited twice: once by Jaguar, and later by Twofingered Typist (GOCE). I have postponed it from nominating because of edit wars. Currently, the article is relatively stable. I'm looking forward for constructive comments, if any. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Maharashtra, WikiProject Mumbai, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and WikiProject Women. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG making a very brief return to FLC. I don't intend to revisit this nominations. Here are a few thoughts you can consider or dismiss:

• "Tamannaah's breakthrough roles in Telugu and Tamil cinema came with Happy Days and Kalloori" - a respectively is needed here.

• Done Added.

• "Tamannaah had five roles in 2009 including:" - I think instead of the colon we need a comma before the word "including". I have not seen colon being used like this not at least in these examples.

• Done Removed.

• "one of the most sought-after actresses" - I think popular would do better than sought-after which reads kind of informal.

• Done Changed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "a nomination in the Best Actress – Telugu category at the 59th" - in a lead consisting of only three paragraphs the usage of the word "category" is very frequent.

• Reduced the occurrences to two.

• "She appeared in four films in the following year" - the second "in" is unnecessary.

• Done Removed.

• " While Veeram was a profitable venture,[21] Entertainment was only a moderate success,[22] the remaining underperformed at the box office" - "while" is a conjunction used to combine two sentences, not three.

• Good catch. Fixed it.

• "Tamannaah played Avanthika, a warrior princess" - we do not need the name of her role unless it is a part of any literature or a character of historic significance. I see that some more are repeated in the next sentences; better leave them in the table.

• Done as suggested.

• For some reason, rowspan is discouraged in filmographies.

• I don't think so. It is harmless enough; i'm able to sort the coloumns with no issues.

• For bilingual films, I don't think you need to make two rows for them eg instead of Hindi<br>Tamil, you can simply use a comma i.e. Hindi, Tamil.

• I don't think that it would be helpful. A sortable coloumn, Language may be affected because of this.

• I think references look better in the center position.

• Fixed it.

Support Although this needs a bit of work, I don't intend to return to this nomination so this is up to the nominator whether to consider my points or disagree with them explaining why. Overall this is a decent effort which with some work can be brought to FL status. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time and providing some comments. Considering that the reviewer shall not return, i should not expect anything more. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good list. Although I would prefer if the primary sources were replaced for some awards and films. Cowlibob (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My comments have been resolved. All the best. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets the standards. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• Tamannaah performed an item number in the Kannada-Telugu bilingual Jaguar: "Sampige", but that is the Kannada title. I found that the song was titled "Mandara Thailam" in Telugu, but can a source be added for this? Even a video (but from a verified YouTube channel) will do.

• Done

• "Kannada language" redirects to "Kannada".

• Done

• I don't know, but is it fine to include her appearance in Jaguar in the lead? I say this due to it being her only Kannada film.

• Well Kailash, it is as good as Aishwarya Rai's only Telugu film appearance. :)

• Vensatry, would it be better if the lead linked to the languages rather than industries, like this? Tamannaah is an Indian actress known for her work in Telugu and Tamil language films. She made her debut in 2005 at the age of 15 with Chand Sa Roshan Chehra in Hindi. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed —Vensatry _(talk) 15:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed as per suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 and Vensatry: Are you both satisfied with the responses to your comments? --PresN 20:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:Your take on the first point (under the source review)? Btw, {{ping}} doesn't work anymore. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Yeah, right now that cite is actually to... the event itself. It's completely non verifiable without a time machine. You need a recording or a 3rd-party reference to refer to. Even a valid broadcast information would work, like Cite TV episode. --PresN 16:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (Oh, and {{ping}} and {{re}} are both just redirects to {{reply to}}, and I got your message, so... pretty sure ping still works (usually).)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, i have removed the reference and the content associated with it. And, it is unlikely that i may find something actually fit. So, anything else from my side to be addressed? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still have three {{cite AV media}} refs. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: That's because there are no RSs (like Rediff, TOI, The Hindu, Hindustan Times) that show the actors' character names, as well as who the director is. There are reviews from IndiaGlitz (which is deemed unreliable by WP) however.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN and Vensatry: I've provided links from YouTube (obviously from verified publishers). Anything else? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For YT links, you've used both 'cite AV Media' and 'cite web' templates. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Rectified on Pavan's behalf.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Can you be more specific?  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In YT links. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Just rectified them.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments from Kailash

• Tamannaah played an extra in Enakku 20 Unakku 18, but I can't find any English RS to prove it. Vensatry and Ssven2, will either of these do? s-escape-from-jothikrishna.htm and [10]. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say so. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Try using YouTube videos as refs. She's there in the songs "Gama Gama" and "Oru Nanban Irundhaal". Ironic, isn't it? Trishtrashers played Simran's friend in Jodi and here Tamannahspeaks plays Trishtrashers' friend.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this. Any police officer or high court would pass the videos as credible references (even though they are fan uploads), but (scoffs) Wikipedia wouldn't do the same. Now if we say Chand Sa Roshan Chehra was Tamannaah's debut film, it is wrong. But if we say it was her debut in a major role, others will be like, "what did she do before?" and that puts us in limbo. Was Tamannaah credited onscreen in Enakku 20 Unakku 18? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Uncredited. I tried searching for other sources (in both English and Tamil), but none of them seem to say that Tamannah had an uncredited role in the film.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find a reliable source to support that part, you could just modify the lead to not say absolutely that the Chand Sa Roshan Chedra role was her debut, avoiding the issue altogether. For purposes of moving this FLC towards a conclusion, I suggest doing that. The extra role can always be added later if a good source presents itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I've changed it accordingly. Do check if it is okay.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) and Vivvt (talk · contribs)

One of the most important literary awards in India. The list has gone through major changes recently and we believe that it follows the required guidelines to be a FL. Hoping to see some constructive comments/criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite a few issues with the English, I have to say.....
  • "the award is bestowed only on the Indian writers who have been writing in Indian languages...." => "the award is bestowed only on Indian writers writing in Indian languages...."

    • Done

  • "The first recipient of the award was Malayalam litterateur" - what is a "litterateur"? I am a native English speaker and have never seen this word in my life
    • This is a word with French origin as per Oxford.
      • It must be a super super obscure word. For the benefit of readers not familiar with it, I would suggest using "literary experts" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • Done

          • Still being used in two other places in the article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @ChrisTheDude: Done My bad! - Vivvt (Talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was awarded in 1965" => "who received the award in 1965"

    • Done

  • "The rules were revised for the forthcoming years to consider works during the period of last twenty years" => "The rules were revised in subsequent years to consider only works published during the preceding twenty years"

    • Done

  • "As of 2015," - we are now quite close to 2017, is this still true?
    • @ChrisTheDude:Thats correct. 2016 award is not yet declared. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to start a scheme in literary or cultural field" - I think just "to start a scheme" is sufficient, the fact that it was for a book makes it obvious that it was in the literary field

    • Done

  • "were invited in Delhi" => "were invited to Delhi"

    • Done

  • "Sampurnanand presided the committee" => "Sampurnanand acted as president of the committee"

    • Done

  • "The first Selection Board comprised of" => "The first Selection Board consisted of"

    • Done

  • "The works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered" => "Works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered"

    • Done

  • "translations of the work in Hindi or English" => "translations of the work into Hindi or English"

    • Done

  • "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for all the languages" => "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for each of the languages"

    • Done

  • "The language of the recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years" => "The language of the most recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years"

    • Done

  • "The Selection Board consists of maximum eleven and minimum seven members" => "The Selection Board consists of between seven and eleven members"

    • Done

  • "Having final authority in selection, the recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board" => "The recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board, which has final authority in selection"

    • Done

• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I have addressed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. 10:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - apologies for not returning here earlier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks much for your comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments and source review - spot-checks not included

• "cash prize of ₹1 lakh (US$1,500)" - I think it might be wise to not use the INRConvert template as it causes a problem for inflation. The date of the amount goes back to 60s and the date of conversion.... well. Besides, it's an international encyclopedia not American/Canadian/Australian...
  • Dharmadhyaksha worked on this. Hope thats correct.
• "Malayalam writer G. Sankara Kurup" - I think using the definite article (i.e. the Malayalam writer) is more desirable in BrEng (I might be correct in assuming that it and IndEng are very similar) and should be used here and from herein.

  • Done

• "chaired by Kaka Kalelkar" - just her last name will do since his name was mentioned in the previous para.

  • Done

• "which also can be" better as "which can also be"

  • Done

• Formatting - I personally wiki-link entries on first instance but I think Vivvt thinks another way.
  • Correct. :)
• Ref 9 - I would remove Asian News International.

  • Done

• Ref 13 - The Telegraph => The Telegraph (Calcutta). We have other versions too.

  • Done

• Ref 15 - India Today; italics please.

  • Done

• Ref 30 - perhaps consider removing Press Trust of India since you are inconsistent when it comes to this.

  • Done

• Ref 33, 39 - ditto.

  • Done

That is all I could find. My concerns are not very serious and I am confident that the nominators will deal with them properly so I don't see the need for a revisit. Based on that, I am adding my support for the nomination's promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: Thanks much for your comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
Since this is becoming stale now I have asked for more reviews at the WP Literature, WP India and WP Awards & prizes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

I saw your notice at WP Awards & prizes. My only question is why is this a Featured List and not a Featured Article? If it's a list then the emphasis is on the list of award winners. In which case we normally have separate articles for the award itself rather than trying to fit a full article into the top of a list. See Nobel Prize in Literature and List of Nobel laureates in Literature (Featured).

Suggest a separate article for the award, move most of the prose content to it, and rename this article List of Jnanpith Award winners. Otherwise what happens is once it becomes enshrined as Featured content in list format, it becomes difficult for future editors to expand the non-list portion without breaking its status as a list article (adding many sub-sections, extended content about controversies, third party reporting about the award on a year by year basis etc..) Once it's featured content, it becomes difficult to break off the list portion into a separate article from the article portion (about the prize) because there is 'community consensus'. Design it from the start around the assumption there will be future expansion about the award itself. -- GreenC 15:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom: There never is a clear-cut demarcation of a list and article on Wikipedia, which is always a debatable issue and I suppose it is settled case by case, which also makes sense. Through various observations so far I and @Vivvt: have been deciding on whether it’s a list or article simply based on the encyclopaedic content we can find, look at how it has developed and then seeing the size of prose opt for FA or FL. Dadasaheb Phalke Award is one such FL where it does not have a separate parent article and the list is in it. Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna is similar example of FL, which has more text than DPA and also includes a controversy section at the end to mention some notable incidences. Likewise, Bharat Ratna (current GA) is another joint page but is treated as article for the large amount of prose present. Same is with Geet Ramayan (current GA) which is also basically by nature a huge list of songs but has more prose around it and is hence treated as article. Coming back to our subject topic, the content present now is more or less what will stay with minor changes related to the "most recent recipient". There have been no substantially documented controversies so far since 50 years of this award and any such controversies arising further can very well be documented in few sentences within this current format. But i would say that most of those controversies would not find way here anyways and would need to be removed as case of recentism and sloppy we-brought-it-to-you-first type of gossipy journalism. But as I said, we always have space for few condensed sentences if they really are worth it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine as it stands. There's no need to create a separate article, it just leads to massive duplication and parallel maintenance issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot-checks – I checked refs 25, 30, and 38, and found no verifiability concerns. Since that was the last outstanding item, I'll go ahead and promote the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is in the same format as other featured lists of Local Nature Reserves, such as Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and I hope it will also be found to meet the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no major issues raised, I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lavishly illustrated, well-cited, all problems identified above fixed LavaBaron (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why are we converting kilometer to miles? The subject is not American nor is this encyclopedia.

  Brits use miles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if you need the initials under Keys to be bold.

• They are in bold in other similar lists and I think it is better to be consistent.

• The beginning of the description of the sites are quite repetitive. Most of them either begin with "This (site)" or "The (site)". I would rearrange.

• I will work on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have amended to give more variety to the beginnings. Does it look OK now FrB.TG? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better now.

• Why are the YES (under public access) in capital?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you might need to wiki-link the publishers in references (or not). It is up to you.

• I have never (or very rarely) wiki-linked publishers and I do not think it is usual. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is it. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC) PS if it is not too much to ask, could you perhaps consider posting at FLC for listings of Bradley Cooper's films?[reply]

• Many thanks for your comments FrB.TG. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed- not linking publishers is unusual, but is not against any rules as long as you're consistent. Promoting. --PresN 17:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked to improve it to a level that should meet the required FL criteria. I have used the List of York City F.C. seasons, List of Watford F.C. seasons and List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons pages as guides in order to improve the list. I have also received some very helpful pointers from Struway2 to bring it up to scratch. Kosack (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • First sentence needs a source
  • "the club were granted permission to adopt the name Cardiff City" - by whom?
  • "but their relegation in 1962 lead" - spelling error
  • "the longest absence in the clubs history" - missing apostrophe
  • "22nd in the Fourth Division in the 1995–96 season" - how can this be? There was no Fourth Division in 1995-96
  • "saw them rise from the Fourth Division to the Second Division in just three seasons" - similarly, this can't be correct
  • Why are seasons before 1910 not included in the table? Is the data not available? If so, this should be clearly stated, although I'd be surprised if there wasn't a club history book that contained the info.......
  • In note I, system is spelt wrong
  • In note J, the name of the team was Corinthian (singular)
  • In note M, "The Third Division South Cup was abandoned at the sem-final stage during the 1938–39 season following the outbreak of World War II" - how can this be? The 1938-39 season would have been long over by the time war broke out (also, semi-final is spelt wrong)
  • Note Q needs a full stop.
  • As does note T
• Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks very much for reviewing the page. I've cleaned up the numerous grammar and spelling issues now. Some explanation on some of the points:

2 - The club history does not say who they actually applied to, HERE. If that is an issue then I'm happy to reword that sentence to something such as "changed their name to Cardiff City".

7 - Statistics for the seasons prior to 1910 seem to be non-existent as far as I can see. I own numerous club history books, including the "definitive" statistical history written by the club historian Richard Shepherd, but none of these provide any information on those seasons. The same can be said for the web sources such as the Football Club History Database and the Welsh Football Data Archive.

10 - The semi-final and final were held over until the following season but never played after the war broke out. The source for that is HERE. I have tidied up the note to hopefully explain that a bit better.

Thanks. Kosack (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I've noticed a couple of other, fairly minor, points.....
  • In the notes, you use both "Division 1" and "Division One" (and similar) - choose one format and be consistent
  • General refs should be formatted using citation templates just like the specific ones
• Think that's really it this time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Sorted those two issues now. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Randomly crosschecked five sources, no issues with close paraphrasing
• Ref 10 can also be found in 'general'. But because you've put it in the 'specific' section, page numbers are needed.
• Ref 7, 8, 11, 36 need authors
• So do "England - Southern League Final Tables", and "England – List of FA Charity/Community Shield Matches".
• What makes 'Sporting Heroes' a high-quality, reliable source? Same question goes for Footballsite.co.uk, I'd recommend that you change both.
• Ref 9's 'rsssf.com' should be written as 'The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation'
• Books need publishing location
• No dab links, or dead ones for that matter
• Two images, both of which appropriately licensed Lemonade51 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonade51: Thanks for reviewing the page, I think I've fixed the issues you listed. Kosack (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Still not thrilled with the symbol thing, but it's probably not worth further delaying matters. The rest of the list looks fine to me, so I'm willing to go along with the current formatting. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checked that the source review responses fixed the issues, and they do, so promoting. --PresN 16:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth is arguably the biggest 'Superstar' in Indian cinema. His body of work encompasses 170-odd films across seven languages. He has been in the industry for over 40 years, and is among India's highest paid actors in the last two decades. The previous nomination was archived due to inactivity. Should things go well, the list shall appear on the main page on 12 December (coinciding with the actor's 66th birthday)! Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

The list looks fine to me and better than the previous attempt. Three issues however.

• "...and the Telugu film Chilakamma Cheppindi, in which he played a lead role for the first time in his career." Source?
• "Rajinikanth played a Malaysian Tamil crime boss in Kabali, which had the biggest weekend opening for an Indian film and went on to become the second-highest grossing Tamil film of all time." Again, source?
• So many green links and two blue links. Please fix them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pavanjandhyala: All done. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good. All the best! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I think Note a should be changed to "Also producer" and note e should be changed to "Character's full name: Ranoji Rao Shivaji Rao Gaekwad Jadichmul Arjun Thange".--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deoliveirafan: Done, thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – While reading the list, I noticed several links to full-length YouTube videos spread throughout. Are they are okay to have in the article from a legal standpoint? If they're copyvios from some random YouTube poster, then we can't link to them here. Other than that point, this seems like a fine piece of work. Also, I'll make sure to leave December 12 open for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kailash29792: Can you take care of Giants' concern, as I'm likely to remain busy for the next two days? —Vensatry _(talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll do it. And Giants2008, I know Vensatry has only used videos from verified YouTube channels. So they should pass WP:RS and not border on copyvio. Besides, I cannot currently check YouTube since it is blocked from where I'm editing, but I'll check tonight. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – As long as both of you are confident about the status of the links, I'll assume good faith on the issue. That was my only concern, as the rest of the article looks solid to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

• "who has appeared in over 150 films" - I think it should be "more than 150 films" since the source says 158 films.

• I see that highest grossing is hyphenated per my suggestion but it is still "went on to become the highest grossing Tamil" and "and is among the highest grossing Indian films of all time". Either dismiss my suggestion or adopt it in its entirety.
• I see all the four paragraphs start with the actor's name. I know it is not a very big deal and quite common, but this IMO makes for repetitive prose and is best avoided.
• Zee News is a channel that does not need italics.
• Ref 35- I see publishers are linked every time. It should be no different here. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else, Frankie. :-)  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed. I would support this list, but I am a little bit uncomfortable about the the length but I don't see where it could be cut down. Maybe I am just not used to seeing a prose this long in a list. Anyway, you have enough supports for this so you should have no problem having this promoted. I look forward to the main page appearance of someone who is among the most well-known (if not the most) people in India. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: the "chapter" abbreviations should be "ch.", or less commonly "chap.", not "chpt.", and the page numbers for ranges are "pp. 1–3" (note the ndash, not hyphen), not "1/3". If the page numbers are disjoint, it's "pp. 1, 3". If it's one page, it's "p. 1". So, "Ramachandran 2014, chpt. Superstar: 35/57." should instead be "Ramachandran 2014, ch. Superstar: pp. 35–57." Unless you have a style guide that says otherwise that you're following, but I've never seen formatting like that before.
• Spotchecks passed, so just the formatting needs to be addressed. --PresN 20:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, I too am unsure what Vensatry meant by "x/x". I'd write "x-x" for two consecutive pages, and "x, x" for two disjoint pages. Besides, could you please do proofreading if possible? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:The 'x/x' style is based on the ebook version. By 'x/x', it means a single page. As for 'chpt.' it's very much an acceptable form. See Template:Sfn —Vensatry _(talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for the link, ok, so "chpt" is fine then. Still confused on the 'x/x' thing - you mean, like, '23/27' means the 23rd out of 27 pages in that chapter? Because that would only be valid for your specific screen resolution- other sized screens would have a different number of pages in the chapter, so the page information would actually be misleading instead of helpful. If you don't have a way to get a standard page number for the "978-0-670-08620-7" book, then just leave it at the chapter name. --PresN 16:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: That's right. I guess Kailash29792 has a hard copy of the book. Will wait for his response. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry, check your talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I've removed the page nos. As you say, the chapter names should suffice. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Source Review Passed --PresN 13:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though I would like to see some red links blued.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess most of them are one-film wonders. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 04:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my tenth list that I aim to bring up to Featured List. Thanks to all the people who helped out with those reviews so far. I have modelled this list off of the recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and so have taken any changes from that article into account here. I've incorporated templates into the tables which allows the list to be updated quickly after the next census and to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pending commennts
  • The table is missing the caption and the col rows are missing the "!" per MOS:DTT
    • Added caption, and all the col have the ! per MOS... not sure if that is what you meant?
      • | scope="row" should be ! scope="row"
        • What is the purpose of this change? I just tried it and it messes up the entire formatting, the whole table becomes out of wack.

That's for screen readers scope="row" doesn't have any effect without that exclamation mark.

I see, thanks. However it doesn't resolve the issue of how the whole table becomes broken when you add the !. For example, the first three columns change background colour, they become centred which makes it hard to read, and they become bolded for some reason. It really looks very bad. All other lists passed with the current format, is it absolutely necessary to change?

• • I don't think "population 2000" and "change" columns are necessary, but even if they are, I believe "population 2000" should come before "population 2010", to follow the chronological order.
    • It's more important to have the most up to date data first, and to see how it has changed over time. It's also the same format as other list of municipalities, so it would be weird to make Maryland different would it not? See List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, List of municipalities in Nunavut, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Yukon, List of cities and towns in Alabama, List of municipalities in New Brunswick, Cantons of Costa Rica, List of cities and towns in Montana, List of cities, towns, and villages in Mississippi, List of cities, towns, and villages in Louisiana, List of municipalities in Rhode Island, List of municipalities in New Mexico, List of cities and towns in South Carolina, List of municipalities in Wyoming, List of cities in Nevada
    • On a side note, the population 2000 will be removed when the next census comes out in a few years.
      • Most if not all of these lists are your own work, so they all have the style you follow. Those lists would flow a lot better if it were in a chronological order.
        • I really do disagree, the most important figure in the whole list would be the most up to date population figure available, and it should be first.

That's like saying History of Maryland should start with the events in the 21st century since it's the most recent information about the state.

Yes, the lead of the Maryland article should probably begin with it's present population and status. And it does, so this page is in agreement with the main state page.

• • The Land area shouldn't have 2 subcolumns, it should look like the Density column
    • See previous comment, this is the style for all American states in the list above, it would be strange to make Maryland different from all the rest I would think.
      • Again, it's not all of them, but only the ones you worked on. List of municipalities in Florida, an FL, doesn't look lie that.
        • Sorry I just linked to the ones I worked on, but almost all others (even ones I didn't promote, for example List of municipalities in Alberta) follow this trend. I will get to the Florida one eventually to fix that one.

Right now, "Density" and "Land area" columns use two different formats, just pick one and stick with it. If you want two separate columns for mi and km, then both columns should have 2 subcolumns.

• • "Incorporated" column should be added with the dates.
    • I often include that piece of information on these lists but I couldn't find a source for Maryland, do you have one? Also, it would make the column rather wide for smaller screens, so I'm not sure it is necessary.
      • It's more necessary than the population change. Here's the link, just click on the name of each city and you'll see the year incorporated.
        • I have to disagree that it's more important than population change, what is your logic on that? Knowing how a city changed over recent time tells you much more about a place than a date it was founded, which is honestly fairly trivial. Population trends are great proxies for all kinds of economic, and demographic inferences, but dates don't tell you anything about what the city is like now.

Dates don't tell you anything, huh? It shows whether that particular city has a history and how long that history is.

Actually this isn't true. The incorporation date rarely tells you how long the history is, some cities that were founded centuries ago incorporated in 2008. So by providing the date, you are actually misleading readers.

--Cheetah (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I've addressed all but one of your comments, which I'm still working on. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "Maryland is divided into 23 counties and contains 157 incorporated municipalities consisting of cities, towns, and villages.[2] Maryland's incorporated municipalities cover only 4.4% of the state's land mass but" This seems unnecessarily wordy. I think you could shorten the second sentence to "Incorporated municipalities cover only 4.4% of the land but"

You are right, that is much better.

• I found the explanation of the structure of government confusing. I take it that the municipalities are part of the counties, but have the right to decide how far they exercise self-government and whether they cede any powers to the county, but it would be helpful to spell this out - if it is correct.

I added this sentence: "Municipalities are the lowest tier administrative units in Maryland, and all except Baltimore are also subject to County administration.". Would that satisfy your confusion? If not I will also make it more clear!

• "the City of Baltimore is more of a county than a city under state law since it exercises charter home rule similar to Maryland's nine charter counties" This is incomprehensible to anyone who does not understand the structure of US municipal government.

I think I made this more clear, is that so?

• Note a. It looks very strange having a single note in 3 columns.

Nice catch, not sure why that was there...

• Looks fine to me apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Dudley Miles! Mattximus (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Everything looks good now. Nice job, as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my minor concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

There's only 3 online sources, so I checked them. Spotchecks and formatting passed. Promoting. --PresN 12:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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