Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2018

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) 00:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. Lists I used as reference while writing it included List of songs recorded by Katy Perry and List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift. I don't see anything that would hinder it from being featured. All input is appreciated. Thanks.--NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expect comments by Sunday; if not ping me JOEBRO64 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this article, everything looks good for the most part. The only thing that really stands out to me is that AllMusic isn't linked in refs 12, 17, 19, and 23. However, this is minor so it won't withhold my support. Well done JOEBRO64 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ve purposely only linked websites in the first instance of them being used as references to avoid overlinking. It’s done the same way on other FAs and GAs.—NØ 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For this sentence (When Trainor signed with Epic Records in February 2014, her three self-produced albums were pulled from circulation), you can use “she” instead of “Trainor” as it is clear from the context, and to avoid the repetition of her name, which is repeated in all three sentences of the opening paragraph.
• I do not believe the “1950s in music” wikilink for 1950s is needed as it is somewhat ambigious. There were a lot of different styles of music in the 1950s and I doubt that Trainor covered all of them in her EP. I think that the wikilink for “doo woop” clears up the genre and is more beneficial for a reader who wants to research more about the style of music.
• For this sentence (Its lyrical composition contemplates 21st century womanhood.), I would just say “lyrics” instead of “lyrical composition” for more concise language. Remember to adjust the verb accordingly.
• I have two comments for this sentence (Trainor initially released three independent albums: Meghan Trainor (2009), I'll Sing with You (2011), and Only 17 (2011).). I do not believe “initially” is needed as we, the reader, already know that this is the first in the timeline of Trainor’s release given the release dates and it is the first thing mentioned in the lead. Also, I would say “self-released” to let the reader know that she did on her own as opposed to an indie record label.
• I would revise this sentence (Artists who collaborated on the album include Chris Gelbuda, Jesse Frasure, John Legend and Shy Carter.) to something like this (She collaborate with other artists, including Chris Gelbuda, Jesse Frasure, John Legend and Shy Carter, for the album).
• Remove the wikilinks for “1950s in music” and “1960s in music”.
• For this sentence (Title was inspired by Trainor's love for throwback style records, and music from the 1950s and 1960s), I do not believe the comma after “records” is needed.
• For this part (She combined different musical genres, including caribbean, doo-wop, hip hop, soca and pop, for the album's songs), you could just use “album” instead of “album’s songs” to be more concise.
• For this part (She combined different musical genres, including caribbean, doo-wop, hip hop, soca and pop, for the album's songs.), the word “Caribbean” should be capitalized.
• You have R&B linked twice in the lead.
• I have two questions about this sentences (The R&B album was created in hopes that the singer will showcase her caribbean side, and her love for Aretha Franklin, Bruno Mars and Elvis Presley.). Who is the person doing the “hoping” here? Trainor, the record company, producers/songwriters for the album? And I do not understand what you mean by “her Caribbean side”. The link goes to the geographic region, but Trainor does not appear to have ties to the region through family. This requires further clarification.
• In the lead, you only mention her guest feature on “Just Got Paid”. Do you think her other features, such as “Marvin Gaye” should be mentioned?
• Do you think that Trainor’s soundtrack contributions (i.e. The Peanuts Movie and the Smurfs) should be mentioned in the lead?

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend and start to your week! This inspires me to do more work on music-related lists as it has been a minute since I have done so. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All  Done. I only mentioned Marvin Gaye among her features though since thats the only successful song she has featured on aside from Just Got Paid. I was hoping you would comment here since you helped with all the other lists, but I saw you tell someone on your talk page that you're not reviewing featured content currently so I didn't bother you lol. Great review!--NØ 05:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. Since I have decided to resume nominating articles through the FAC process, I thought it was only fair to review other people's FACs and FLCs. I have already reviewed both editors' FLCs already just so you know. I just have one more suggestion before I can support this. For the following sentence (has contributed two songs to soundtracks: "Better When I'm Dancin'" and "I'm a Lady".), you mention that she did "two songs" for soundtracks, which is not true according to the chart. She did record one other song for The Peanuts Movie. I would also add the titles of the films to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this has been addressed, I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; there were a couple small sorting issues with the table but I just fixed them; promoting. --PresN 06:05, 28 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors! I am nominating this article because it is a comprehensive yet narrowly-scoped list of the longest living members of the British royal family. Please feel free to share your suggestions and comments here on any improvements this article may need to become a featured list! Thank you in advance. — West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Member by blood" is linked in paragraph 2 but the term is used earlier - link it there instead
  • "She is also the longest-living member by blood" - as this comes after a string of royal women, it is a bit unclear to whom the "she" actually refers, so this could do with clarification
  • "deprived of their British titles in 1919 under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917" - might be worth adding a few words or a note to explain why this was done
  • "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and in September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" => "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and, since September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" - she didn't only hold the distinction of longest reigning monarch in that one month......
  • Most significantly, the chronology table is back-to-front - by definition a chronological list should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order.......
  • Notes b & f and c & g are identical and could be combined
• Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude, thank you tremendously for your suggestions and comments. I have address all your comments, and I thank you for sharing your guidance and expertise with me! Please let me know if you see anything else outstanding in this list! — West Virginian (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks much better. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:48, 25 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Lead image seems a little big to me

• Made it a bit smaller. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In lead, "of which seven" → seven of which

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a question but why is no info available for Hindringham Meadows?

• 'What to see' on the information page at [4] is blank and I cannot find any information elsewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Oh well! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Barnham Cross Common: sixty → 60 (later you use 40 instead of forty; make sure you're consistent)

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. Great job to you! Care to check out my current FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review BeatlesLedTV. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Any chance of a slightly more informative/descriptive caption for the lead image?

• • Done (with a slightly different image). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • "This grassland and heath common has diverse habitats and a rich flora" - is a flora a correct usage? Should it not just be flora?

• • This is a tricky one but I have tried googling. "and a rich flora" gets 58,000 hits, "and rich flora" gets 41,000. I think both are correct and I prefer my version. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • "A ahort stretch" - typo there I think :-)

• • Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thnaks for the review ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Didn't spot any problems with the article. Fine work as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:48, 25 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the page contains a well sourced and informative list of seasonal goal scoring achievements by footballers in the South African Premier Division. South African football is not comprehensively covered and the list thus provides a reliable source of information for viewers. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • Rather than simply referring to "in honour of the late Lesley Manyathela", I would explain who he actually was by saying "in honour of Lesley Manyathela, a South African international striker who died [etc]"
  • I would put the image of Parker below the "winners" heading - it looks odd straddling it
  • Don't think the word "conversely" is needed in the lead, especially since it doesn't immediately follow the info about the highest-ever season total
  • "The 2017–18 season saw" - a season can't "see" something
• Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response
  • Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to help with this nomination.
    • I have added more infomation on Manyathela, highlighting that he was a former international and recipient of the award.
    • I have moved the image to below the "winners" heading
    • I agree that the sentences don't flow and removed the word "conversely"
    • I have tweaked the wording of the final para of the lede, let me know what you think.
  • Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • "....after Polokwane City and Mamelodi Sundowns forwards Rodney Ramagalela and Percy Tau both ended the campaign on 11 goals" - this wording is slightly confusing, it could be interpreted as saying that both players played for both clubs. Maybe "....after forwards Rodney Ramagalela of Polokwane City and Percy Tau of Mamelodi Sundowns both ended the campaign on 11 goals".........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response
  • Hi ChrisTheDude, I like that suggestion and have reworded it accordingly. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
2. If there are photographs of the current holders available, having them in the infobox would be nice.
3. Since the award was renamed, it should be mentioned what it was called before.
4. The WP:LEAD is a a bit short. There is plenty of space to expand it.
5. The "Ref(s)" column should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).
6. Since the players do not represent the countries they are from but the clubs they play for, including their nationalities is not appropriate.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response

Hi TompaDompa, thank you for the feedback.

• I have added ALT text and removed one image due to a factual inaccuracy.
• There are unfortunately no images of the current winners, or of those mentioned in the lede. Do you think the image of Parker should be used?
• The award had no previous name. I have reworded the lede to mention the colloquial name and that it was named - rather than renamed - in 2003.
• I have added some more info to the lede. Let me know if you think more is required.
• Added wiki code for Ref.
• I've left the nationalities in, though. I do believe it is relevant has place in equivalent FL's such as Premier League Golden Boot.

Thanks again for your comments, please let me know if you have any other concerns. Also, ChrisTheDude, please see the abovementioned edits and let me know if you are still happy to support the nom or if there are new tweaks which you feel need to be made. Thanks. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to keep the image of Parker where it is. I stand by what I said about nationalities; the players don't represent their countries but their clubs, and this use of flags is proscribed by MOS:SPORTFLAGS. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the Parker image where it is then, thanks. I disagree with the interpretation of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, though. The nationality of club players is commonly used on like football pages: see Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, European Golden Shoe, Capocannoniere, List of Ligue 1 top scorers... Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would say all of those pages contravene the principle of not emphasizing nationality without good reason. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just checking in to say yes I am still happy to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TompaDompa, please see recommendations below, particularity with regards to nationality, and let me know if the changes I've made cover your concerns. Thanks. 07:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• I'm fairly sure that Apartheid isn't supposed to be treated as a proper noun and doesn't need the capitalization.
• Reference 1 requires an access date, like the other source links have in their citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Giants2008, thank you for your comments. I have addressed the issues raised. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My couple of comments have been adequately addressed and the list looks to be in good shape. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Political Cricketer, —Vensatry _(talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Sharma has had a phenomenal success in ODIs since 2013. His figures in the format stand next only to Virat Kohli. Political Cricketer created the article (happy to include him as a co-nom) and I expanded the lead and tidied up the table. As always, look forward to comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • In the first sentence, "twenty one" should be 21
    • Either one should be fine. Let's stick with words. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2013, he became the third player to score a double-century" - picky, maybe, but clarify that he was the third player in ODIs to achieve this
  • "highest individual total by a batsman in the format as of October 2018" - we're now in November...........
  • "highest score by a visiting batsman against Australia until England's Jason Roy made 180 against Australia" - second "against Australia" isn't needed
  • "In December 2017, he became the first player to score three double centuries in ODIs" - source?
  • "and he is only player" => "and he is the only player"
• Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Link not out in the lead too.
  • Provide references for ODI and T20I debut matches.
  • "Test centuries scored by Rohit Sharma" seems unnecessary to mention since page is only for rohit sharma. Instead you can write as "Centuries scored in Test cricket". Similarly for ODI and T20I.
• Other than those, all looks OK. Sa Ga Vaj 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagavaj: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. Sa Ga Vaj 15:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Binod Basnet (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows that the links all work properly. Spot-checks of refs 15, 21, and 32 revealed no problems. Everything looks good on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 15 December 2018 (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) 22:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of bringing up all the list of municipalities across North America to a high standard and I believe this one is already at featured list quality despite failing a previous nomination from lack of reviewers. The creation of this article involved a collaborative input which makes it one of the better lists that I have nominated. Thanks for taking the time to provide a review! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Honestly looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support consistent with the other Mexico articles. Reywas92^Talk 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "They may also assist the state and federal governments in education, emergency fire and medical services" Is this "emergency fire" or should there be a comma after "emergency"?

• Yep it does mean "emergency fire" and "emergency medical" services, so no comma would be needed.

• "Municipalities may establish internal subdivisions" Functional or geographical?

• Fixed wording.

• Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review! Both comments addressed. Mattximus (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though I still do not understand whether "internal subdivisions for governance purposes" means functional or geographical - or both. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "for local administrative purposes" be better wording? It's both functional and geographical. Mattximus (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest "Municipalities may establish functional and geographical subdivisions called delegaciones and subdelegaciones". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me, changed. Thanks again for your input! Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 12 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent successful nominations of lists in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, I think this one is ready as well. Style is consistent with the previous two and there are enough items on both regular and the tentative lists to merit a separate article (admittedly, the Macedonia list was a bit thin in this regard). Tone 19:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting list. It looks like a lot of work has gone into it and I think I will support.

• "dating back to the antiquity" shouldn't have "the" in it.
• The link to architecture in the table seems a little unnecessary. Basilica and citadel could maybe be linked though?
• Maybe "Byzantine" should link to Byzantine Empire instead of Byzantine architecture?
• "two-storey houses". Also, "outstanding" seems a little biased to me.
• I'd use "transnational" instead of "transboundary", it seems a bit more specific.
• The lead says that the forest site is shared with eleven countries, but you list twelve in the table.
• "Beech" should be linked on the first mention instead of the second. Also, European beech might be a better article to link to.
• Is there an article you could link "postglacial" to?
• Be consistent with British/American English: "archaeological" vs "paleochristian". Also,"20.000" is neither British or American; you could use a comma or a space.
• "The area around the town of Pogradec shores of Lake Ohrid" at least one word is missing here.
• Pogradec is overlinked.
• Also, "paleochristian" 1) should probably be "paleo-Christian" 2) could do with an explanation or a link.
• Date ranges shouldn't use a hyphen.
• It should be "a close relationship".
• The "the" isn't needed in "the Roman times" or "the Ottoman sources", but is missing in "to Via Egnatia". Via Egnatia is also overlinked.
• You need a comma after (300 ft).
• I think it needs to be "two circular towers and one rectangular tower" because the first one is plural while the second is singular.
• Reference 5 could do with a bit more information.
• Reference 8 is the only one that says "whc.unesco.org"; this should be consistent across the references.

As you can see, these are all minor points. I'll be happy to support once they're addressed. Great work on this list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 19:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone these comments have been here a week, would you address them please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for a detailed review. Sorry it took me a while. --Tone 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 10:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Codes such as "570; iii (cultural)" will mean nothing to most readers. It would be helpful to link to a page explaining the code.
• "Butrint is known for its archeological and natural heritage. Numerous monuments, some dating back to antiquity, are still extant, such as the city walls, a late-antique baptistery, great basilica, theatre, and Venetian castles. The site is situated within a natural woodland with a complex ecosystem that depends on the nearby freshwater of Lake Butrint and Vivari Channel." This does not sem to me a good description of the site. 1. I would suggest listing the phases, Greek colony, Roman city, late antique bishopric, Byzantine and then Venetian occupation, abandoned late Middle Ages. 2. The source does not mention city walls, though it implies them - fortifications from the period of Greek colony to Middle Ages is better. 3. "late-antique baptistery" should be linked to Baptistery of Butrint. 4. "great basilica". I would say ninth-century basilica. 5. theatre - Greek theatre. 6. "Venetian castles" and "complex ecosystem that depends on the nearby freshwater of Lake Butrint and Vivari Channel" are not mentioned in the source so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I think the Butrinit description mostly remained from an earlier iteration. Your suggestion made it better. As for the UNESCO data, in one of the previous nominations we figured out that the best approach to solve this is the way we have now - the abbr template states that this is the reference number, while the criteria are linked above in the text. I wouldn't change it further. --Tone 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have looked again at this article and made some edits. It looks close to FL but I have found that several of the places mentioned such as the Paleochristian Church, Lin have their own articles and there are probably others. I think you need to do a thorough check to see which places have their own articles which can be linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! In addition, I found out that Bazaar Mosque, Gjirokastër also has an article. Linked. --Tone 11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 12 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next up, Falcao. This one doesn't "Rock Me Amadeus" (that was Falco anyway) but he does score a few goals. The most, in fact, in Colombia's history. It's already been forked off a large main article, I just tidied it up in the usual style. I humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the reviewing community and pledge to do my best to address any and all comments in a timely fashion. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. an injury sustained while playing for AS Monaco FC, his club team, in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals should be rephrased as "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014 ruled him out of the finals" to avoid breaking the sentence up with too many commas.

   Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. His first FIFA World Cup finals appearance came in the 2018 FIFA World Cup finals, four years later, with his 74th cap, against Japan in a group stage match in June 2018. should also be rephrased to avoid having a high number of commas close together.

   Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'd add a mention about the number of goals scored from penalty kicks in the WP:LEAD.

   No, I have no definitive source that's the number of penalties he scored, i.e. no one single source to back it up. Where I've found reliable verifiable evidence that a goal was scored by penalty, I've noted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers TompaDompa, done or responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose You may as well take out the 3b part from the criteria if you're not going to follow that. Currently, this whole list doesn't even cover my screen fully. The Lukaku list is borderline now, but he's young and a beast, that list is going to expand more. Falcao, on the other hand, is close to retiring from the international football. Anyway, this is going to be the shortest "List of international goals scored by..." in the WP:FL. By this tendency, we are going to have lists with 10 goals or even less next time. I will not even be surprised to see a page where it states "this player may score a goal one day because he shot on goal 10 times". P.S. We even have a candidate with 1 item for three weeks now and none of the FLC directors/delegates quick-failed it yet. Is that really what Wikipedia is about? Quantity over quality? I understand in general, but in featured content, quality always has to be above quantity. --Cheetah (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input, I don’t see anything actionable there, but cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you must have missed it. Don't worry, I just did it myself. Cheers!--Cheetah (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's what they call "deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". I think 31 items is sufficient to standalone. And by the way, he scored a few days ago. Your rant is noted, but ultimately is ineffectual and will not be considered further. Please don't get blocked for being pointy. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you made me do it. You said you didn't see it, so I showed it to you. You don't have any rights now to say what will be considered, you're just a nominator here. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here, but I won't be silent about it.--Cheetah (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't "make you do" anything. Your comments have been read and noted. There's nothing more to say. I'm happy to leave it to the community to decide, rather than just you making pointed edits. No-one asked you to be silent, just not to make pointed edits which are deliberately disruptive. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here um, nope! Anyway, thanks for raising your concerns. I'm sure other reviewers will chip in too. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to say I share Crzycheetah's WP:FLCR 3(b) concerns, even if I strongly disapprove of their actions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as you did on the other FLC, where a consensus has formed in favour of the standalone list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  TompaDompa You may or may not be aware that the Lukaku list your raised concerns against is now a FL, so clearly the community consensus is that that list, and others of a similar nature, like this one, are acceptable standalone lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "He surpassed the previous record of 25 goals (in 68 appearances), held by Arnoldo Iguarán" - the wording seems ambiguous as to whether Falcao took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, Iguaran took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, or Iguaran had 68 appearances in total
• "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals" - no reason for that comma after 2014 as far as I can see
• In the title of the ref which is currently number 21, the dash isn't rendered properly

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude thanks, I've addressed those issues I think, hopefully to your satisfaction. Let me know? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man - the problem dash is still there. The ref currently shows as " "Colombia 5‐0 Bolivia". Sky Sports. Retrieved 28 August 2018." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude sorry Chris, I missed that, fixed something else instead. But should be fixed now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM, I think this is my first association football review so pls excuse beginner's questions.

Lede

• His first goal came in the following game - 'the' is ambiguous ie could be Colombia's next game or his next. Change to Colombia's if he didn't have break?

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• more goals in friendlies than in any other format, with fourteen - fifteen

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• the remainder being scored overseas - many are in Sth America. I know overseas has a broad meaning but - swap to 'abroad' or in other nations/countries or outside Colombia?

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Falcao has yet to score an international hat-trick - 'yet' seems a bit presumptive?

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key / col headers

• I did not immediately understand what 'Score' was. Finally found explanation via Rooney's list. My humble suggestion would be to expand key table to include something like:

Cap | the number of appearances to date for national team (and remove cap wlink in table header)

Score | the score after the Falcao goal

double dagger as is

I've made an adjustment in line with Rooney's list, not exactly as you suggest, but close? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine thanks. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main table

• header - International goals by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition - this was order of cols in eg Rooney. Move 'Cap' into new second column order

  Do I have to? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you thought I was suggesting changing actual column order? Nope, just the text line above the table. It just looks weird that all other words are in same order as the columns except "cap". (But no, you don't have to.) JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed I was misinterpreting that comment! I've adjusted it (I think). That's the table "caption", I think that's what confused me when you mentioned headers... sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• last double dagger has a capital A on alt ie "Alt=Penalty" - tiny inconsistency but is okay, doesn't affect screenreaders?

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• goal 30 - refine wlink to section? #Poland vs Colombia

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

All are online and working. AGF Spanish lang though scores are obvious. These ref numbers are per 30 Sept version.

• ref 2 Hmm, the 'website' parameter italicises, even though Goal is not a printed work? Add publisher=Perform Group?
• 7 - title should be Matches of R. Falcao, publisher=Perform Group
• 9, 12 and 13 - 11v11 - should include parameter for Association of Football Statisticians?
• 14 - 27 May 2011 - March
• 18 - byline Rex Gowar
• 22 - per caption on Falcao photo the Col v Peru match date was 11 June
• 24 - byline Robert-Jan Bartunek, and Philip Blenkinsop
• 26 - byline Luis Jaime Acosta and Rex Gowar - but this ref doesn't give score progression ie that his were 2nd and 3rd of the 6 goals (this does ie after Bacca scored first)
• 27 - pubn date 30 Mar - 31?
• 28 - I can't see where espn gives location, either stadium or city (this does)
• 30 - byline Andrew Downie

  All addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums venues

• Estadio Atanasio Girardot - needs pipe to avoid redirect?

  Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Matsumoto Stadium - ditto

  Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Goals 11 and 31 - This venue name change thing comes up now and then. The way the venue is used here is correct (named Sun Life Stadium (2010-2016) and Hard Rock since Aug 2016) and will match refs, but when sorted by venue, ie one wants to ascertain how many appearances or goals a player has had at a particular location, the different names don't compute reality. I presume this has been discussed over the years. Is there a guideline or discussion I should read?

  This is interesting. I could force the sorting so they stick together, and add a footnote to highlight the name change, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure. It came up in some rugby and/or cricket lists but it was possible to avoid sponsor names with those. Probably not too important, anyone delving that deep will likely visit stadium articles and realise. I thought it must have been discussed before. I'm happy if you decide to leave as is. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Footnote added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sun Life needs pipe?

  Piped. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opponents - all good

Statistics

• Goals by year table - Source for number of appearances per year - copy ref 1 to Appearances column? (Rooney's has RSSSF) Actually, ditto for Caps column in main table.

  Source added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Goals by competition table - Friendlies different wlink to in lede and main table?

  Link aligned with previous usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Again, sorry for newbie questions and comments... understanding will help me if I do any further assoc football lists. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz no need to apologise, thanks for your detailed review, I've addressed almost all of the issues and where I haven't, I've left comments for further discussion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tweaks. I've added 3 replies above. JennyOz (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz I think I've covered off those last points, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything now addressed. Thanks! Happy to sign my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kosack

The only point I would raise is the use of FC with Monaco. Typically, football clubs would pipe the FC part out. Falcao's main article (and the rest of the current Monaco squad) doesn't use it either. Kosack (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks, addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Kosack (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; the list is of sufficient length that I'm not swayed by 3B arguments; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because is a comprehensive log of all that Godflesh have released and I hope to eventually include it in a good topic. The lead recounts the history of the band's main releases and is supported by many references, the structure of the discography is easy to follow and clearly labeled, and, because no one else really edits Godflesh articles anymore, it is currently stable and will remain so for the foreseeable future. After my other list, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, reached featured status, I have a little more familiarity with this process, and I hope the discography can improve with help from all of you. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Just corrected the style issues. The lead is good, the format using notes is something interesting i've never seen before, but it fits this discography well. Removed single details at Cover singles, the single details should be given in a proper article and not in a discography. --Lirim | Talk 03:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't see any reason to split original and cover singles into separate tables. No other discographies do this that I am aware of, and the tables are only small so could easily be combined -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Good point, I made the change. Thanks! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A few more comments:
  • Numbers below ten should be written as words (in the first sentence)
  • "one of, if not the, first industrial metal releases" - this seems slightly grammatically mangled to me. I would go for "one of the first industrial metal releases, if not the first"
  • "2001's Hymns was recorded" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, so maybe switch it round and have "Hymns (2001) was....."
  • There's a couple of places where you mention that an album/single "saw release". It may be pedantic but a record doesn't have eyes, so "received release" would be better
• That's all I have at the moment. Excellent work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much; all your suggestions are now implemented. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good. Once again, great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• One formatting issue to report: Ref 13 is missing a publisher, which should probably be formatted similarly to the other references to that site.
• What makes The Sleeping Shaman (ref 41) a reliable source?
• What makes Invisible Oranges (ref 53) reliable? It looks like a blog, very few of which are reliable.
• The link-checker tool shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for the review! I added the publisher (whoops) and replaced the sleeping shaman reference with a press release from the festival. Because the Invisible Oranges source is an interview, I believe it falls under acceptability as per WP:PRIMARY. Regardless, I think I have another reference that could fit in place of it, though it's not as explicitly supportive. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to replace the Invisible Oranges reference after all (with one from Revolver). If you end up thinking the IO interview okay, I'll add it back in as secondary support. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher addition and new sources look fine, and I don't think the interview is necessary. I'd say this article has passed the source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 8 December 2018 (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) 22:01, 9 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the last of these for a while as I think we've hit our limit. Sanchez used to be decent, then he moved to Manchester United and it was all over bar the shouting. This could be his final tally... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Great job here! I have a couple of questions I'd like some clarification on. In the sentence that says "... Chile failed to qualify for the finals", wouldn't it be better if we rephrase to "... Chile failed to qualify to the 2018 FIFA World Cup"? That was linked in the DYK hook but apparently not in the body paragraphs. In addition, for the phrase "... two in FIFA World Cup finals", wouldn't it be better to put "... two in FIFA World Cup games" instead? One of them happened in the group stage (against Australia) and the other in Round of 16 (against Brazil). "Finals" from my understanding are the last stages of the tournament (or in other words, in the knockout stage). Could be wrong. MX (✉ • ✎) 02:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey MX, thanks for your comment. My usual take on "finals" is the tournament post-qualification, i.e. it includes the group stages and then the knockout rounds to the final. It doesn't include the years of qualification games. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Got it. That's all I have. I think the article is ready for promotion. Please check the changes I made to the article. Feel free to revert any of them you don't think are necessary. Nice job again! MX (✉ • ✎) 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the only thing I have is this minor grammar issue: "Despite scoring seven goals [....], Chile failed to qualify for the finals" - should probably be "Despite Sanchez scoring seven goals"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed that, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - muy bien, El Hombre Divagante ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good as always. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references used look sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool reveals no problems. Spot-checks of refs 6, 27, and 32 revealed one small issue: ref 27 lists the date as June 14 (at least for me in the U.S.), while the article lists June 15. It's possible the date shows up differently for you in Europe, but please do double-check it. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review. Both source and ref say 15 June at this point... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a U.S./U.K. difference then. I had a feeling that was the case, but thought it was worth confirming. As that was the only item I found worth commenting on, the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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