Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 05:41:55 29 December 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Alexandra IDV^talk 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, having done my best to satisfy the FL criteria. The list covers all video games in the World of Darkness series – including those game projects that were announced but never finished – organized by sub-series, and with annotations providing information about each entry. Although I have done several GAs and one FA before, this is my first time going through the FLC process, so I hope that I have not made any obvious mistakes, and appreciate any advice and constructive criticism.--Alexandra IDV^talk 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Captain Medusa

• Add a short description.

Once the short description is added I will more than happy to support the list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Done - this is something new to me, so I hope the description is satisfactory.--Alexandra IDV^talk 13:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this nomination. I have also nominated List of accolades received by Undertale for featured list; your feedback is welcome.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I will take a look at your nomination later tonight.--Alexandra IDV^talk 13:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - couldn't spot any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – looks great to me – zmbro _(talk) 03:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IGN should be in italics.
  • IGN is in italics when referring to the work, and not when referring to IGN the company, which is the publisher of the website GameSpy.--Alexandra^IDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see, that is fine then.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think that Metacritic needs to be in italics.
  • This is to my knowledge just how the website parameter of Template:Cite web works, and I don't know how I can circumvent that, or if I should be doing that.--Alexandra^IDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it does not really matter, perhaps I am being pedantic. The only thing that really needs changing is some of the sources to the release dates.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have noticed that some of the release dates are sourced from sources prior to their release. Per WP:VG/RELEASE Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews. Once those sources are swapped I will happily support this nomination - Great work. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take a look at these.--Alexandra^IDV 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI: I looked at the MOS, and am not 100% sure on how it is actually meant to be interpreted. I started a thread on the VG MOS talk page about it and am hoping for clarification/input from other editors, so if it takes a while before I get to this point, it's because I'm waiting for a response and not because I have forgotten or abandoned it.--Alexandra^IDV 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, after all Wikipedia has no deadlines (I put my personal interpretation on the thread already but either should be fine; but it will be interesting to know what other editors think for future reference).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Spy-cicle: Took a little longer than I would've wanted it to due to housesitting for my parents, and my girlfriend visiting from overseas, but I believe the release date thing is taken care of now.--Alexandra^IDV 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alexandra IDV: No problem, after all Wikipedia has no deadlines. Defintely looks better. Here are a few things I found on a final check:
  • For Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption. On the page it states there was a 2001 MacOS release. I think it should be reflected under the Release years by system.
    • Cheers, I missed this.--Alexandra^IDV 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confirmed fix.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Vampire: The Masquerade – Coteries of New York's release date it will be better if you used a citation after its release like this one [2] as I do not know how reliable GOG.com is.
    • GOG is a publishing platform - the source is by the game's publisher, not by GOG itself.--Alexandra^IDV 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under WP:VG/RS Retailers it essentially states when secondary sources are avaliable like IGN they should be used if available as opposed to digital distrubution platforms.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair, switched to IGN. Did the same for Bloodlines and Redemption.--Alexandra^IDV 10:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great. Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hunter: The Reckoning Please add this ciation since the IGN source does not actually specify which day in May it released: [3]. Also please replace the Gamezone citaiton with this one since I am not sure how reliable it is.
    • The Quick Facts box in the bottom of the article says May 21, 2002. WP:VG/RS says Gamezone is reliable, with the description Recommended as an objective and reliable gaming site in books, and referenced for several of its articles in various books and scholarly works., so it seems to be fine.--Alexandra^IDV 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see for some reason it only appears in the archived version (might be because it redirects me to www.uk.ign.com instead of www.ign.com).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For World of Darkness Preludes: Vampire and Mage are Steam release dates verifable and allowed? Either way if you could please try to supplement them with another source since other sources strangely have a two day gap from its release date [4], [5]. With one stating it released on the 16 Feb 2017. Though, this may be because of its staggered release across platforms. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like GOG, Steam is a publishing platform, so the information there is supplied by the game's publisher directly. The GameItAll and RPS sources you link don't actually say the game came out on the 17th - that's just when those articles were published - so I'm assuming it's just a case of WoD Preludes being a small release that these publications didn't get to straight away. Indiegala is just one day off, and is also a storefront, so I think it may either be a staggered release (and so irrelevant, we're just talking original releases) or a time zone thing.--Alexandra^IDV 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like with GOG when another secondary source can be found use it. I managed to find one from GameSpot which stated 15 Feb [6].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Spy-cicle: GameSpot's overview pages are unreliable as they're shared with GameFAQs and are user-contributed, and I'm unable to find any usable source at all for Preludes' release beyond what's already there, so it should be okay in this instance as the best available source. I also responded to the Coteries/GOG thing above.--Alexandra^IDV 10:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely forgot about this. I suppose since we can use Steam here since there is no other source which is more reliable than it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Spy-cicle: Responded to your comments.--Alexandra^IDV 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexandra IDV:, All issues have been addressed. I now Support this nomination, great work on this list. (I also have an FLC open and your comments would be appreciated).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. I am a bit uncertain on how we're handling accolades lists going forward and am hesitant to comment on those FLCs specifically; I will have to read through the recent discussions more thoroughly first.--Alexandra^IDV 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I don't see any reliability or formatting issues aside from the ones mentioned above, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. When Spy is satisfied that their comments are resolved, we can go ahead and call this source review a pass. By the way, if you ever want to avoid italicizing the publisher in the future, all you have to do is use the publisher= parameter of the template instead of website=. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much--Alexandra^IDV 10:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed this prior to nomination and am good to promote. --PresN 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 05:41:49 29 December 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles. The ultimate British act. 2 years and over 500 edits later (yes I'm serious), I have finally brought this page up to where I think it's FL worthy (it's gone through probably 3 major revamps). While it's definitely not as big as McCartney's song list, this has been my biggest project yet. The lead took the longest; what the Beatles did to music can't be summarized in 4 paragraphs, but I believe I have tried my best to cover the majors. The list includes all their core songs (all the stuff released on their studio albums and Past Masters), other released songs since 1970, as well as unreleased songs that have been mentioned by various authors. I'm really looking forward to all of your comments and concerns. I can't wait to see what's in store after this. Happy editing :-) – zmbro _(talk) 03:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Only got time to look at the lead right now, but here goes............

• "of which include live songs" => "which include live songs" – fixed
• "the group's music [....] were primarily responsible" => was primarily responsible – fixed
• "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting" - this might be massively pedantic, but the band's career included members other than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Is there a better way of saying "all four members of the group from the point where they signed their first recording contract"...........?

• Great point. I somehow always forget about Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (and the other Quarrymen member if we wanna go back further). How about something like "Following their signing with EMI, each member of the "Fab Four" contributed to songwriting."? I think mentioning them as the Fab Four would make more sense, since only John, Paul, George, and Ringo were known as the "Fab Four".
  • Sounds good to me, but maybe say specifically "Following their signing with EMI in 1962"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "introduced numerous innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century" - this doesn't make sense. Should it be "introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century"

• Reading it back yeah that didn't make sense. Changed to "more"

• "Some of these innovations" - no need to repeat the word "innovations"
• "The opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night" and the ending chord of "A Day in the Life" are viewed as particularly striking and memorable" - this bit seems to sit in the middle of a section about the Beatles' innovations but isn't really about innovation itself. Could it be moved somewhere else?

• I just removed that. I thought that needed to be mentioned but there's really no way you can fit literally everything they did into 4 paragraphs so we'll just ditch that.

• "unreleased songs have seen release" => "unreleased songs have been released" – fixed
• Think that's it on the lead.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "primarily due to different practices in both countries at the time" - this is very vague - what "practices", exactly? TBH I am not sure this clause is actually needed.

• Yeah I mainly found that reason on their "North American releases" page. I tried to find out what that meant exactly (to expand it) but I couldn't find much. I just removed it since none of the US albums (except MMT) are relevant today
  • My understanding is that it mostly boils down to the fact that US albums at the time usually contained fewer tracks than was the norm for UK albums, so the US labels would chop tracks off the albums, and then release additional "patchwork" albums with the material they had chopped off, bulked out with singles and stuff. But, as you say, not really worth mentioning given that you only talk about the "core 14" in the article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and a few other rarities" - I'd just say "and other rarities" – done
• Against All You Need is Love - "(A-side of "Baby, You're a Rich Man")" - this doesn't seem right. Why denote it by what was on the B-side? This applies elsewhere too. Denoting songs which actually were the B-side seems right, but this just looks odd......

• I originally just had the B-sides noted but was thinking it'd be helpful to list which ones were A-sides so it wasn't showing just the album. Now thinking about it more it definitely seems odd. I'll remove those one I'm back on my desktop.

• First table gives the original artist of cover songs but the second does not - any particular reason?

• That's a great point I actually have no idea. I'll fix that on e I'm back on desktop.

• If "Isn't it a Pity" was a solo performance by George and didn't appear on any Beatles record, is it really a Beatles song.....?

• Technically not but I think the same situation applies to "Come and Get It". Solely McCartney but released under the Beatles name on Anthology 3 and Abbey Road super deluxe. But since "Isn't It a Pity" was actually Harrison solo and never under the Beatles name I'll remove that.

• Note a - you wouldn't normally say "these include" and then give the entire list. I would change it to "these consist of" – changed
• Note b - not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop. This may apply to other notes too. – fixed
• Think that's it from me. Excellent work all round....or should I say "fab"? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude Mostly done with a few comments above. I'll take care of the bigger things once I'm back on my desktop. Thanks very much for the comments :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude Everything's taken care of. While I was looking at the cover songs I found that many did not really have a definitive "original artist", since many were written by someone then given to dozens of artists; sometimes the original artists were complete unknowns so I just removed the original artists on the main table to make it easy. – zmbro _(talk) 03:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a pest, but it still says "Throughout their career, every band member contributed to songwriting." Everything else looks great, and I am OK with removing the original artists for covers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude Whoops that one's on me. Fixed now. – zmbro _(talk) 21:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

This is impressive. Separating the tables (Main, Other, & Unreleased) is a very good approach. Also, identifying the core albums places more focus on the songs rather than complicating it with all the various releases.

• "Main songs":
• Intro: in the first sentence, "United Kingdom (UK)" is unnecessary; UK and US are well-known enough to be used later without first being identified (see MOS:ACRO).

• Gonna be honest I have no idea how I missed that. Fixed

• "plus the 1964 EP Long Tall Sally and other": without a comma, this can almost be read as "in addition to", i.e., the catalogue includes both Past Masters and the EP; maybe "along with the 1964 EP LTS,(comma) and other".

• Changed; put the comma before "along with"

• "Song" column: Singles were very important in their early days; maybe highlight them all instead of just those "originally released as a non-album single". (see next)

• I actually originally had them colored but removed them since those can be left for the discography page. The NA singles are more important to note in terms of this list.

• "B-side of": UK & US often had different A/B sides. Maybe in the key, use "Indicates song released as a single A- or B-side in the UK or US" and add more detail as a footnote if important.

• Technically almost every NA single was released on an album in the US (i.e. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on Meet the Beatles!")

• Since several songs have footnotes with alternative releases, maybe the songs on the Long Tall Sally and Magical Mystery Tour EPs should also.

• Honestly a little confused by this. The songs from the MMT EP already say they're on MMT and the LTS has not been relevant since the 1960s. The only reason I've mentioned it is to show that not everything on Past Masters was a single.

• "Lennon McCartney" is repeated for several entries in a row. Would rowspan= for 3 or 4 give it a less cluttered look?

• Nah I don't think that's a huge deal

• "Other released songs":
• "Key": Since it's a separate table, add "Indicates song not written by the members of Beatles" and colors (shouldn't the live recordings also be highlighted?).

• Done

• If the live recordings are marked with " ‡ ", it seems they should be colored/highlighted as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• Intro: "On top of their" this sounds awkward to me, maybe "In addition to".

• Changed.

• "Song" column: I think this should be wider for more emphasis and consistency with the Main table (could the "Year" columns be narrowed by using <small>?).

• They actually are already small

• Yes, I see. I was using a different screen and they didn't show. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Songwriter(s)" column: I find the sort function useful, as in the "Main" table. One can see all the songs by a particular writer grouped together.

• Makes sense. Done.

• "en dash": this is used for three "lead vocals" entries, but isn't explained, such as in a footer at the bottom.

• Fixed

• "Instumental": These are highlighted using {{N/A}}, but I'm not sure why.

• Changed. Leftover from previous versions

• "Notes" column: I wonder if sometimes there's too much detail. The year recorded is already given and, since all the songs are linked to articles and the albums list where and when recorded, is it really that important to add the rest? It gives more of a sessionography look.

• I agree. Removed

Over all, great work. More later. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo Sorry it's been a busy week. Thanks for the comments. Replies above. – zmbro _(talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Most are OK, but I noted a couple. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unreleased songs"
• "Song" column: This column appears especially narrow; I think a width closer to the preceding table would look better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Year" & "Notes": Sometimes the connection between the two is unclear. Some entries with "1960" only mention much later performances in the notes. Maybe add "First played by the Quarrymen, it was performed in 1969 during ...", etc. Also, "Just Fun" shows "1969", but the notes seem to indicate an earlier "origin". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Notes": For those unfamiliar with the more obscure material (me!), some of these could be clearer. Some entries note "It is unknown if it was ever properly recorded". Do they exist as rough demos or were just never actually recorded? Were the rest properly recorded even when not indicated as such? If they're in a film or documentary aren't they "released" (just not on record/CD/etc.)?

• Ojorojo I primarily got all the info here from Walter Everett's 2001 book, which highlights the Quarrymen to Rubber Soul. In the book, Everett actually describes some of the ones listed as never properly recorded, rather just written. I'll see what else he has to say about it; I'll also make the writing here more consistent. I mainly borrowed it from the Lennon–McCartney page. – zmbro _(talk) 16:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I might just remove this section and maybe create an unreleased songs page. From what I've been seeing on this book, it looks like they recorded hundreds of songs during the Get Back sessions (both originals and covers), much more than what's listed here. So I think I'm just gonna leave this list for the ones that have been released, which is typically what I've done previously for these types of lists. What do you think? – zmbro _(talk) 16:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This type of info is important to hardcore Beatles fans, but is also probably subject to disagreement and debate. Since the Beatles are so high profile, it may be better to stick to safer ground. I'd say include it on a separate page, where the song discussions/descriptions can be more fully developed and more meaningful. I don't think this list would suffer without it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ojorojo Removed it – zmbro _(talk) 18:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notes" (efns):
• "'Helter Skelter' is also considered by music historians to be a key influence in the development of heavy metal." The ref says "proto-metal roar" – "key influence" seems to be a stretch and is probably unnecessary for this list. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. – zmbro _(talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lead vocal credits per Castleman ...": efn|name= can be used so this doesn't need to be repeated for the next table —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "'shoo-bee-do-wop' backing vocals that are a reference to doo-wop music": Maybe "vocals in the style of doo-wop" or "reminiscent of doo-wop" (seems more than a "reference") —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Revolution 9' is an avant-garde sound collage ...": n. & o. could also be combined since they appear to be saying the same thing. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bibliography"
• State abbreviations (NY, MA, WI) shouldn't be used; New York City can stand on its own. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Some publishers are linked and others aren't – better to be consistent. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See also: Maybe add {{The Beatles singles}}

All looks good so far – this should wrap it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo Taken care of. – zmbro _(talk) 02:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed. It's great to see how much this list has improved over the last 2+ years. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why songs not written by members of the Beatles have to be pointed out and highlighted as if they are more important to the list than songs written by the Beatles. It seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars I really don't understand what your problem is with colors. Like I told you at List of songs recorded by Weezer, it's not a matter of "importance", all it does is point out which songs they didn't write. Obviously, the covers they did did not surpass the quality or "importance" of their originals and having them colored definitely doesn't mean they are. All it does, as it says in the key, is "indicate" which songs they didn't write. That's it. – zmbro _(talk) 03:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that important? All it does it bring my attention to those songs specifically. It's distracting. I shouldn't have a reason to focus on those songs any more than any other. Get rid of it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly no. No one has a problem with it except you. Go ahead and oppose, I'm not changing it. – zmbro _(talk) 03:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on the colors- that's a standard of song lists, and gray is a color too. I find the colors chosen to be a bit bright, but they're not out of line with other FLs and it's not enough to oppose over. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 05:41:52 29 December 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is well sourced and includes songs from all Margaret's albums + other notable songs she recorded during her career. If anyone has any suggestions how it can be improved please let me know. Looking forward to reading your comments. ArturSik (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a suggestion for this sentence: "The majority of her repertoire is in English, which she attributed partly to the fact that her songs sound better when sung in that language". I know what you mean by "repertoire", but I think it would be best to just say "music" and be more direct in this context.
• I have a comment for this sentence: "Before her mainstream debut, Margaret recorded songs for television commercials, and released an independent album with her band Margaret J. Project called This Is Margaret (2012)." In the main Margaret article, the band is referenced as "the Margaret J. Project" so I would change either instance for consistency (i.e. depending on whether "the" should be included or not).
• I would avoid using "the singer" in the lead. It is more of a stylistic and personal judgement, but I agree with the essay, Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, that it can sound somewhat awkward. Just wanted to raise that point, but if you would prefer to keep the current phrasing, then that is also fine by me.
• The phrase "extended play" is wikilinked twice in the lead. After the introduction of the EP acronym, I would be consistent with just using that for the rest of the lead.
• For this part "All songs from All I Need were later included on her debut studio album Add the Blonde released in 2014.", I would say "All the songs" instead of "All songs".
• I would revise this sentence, "Some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat", were co-written by Margaret.", to something like the following, "Margaret co-wrote some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat". I am suggesting this to avoid having two sentences in a row start with a similar beginning, and I would imagine that emphasis should be put on Margaret writing these songs anyway.
• I have a comment about this sentence, "The album was reissued in 2016 and contained new songs "Cool Me Down", "Elephant", and a cover of Robin Beck's song "First Time" titled "Smak radości" recorded for Polish Coca-Cola commercial.". The last part about the Beck cover reads rather awkwardly to me so I would recommend looking back on it.
• For this sentence "It contained first two original Polish-language songs recorded by her, "Byle jak" and "Nie chce".", I would remove "recorded by her" as it can be assumed from context.
• For this part "Most songs on the record were co-written by Margaret.", I think it would read better to say "A majority of the record" or something similar.
• I have a suggestion for the chart. I have seen similar lists use "Non-album single" for instances in which a song is not released on an album as opposed to "None". I do not think it matters either way so it is up to you, but I just wanted to raise that point with you.
• Would it be beneficial to add some images next to the table? I have seen featured lists on this topic do that.
• I do not think the acoustic versions of songs should marked twice in the chart. I would instead put that information in a footnote.

I hope my comments are helpful. Once they are addressed, I will read through the list another time and most likely support it for promotion. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (Margaret co-wrote some songs, including the album's third single "Heartbeat"), I would clarify the exact number of songs that she co-wrote for the album rather than using some.
• For this part (as well as Margaret's Polish-language version of Robin Beck's song "First Time" titled "Smak radości" which was used in Polish Coca-Cola commercial), it should either be "Polish Coca-Cola commercials" or "a Polish Coca-Cola commercial".
• For this part (It contained the first two original Polish-language songs, "Byle jak" and "Nie chce".), I would replace "the" with "her".
• I would add a citation for this part of the image caption (He co-wrote some of her most successful songs including "Wasted", "Cool Me Down", "What You Do" and "In My Cabana".) to support the information about the songs' commercial success.

Thank you for addressing my comments. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aoba47 thanks for your comments. it's all done now. I removed the informations about the songs' commercial success as I didn't find a specific source. when i was writing it I just looked at the songs' chart positions but i guess that's not enough. either way it's all sorted. thanks again and best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aoba47 thank you so much. I will have a look at your article by the end of the week. best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to Aoba's comments above......
• "Polish singer and songwriter Margaret recorded songs" - as her career isn't over (a far as I can see), this should be "Polish singer and songwriter Margaret has recorded songs"
• "recorded in a collaboration" => "recorded in collaboration"
• "It contained first two original" => "It contained the first two original"

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aoba47 and ChrisTheDude: thank you for your comments. I think I've addressed all of them. please let me know if there's anything else. best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

Always love seeing other songs lists. Just a few things:

• Make sure all images have alt text (Margaret's photo does but the other don't)
• Don't think the Ś is needed in the content box but that's my opinion
• I would change "Album(s)" to "Release(s)", especially since some listed are tv series and films
• Going along with the previous point, I would list which ones are those (i.e. Smurfs: The Lost Village (film))

Rest looks good. Great job to you :-) – zmbro _(talk) 04:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Zmbro Thanks a lot. All done. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 02:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; would be nice to have English translations of the Polish source titles (via |trans-title=), but that's not a requirement as far as I'm aware. Promoting. --PresN 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:08:06 22 December 2019 (UTC) [9].

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, the article has a good lead written as prose, introduce well to the subject comprising all needed informations and events along with all necessary reliable citations, well structured and follows WP:MOS and is stable, most information are backed by multiple citation, so to give more stability to the article. I hope the article is well enough to get promoted. Dey subrata (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please take note that, the article is reviewed and corrected, all discussions are there at the Talk page of the article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you already have two FLCs open, you shouldn't really be starting another until at least one of those has been closed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes I understand your concern, thats why I was waiting to get it listed here, as by suggestions at WP:FLC, "....until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." So, as the first two lists got 3-4 supports which I must say substantial enough as going through all "Older nominations" I found that there are 2-3 supports and even 1 support in some of them. Anway, I will not add any more further in the list to get promoted, I have few more to add, will surely wait untill all these get closed. Dey subrata (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised by the FL director that a user should not have more than two FLCs open at a time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what to do now. Dey subrata (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:, could you kindly confirm? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, Chris. While I have no problem with a second FLC being opened when a nominator's list has 3–4 supports, I'd be reluctant to allow a third nom. That does go against the spirit of the instructions, which help to keep the size of FLC manageable and help ensure that most lists receive enough reviewer attention. If any one editor has five noms, for example, that just makes it harder for any individual list to get enough reviews to gain a consensus for promotion, making the process slower for everyone. Dey, my suggestion is that this be removed from the main FLC page and brought back when one of the existing FLCs concludes. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure. Dey subrata (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giants2008 , can I move it to the main page now. Dey subrata (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata: It looks like you still have two FLCs open, including one where I gave a source review. There was one reviewer who never returned to that FLC after the initial review who I was waiting on before closing the FLC. Let me ping them to see if their concerns are resolved; if so, that FLC would be on track for promotion this weekend, and you could then nominate this list as your second nom. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The first footballer" - I would say "the first player", to avoid saying football twice in one sentence
• "to score a hat-trick (three or more goals)" => "to score a hat-trick (three or more goals in a match)"
• "He achieved the feat in a friendly match against Australia on 24 September 1938, at Sydney Showground but India" => "He achieved the feat in a friendly match against Australia on 24 September 1938, at the Sydney Showground, although India"
• "This is also the only instance for India to lose a game after a player scoring a hat-trick for the team." => "This is the only instance when India have lost a game in which a player scored a hat-trick for the team."
• "Lumsden is also the only footballer" - "Lumsden was the only footballer"
• "the final match of 2008 AFC Challenge Cup " => "the final match of the 2008 AFC Challenge Cup "
• "helped India to win the cup title" => "helped India to win the cup"
• After 1956 Melbourne Olympics there is a gap before the refs - remove this
• "and with four goals in three matches" - sentence shouldn't start with a lower case letter, or with the word "and", so change to "With four goals in three matches"
• "Branko Zebec was the first player to score a hat-trick against India while scoring four times" => "Branko Zebec was the first player to score a hat-trick against India, scoring four times"
• "As of 5 September 2019, ten players have scored a hat-trick for the national team" - why is the first part of this in italics and the rest not?
• "Only FIFA-recognized international matches by India national football team" => "Only FIFA-recognized international matches played by the India national football team". Also, is recognised/recognized spelt with a Z in Indian English?
• HTH - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all issues, and yes recognize is the correct form of the word, its used in India, UK and all commonwealth nations, even google (US) shows "ze". Dey subrata (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey subrata: the Z is most definitely not used in the UK. I am British and can confirm that the British English spelling is recognise, with an S (eg in this headline). That's why I checked, because I assumed that Indian English would mirror British spellings..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: May be then UK (only) don't use but India, US and Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia use ze...thats more correct form. Here the Cambridge dictionary 1, thats Merriam-Webster 2, and here UK's Oxford 3. The actual entry was recognize, so far I know. Dey subrata (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what Grammarist say, here. So most user use ze actually. Dey subrata (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was only checking.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I am also learning things or two. Dey subrata (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have re-arranged the images to have three in a horizontal line at the bottom of the lead. IMO this really doesn't look good. The images of D'Souza and Chhetri should be alongside the first table, but one above the other not side-by-side. And the image of Zebec should be alongside the second table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Done. Dey subrata (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you double check that you have actioned all my points above? I notice that the article still says "This is also the only instance for India to lose a game after a player scoring a hat-trick for the team", which I indicated needed changing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Yup fixed, I thought the change was for "the" only, changed the line and "also" in the next point removed and but => although done for third point. Dey subrata (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The alt text for Mewalal's image is a bit choppy and legendary is a WP:PEACOCK term.

Fixed changed the line.

• Link friendly to Exhibition match.

Linked.

• "helped India to be the first Asian team to reach the semi-finals of the tournament", a little clunky perhaps. "Helped India become the first..." maybe?

Fixed.

• "India have conceded thirteen hat-tricks to date", to date leaves this open to interpretation. Use an as of date so the reader knows when the list was last updated.

Both the table have dates.

True but the user would still need to read the entire text to get there. See Wikipedia:As of for further info. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason you're piping Ashraf Nu'man's link to use his full name even though his article doesn't?
• "after conceding a hat-trick happened against Yemen", occurred rather than happened perhaps?

Above both fixed.

• Refs 1, 12 and 23 use forename/surname format for the authors while all other refs use the opposite. Use one style for consistency.
• The formatting for refs 1 and 23 is leaving no gap between the last two authors. You can use last1, last2, last3, etc for multiple authors in refs.
• Refs 7 and 47 have an author available.
• Refs 11 and 19 have a publishing date available.

Above all fixed.

• Some of the external links don't seem particularly relevant to the article. For example, the "Football tournament of the Olympic Games−Overview" only mentions India once and seemingly has no relevance to any hat-trick?

"Football tournament of the Olympic Games−Overview" is kept for the fact that rather than two Olympic article only Overview page seems logical to keep as you can there in the overview page list of all games are there, if anyone one to see both the 1952 and 1956 (whose references are made in this article) can directly open from that overview article. Same with the "Olympic football tournament final" by FIFA. Similarly rather than including all the world cup qualification article in the external link better to keep the "World Cup Archive" where on can open any world cup qualifying tournament (this also helps in not including anymore links in the external link as if any hat-trick scored in world cup or the qualifying tournamnet it will be automatically updated in the "World Cup Archive"), same with AFC Asian cup.

I'd consider it a little overkill but it's not something to get hung up about, no further concerns on that point. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Addressed all above, please check. Dey subrata (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two minor copyedits on grammar. One further point, "for the AFC Asian Cup after 27 years in 2011" might be worth changing to something like "for the AFC Asian Cup in 2011, the first time in 27 years that the team reached the final tournament". After 27 years on it's own is a little vague perhaps. One further reply on the "as of" note also. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Well I think that looks more constructive, changed the line accordingly, and added date to "as of" issue. Dey subrata (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of my issues have been addressed. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack Thank You for all the needed corrections, and support, would appreciate your comments at the other one List of highest individual scores in ODIs. Dey subrata (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Chris and Kosack have taken care of everything for me. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 02:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The fixes and explanations look satisfactory to me. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:13:18 22 December 2019 (UTC) [10].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the latest in my ongoing country number ones project, which has produced 35 FLs to date. I now present 1971, a year in which a little-known girl singer called Dolly first topped the chart. I wonder whatever became of her......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a little uncertain about this part (The first number one of the year was "Rose Garden" by Lynn Anderson, which was in its second week at number one) since "which" is placed directly after the singer's name rather than the song itself. Maybe change it to Lynn Anderson's "Rose Garden" instead to avoid this?
• For this part (and remained at the top for four weeks in 1971.), is it necessary to repeat the year? I think it could be understood from the context of the sentence.
• I have a question about this part (Charley Pride spent the highest total number of weeks at number one in 1971, spending 11 weeks in the top spot with "I'd Rather Love You", "I'm Just Me" and "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'".). Would it be possible to avoid repeating spent/spending? Maybe condense the sentence somewhat to (Charley Pride had the highest total number of weeks at number one in 1971, with "I'd Rather Love You", "I'm Just Me" and "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" topping the chart for 11 weeks)? Just wanted to offer a suggestion.
• For this part (She scored a number of hits with duets with Wagoner as well as solo singles), it might be better to just say (She scored hits with...) and remove the "a number of" as it could be seen as somewhat filler text.
• This sentence (She scored a number of hits with duets with Wagoner as well as solo singles, and in 1971 achieved the first chart-topper of a career which would lead to her being regarded as the most successful female country performer of all time, as well as achieving considerable success in pop music and acting.) is quite long. Maybe it would be best to separate the part about Parton's later success into its own sentence?
• For this part (Hart had been an active recording artist since the early 1950s), I do not think "active" is needed. I understand what you mean, but I feel like whenever someone is described as a recording artist or singer, then it is generally assumed that they are active and it is clarified when they are retired (or something similar). However, I could be wrong so let me know.

Great work as always with the list. I hope that my comments are helpful. A majority of them are rather nitpicky suggestions on things that I noticed while reading through the lead. I am sure we will be hearing more about Dolly when the inevitable biopic/Oscar bait comes out lol. once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever for your comments, all of which I have addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the random message. Just wanted to add that I have seen some editors dislike the use of "hits". I do not have a strong opinion about it, and I am not saying you have to remove it, but I just wanted to raise it your attention. If you have used "hits" previous FLCs, then I think it should be fine here. Again, sorry for the randomness, and I still support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect pretty much every one of the 34 previous FLs has used the word "hit" somewhere and nobody has ever had an issue with it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Understandable. Just thought I should point it out after I thought of it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Have a pleasant rest of your day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Another fine list. Well done ChrisTheDude. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great job as always. – zmbro _(talk) 21:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another one well done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable. The link-checker seems to be stumbling over some of the Billboard links, but the couple I tested were working fine so it's probably an issue with the tool. There is a small formatting issue to report: ref 1 needs an en dash for the year range in the title. Other than that the sourcing looks good in all respects. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Dash now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:02 22 December 2019 (UTC) [11].

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is properly sourced, covers the subject's entire filmography, and has appropriate images. Drown Soda (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (and appeared in several films for the studio before signing a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), I would us the exact number rather than "several".
• I do not think the wikilink for "comedy film" is necessary.
• For this part (by casting her in several youth-oriented comedies and musicals), I would also wikilink "musicals" to "musical film" since "comedies" is wikilinked.
• For this part (including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941),), I would replace the first comma with "and".
• I would add ALT text to the image in the lead.
• I would wikilink "film noir" since "comedies" was wikilinked the previous paragraph so it would be consistent to wikilink all genres.
• The lead should have references. Since there are several parts that require citations like Lana's discovery at age 16. Additionally, claims like (Turner's role as a femme fatale in the film noir The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) advanced her career significantly and established her as a dramatic actress.) needs a reference. I would add sources for every sentence in the lead. See a similar list, List of Emily Blunt performances, which includes these references.
• For this part (before being cast in a recurring guest role on the television series Falcon Crest between 1982 to 1983), I would clarify that Falcon Crest was a soap opera.
• I have never seen a box office parameter in a filmography list so I would remove it.
• Since the tables are sortable, everything should be wikilinked (lik Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros.).
• Since there is an entire section devoted to Lana's radio work, then it should be mentioned in the lead.

I hope this helps. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the whole lead, only one sentence is sourced - pretty much everything else needs sourcing
• "including Dancing Co-Ed (1939), Ziegfeld Girl (1941)" - if there's only two examples listed, then they should be separated by "and", not a comma
• Personally I would combine the "By decade" film tables into one
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude and Aoba47: Hello all, I've addressed these concerns above--for some reason it never occurred to me that leads for list articles needed citations, as the contents of the article don't adequately source the summary of the lead. Long story short, I've added appropriate sources for all of the sentences in the lead, aside from the film count in the opening sentence, which is self-evident (and sourced throughout). --Drown Soda (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• I don't see any major issue, but the Awards and nominations table should follow guidelines; scopes shouldn't be used to highlight anything, a scope is the first column of table
• The NYT is linked once in the Refs but the Chicago Tribune, The Province, The Pantagraph are not. If one work/publisher is linked in the red, all should to be linked.--Lirim | Talk 01:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – The Finler book isn't being used for any cites as far as I can tell, so that should probably be taken out of the source list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good for me – zmbro _(talk) 02:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review by Cowlibob

Firstly well done on a great list on a screen legend!

• "Discovered in 1937 at age 16, she signed a contract with Warner Bros. and appeared in several films for the studio before signing a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" This sentence doesn't seem to match the film table where she seemly stars in one film for Warner Bros before starring in one by MGM and UA.
• How did Ziegfeld Girl establish her as a leading performer? Was it commercially successful or was her performance praised?
• How did The Postman Always Rings Twice establish her as a dramatic actress, was her performance praised?
• "At the time, her films with the studio had collectively earned over $50 million[12] (equivalent to $460,771,114 in 2018)." Using inflation adjustment for box office figures can be problematic. Is there a way her box office performance could be measured against her peers?
• I think commercial success sounds better than box-office hit.
• "Turner's final starring role was in 1966's Madame X," What do you mean by starring role as she seems to still have 5 more film credits after this film?
• " In 1982, she was cast in a recurring guest role on the television soap opera Falcon Crest, in which she appeared in several episodes." The bit after crest seems redundant as she had a recurring role then it is implied that starred in several episodes.
• In the table heading Role --> Role(s)
• I'd probably remove that second photo from The Postman Always Rings Twice as there's already a much better one in the lead.
• For the unrealized projects, are her roles in the first three films in the table unknown?
• Television and the radio roles don't sort properly. The sorting is also not present in the rest of the radio table.
• There is no sorting in the theater table currently and also I'd probably rename this section to stage
• In terms of source review, AGF on the offline sources, I do not have access to them.
• Ref 7, please specify the time that her credit is mentioned. Also ref 51 is the same as ref 7, they should be combined.
• Ref 10 just verifies that she starred in the film with Gable not that it was their last work together.
• Ref 37 verifies that she was due to star in the film but not that it was never made.
• Ref 38 verifies that she was due to star with Gable but not that it was eventually made with Russell and retitled.
• Ref 41 doesn't verify that she was due to star with Louis Jordan or that it was never made
• Ref 48 doesn't verify that she was co-starring with Barrymore.
• Ref 66 needs a page number

Cowlibob (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Courtesy ping to inform of review above. Cowlibob (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I've tried to address your concerns above, though there are a couple I am not entirely clear on: The main being your comment about the roles not sorting properly in the "Radio" and "Theater" sections. When I attempt to sort them with the table's sort function, they do so alphabetically the same as the "Film" section does. I have added sources for clarification on most of your points, although I am struggling to find a reference demonstrating that Our Dancing Daughters was not remade—I'm currently unable to find one, but there is no known record of the film existing—only a news report that Turner was set to star in it. I was able to find mention of Louis Jordan and The Streets of Montmartre project that fell through, which is mentioned in the Morella and Epstein source. Per ref. 48 concerning Barrymore, the book source by Pitts (which is in the ref. column as is) does confirm she co-starred on the program with Barrymore, so I've removed the redundant newspaper source which did not. Let me know if there are other outstanding issues I've missed. I think as of now, the only stickler is the aforementioned elusive reference to prove that Our Dancing Daughters was not remade. --Drown Soda (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Source review passed and support I think that should be ok, if there is no reference to it than we can presume it was not remade. I've added sorting to all tables. For future reference, character names in tables should be sorted by their surnames and titles with "the" should sort by the word after "the". I've copyedited the lead and added a note to specify that she played a character known by different names in Slightly Dangerous. I've removed the extra photograph as I discussed above. Cowlibob (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:04:23 15 December 2019 (UTC) [12].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a 2018 animated film from Sony Pictures Animation. It received a number of accolades including the Best Animated Film Oscar. I have gone through the article, added missing awards and references. Reworded the lead. I welcome any constructive comments on how to make it better. Cowlibob (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks really good with the list. I am only looking through the prose and the table as I will leave the sources to whoever does the source review. I just have a quick question about the "Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature" category for the Visual Effects Society. I am a little confused on why Miles Morales is in italics. The wikilink goes to the character, and characters are not presented in italics. I was wondering why the italics were used in this instance? I have admittedly not seen this film (I am not much a comic book film fan myself) so apologies if this is rather obvious, but it is the only thing that really caught my eye while reading through the list. Once this question is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Thanks for your review. I've changed them to quotation marks, there was no reason for Miles Morales or Graphic New York City to be italicised. Cowlibob (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing this. Why is a character's name put in quotation marks? Is the name of a section of the film or something like? Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: It was just to highlight that the award was for their animation work for that particular character, and for that particular environment rather than the whole film. Cowlibob (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, but I do not think Miles Morales or Graphic New York City should be in italics or quotation marks. I think they should just be represented as Miles Morales or Graphic New York City. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Changed. Cowlibob (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this. I support the nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "many of them in Best Animated Feature category" - I think this should be "categories", as it refers to multiple awards. If you are sure it should be shown in the singular then it is missing the word "the"
• Sort order on the Result column is Won/Runner-up/Nominated/4th place/2nd place. As 2nd place is the same as runner-up, surely they should sort together? I would also suggest that 4th place should sort before merely being nominated
• That's it from me - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. I've changed the line to add "the" as it was particularly for that category. I've changed the 2nd place to Runner-up and the 4th place to nomination as that awarding body doesn't specifically highlight a 4th, 5th etc place as notable. This should hopefully fix the sorting order. Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Loved the movie and love the list. Great job to you :-) – zmbro _(talk) 04:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look fine, and the link-checker tool reveals no issues. Spot-checks of refs 28, 35, and 47 showed no problems either. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:09:07 8 December 2019 (UTC) [13].

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Billboard album nomination, after 1945 and 2001 have been promoted. Thanks. Lirim | Talk 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my points. I still disagree with the eponymous wikilink, but it is not a major issue. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For future reference, I would not edit other reviewers' comments (in this instance, collapsing them with a header). I do not have an issue with it, but I have seen instances in which some reviewers in FACs or FLCs dislike it so it is probably best to avoid it altogether. Just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent job Lirim.Z. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Only issue I have is repeated links of artists like that of Bing Crosby or Benny Goodman or King Cole, in the box. Link once, its enough. Otherwise its a really well wriiten piece. Dey subrata (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey subrata: they are always linked in the table so you can always use them. If you sort the table differently, you might not be able to access that other page directly.--Lirim | Talk 17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know they are linked so that one can open directly, but thats excessive to link a single name several times in a table which is short one and the article is very short article too. For example, Bing Crosby is linked in first row and again linked in the 4th row which is in the same frame of reader, if anyone need to open the article its not at all hard to click his name from first row and its most obvious if anyone want to read the artist's article they will surely click the first time they notice the name, same with Benny Goldman and Glenn Miller which are linked just one after another. It does not make any sense. So its better to remove the link and linking once is enough. You did the same with "Album Column" too. Dey subrata (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice in a sortable table to link a name every time it appears -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look fine, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything passes muster on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:03:48 8 December 2019 (UTC) [15].

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list comprises the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, and is the capstone of another subtopic of WP:OMT. The list passed a Milhist A-class review in August and should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• canceled vs. cancelled. Canceled is used in some of the sections.
  • Fixed, good catch
• Service[38][39][23] of the Masséna's table, re-order the refs here.
  • Good catch
• It is still strange that the Bouvet image isn't restored you sure it still works to you?
  • Yeah, it displays just fine on multiple devices - how odd
    • Quick drive by - it doesn't display for me either Cavie78 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's strange - I've checked it on home and work computers and my phone, and it works on all of them. I wonder if you need to purge the page? (See WP:PURGE for how to do it). Sometimes I have to do that with very large file uploads. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tried purging and accessing from multiple devices and still doesn't work. Weird Cavie78 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh...does it work in the article on Bouvet itself? Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Parsecboy: I did the same but it didn't work. And yes the image works in the Bouvet article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's odd - I was wondering if it was something to do with the fact that it was a .tiff file and not a .jpg or .png, but if it's working in the Bouvet article, then that can't be it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @CPA-5: - I asked at the Village Pump (here) and they suggested it was an image size problem - do you have your image display preferences set? Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of tables use "kn" and others "knots" maybe try to standardise them?
  • Think I've got them
• Metric horsepower in the table Masséna, link it.
  • Done
• it difficult to stay within the 11,000-ton limit while incorporating What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
  • It's already specified earlier in the paragraph
• The six Dantons remained based at Corfu and Malta for much of the war First are speaking about the island of Malta or the group of islands? Second, if we are talking about the group of islands then we should use the Crown Colony's link.
  • No, just the island - linked to Malta (island)
• as the total tonnage exceeded the 70,000 tons allowed before the building holiday What kind of ton? Or doesn't the source say it?
  • It's the same 70,000-long-ton limit as mentioned in the Dunkerque section
• In the Alsace class's table at the armour part please use an em dash like the rest of empty parts.
  • Whoops - guess I forgot to put that field in.

That's anything that I could find I probably forgot one, but I re-read it for a couple of times so it shouldn't be striking to my eyes. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: - anything left you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Great to see that the Bouvet image is back in its current state. No there is nothing else, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, and really couldn't find a lot there. In general, this is a fine list, and despite the views of some about extended prose in the introduction of a list, the five para lead is entirely justified to put the list into proper context. I have a few comments, mainly from comparing the list to the class and ship articles:

• "intentionally sank the fleet" in the lead makes it seem like they fired on their own ships. Suggest "scuttled the fleet"
  • Works for me
• Brennus' armour says 460 mm, but the article says 400 mm, and her displacement is rounded up from what is provided in her article, speed and power also vary from the article, also not sure about where the commissioned date is coming from?
  • Huh, Jordan & Caresse have a table on page 15 that gives the displacement as 11,400t, so I don't know where the figure in the ship's article is coming from (that'll be a question for @Sturmvogel 66:, given that it's at FAC right now, I'd think)
    • Sturm took care of this part. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• not for this list, but the laid down date in the infobox of Jauréguiberry doesn't reflect the body
  • Fixed that article
• there is definitely something up with Bouvet's image. All I get is a thumb-box with the caption, no image shown
  • Does it display for you in the Bouvet article? It works fine for me there and here (though I'm having what is probably the same issue with File:USS Mississippi quarterdeck with flying boat 80-G-461428.tif in Greek battleship Kilkis). I've opened a thread at the VP here.
    • It works fine for me in the article on my desktop, but doesn't show up in the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thought at VP is that it's because the infobox is specifying the image size at 300px, but if you have your preferences set to something else (or not set at all), it might be trying to display at a resolution that MediaWiki isn't able to produce for some reason. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't work for me in the article either, and I get an error screen when I try to view the image itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you tried uploading this file again? Or using a different image of Bouvet from the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've replaced it with a .jpg version. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Problem solvered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• not for this list, but the Charlemagne-class infobox says the belt was 320, when it was actually 400
  • Fixed
• the Charlemagne-class article table says 15 October 1897 for Charlemagne's commissioning
  • Apparently there's a discrepancy between the class and the ship article - this is another question for Sturm, since he wrote both of those.
• the Saint Louis laid down and commissioned dates don't match the class article table, same for the Gaulois commissioned date
  • Same as above
    • Only Gaulois had been upgraded, but I've made the table, the class article and the individual ship articles all consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes are spinning, down to Iéna, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, imagine writing it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Iéna's article says speed was 18 kn and the power here doesn't match the article either
  • These figures are from Jordan & Caresse; since Caresse wrote the Warship International articles Sturm used to write both of Wiki's, I have to assume he corrected an earlier mistake.
• the power in Suffren's article isn't what is here
  • As above
• the République class article has a range for full load displacement, but this list uses as designed?
  • Fixed
• with the Liberté class, suggest giving the full dates in the table where known, rather than just the months for some
  • Done
• the Danton class displacement is the standard one, not the deep load one, is that right? Also, the class article says shaft horsepower rather than metric horsepower here, with a commensurate difference in kW
  • Yes - J&C don't give the full load, and there doesn't seem to be a citation for it in the class article. And as above for the HP figure
• wasn't the Bretagne class belt armour 270 mm? Also the class article gives the full load displacement as 26,000 tons, not 26,600 tones, the speed is 20 kn in the class article, and the class article has the power as 29,000 shp
  • These are all the figures per J&C - that article needs to be rewritten, and at some point Sturm and I will get to it
• the Normandie class article says the belt was 300 mm, also there is a zero missing from the power, my whippersnipper has more grunt...
  • Fixed
• the Lyon class power doesn't match the class article
  • Fixed the class article
• the Richelieu class belt should be 327 mm and the displacement doesn't match the class article
  • Fixed

That's me done, these are mainly transcription errors by the look of them, unless the class articles aren't right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the repair of Strasbourg is notable enough for the lead, so should that of Provence.
  • A fair point
• Link main battery and turret in the lede. In Brennus, centerline, scrap. In Charles Martel: reserve
  • The first is linked in the 2nd paragraph, linked turret and the rest
• There's some duplication between the Brennus material and the first para of the lede. I'd recommend that some of the detail in the latter be removed.
  • I included it there to avoid having to have citations in the intro
    • Now that I think about it, the ledes of lists are not not summaries of the content, but rather a general introduction to the topic and require citations. Check out the other lists of BBs by countries and I think that you'll find that they all have cites in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not how I've been writing lists - that's partly why I include more design stuff in the ship/class sections, so I can base the narrative of the lead on it. My reasoning is, even with lists, if it's worth mentioning in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the body. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference in the type of content between the Japanese list and this one. And you really might want to look again at your German and Italian lists. They're fully cited while presenting the material in roughly the same manner as this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are ancient and need a lot of work ;) I'm talking about more recent practice (i.e., List of screw corvettes of Germany, List of protected cruisers of Italy, etc.) - I stopped writing leads that way after the first handful of lists I did. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking it over, everything in the lede is cited, so it works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are you converting CV into ihp/shp? They're close enough together that I think that a better conversion would be CV into kW like in the articles on the ships.
  • My reasoning was that if readers are familiar with ships, they're more than likely used to seeing things in ihp/shp, not kW
    • We have been converting ihp/shp to kW in all the individual ship articles, so why different now?
      • In my experience, figures are almost always given in sources measured in ihp/shp, not kW, so it makes more sense to me to convert from CV to ihp/shp, to make it easier for readers to make apples to apples comparisons.
        • The lists of battleships of Germany and Japan don't even mention power ratings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, you're right - I haven't been including them in most of the lists I've done either - not sure why I did here. I'll cut it (and go back and update some old cruiser lists while I'm at it). Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be a link to the article on the Allied effort to pressure the Greeks in the République section
  • Do we have an article on it? Or are you thinking about the National Schism or Noemvriana articles?
    • The latter is close enough, IMO.
      • Done
• Down to the dreadnoughts, desperately in need of a nap, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a snooze, old man!
• Link amidships
  • Done
• the British Home Fleet and later to French Indochina missing word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few minor issues to be resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sturmvogel 66: - any further thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations are properly formatted and consistent
• References known to be highly RS by reputable authors
• References are formatted consistently
• Good to go--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All images properly licensed.
• Surely File:French battleship Richelieu colorized.jpg would be better than the current photo for the Richelieu-class section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it would - thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Convinced of the need to follow suit with dreadnoughts of their own, the four Courbets were ordered in 1910 and the three Bretagnes followed in 1912." This is ungrammatical. You have to say they or the French ordered.
  • Good catch
• "as World War I forced the French to cancel the Normandie and Lyon classes". This is not logical. Surely war is often a reason to increase warship construction, as with the Americans in WW2. If construction for the land war took priority, you should say so. PS I see you clarify this below, but a few words here would be helpful.
  • Done
• "Illustration of Charles Martel underway" Is it really an illustration? It looks to me like a photo.
  • Yeah, it's an illustration of some sort - look at the bottom right corner - there's a signature I can't make out - something Gray or Grey, it looks like.
• Was the poor seaworthiness of the five early ships due to the specifications laid down by the naval command or bad design by the architects?
  • Probably more the latter than the former, but both have their share of the blame - the fundamental problem was insufficient displacement for what the command wanted the ships to be able to do - this was fairly common in the period - the American Indiana-class battleships, built at about the same time, were also badly overloaded. And the displacement issue was generally imposed by legislatures that were at the time unwilling to spend vast sums on fleets of battleships (this was before Mahan had really caught on). With these ships specifically, the lozenge arrangement was pretty stupid, given the effective duplication of weight to carry four guns in four turrets instead of in two turrets - that was, as far as I'm aware, a fault of the designers, not the command's specifications.
• "The Minister of the Navy, Auguste Burdeau, instructed the naval design staff to prepare a new battleship proposal" When?
  • Added the year
• You use different weight conversions - e.g. Bouvet {{cvt|12200|t|LT|0}}, new weight limit {{cvt|11000|t|LT}}, Charlemagne {{convert|11275|MT|LT}}. I think you should be consistent.
  • Tonnes and metric tons are the same - dunno why that one got specified to the American spelling (especially since it should have been abbreviated, and both variations use "t").
• "The Board of Construction requested an improved version of the Charlemagne class" When?
  • Clarified
• " but Patrie remained in service 1919" "until 1919"?
  • Fixed
• "the center turret inflicted excessive blast damage on the superstructure". I do not understand this. Do you mean if the turret is hit by enemy fire?
  • No - when guns (of any size, but the effect is of course magnified the larger you go) are fired, there is are blast and flash effects as the projectile and propellant gasses exit the muzzle, and these can cause damage to things that are too close (imagine standing too close to this, or note the concussion demonstrated here) - ship superstructures are generally fairly lightly built to minimize weight high in the ship (since that can cause stability problems) so they're vulnerable to the concussion of guns fired too closely.
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:14:14 8 December 2019 (UTC) [16].

Nominator(s): – Teratix ₵ 09:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following Allied45's successful FLCs for the 2016 and 2017 AFL Rising Star awards, I'm continuing the trend with the equivalent accolade in the AFL Women's. I have tried to follow a similar format to the previous FLs. The list is a bit shorter than its AFL counterparts but just as comprehensive, and has a high-quality lead image to boot. (This is my first FLC). – Teratix ₵ 09:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'd mention more specifically that 2017 was the AFLW's first season

• Done. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that you have a link to the eligibility section of the main article, but I would also briefly explain the rules here. It would only require one extra sentence and it would help to bulk up the lead, which is quite slender as it stands.

• I've put in a brief sentence. I'm still looking for sources to clarify some of the details of eligibility. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's unclear whether suspended players in 2017 couldn't be nominated or were merely ineligible to win. To be safe, I've just said they couldn't win. I've found an example of a player who was suspended during the 2019 season but was still nominated, so I've clarified the criteria in the main article. Hope that's OK? – Teratix ₵ 01:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "announced in the AFLW's awards ceremony" - I would say "announced at the AFLW's awards ceremony", but then I am not Australian. Can you confirm that something occurring "in" a ceremony is standard Australian usage?

• No, this is just a mistake, fixed. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would avoid the use of "this year", as it's rather confusing language given that "this year" almost always means the year in which the reader is actually reading it. I would replace with "the year", "the season", or simply "2017"

• Replaced all. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth mentioning that every club had at least one player nominated?

• Could you explain why? It seems a bit trivial to me. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, just thought it was mildly interesting, but it's not a deal breaker..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you check the vote totals? The main article says that each of the 10 panel members awards points from 5 down to 1, so the totals should add up to (5+4+3+2+1)*10 = 150, but they actually add up to 153??

• Looks like a mistake in the source. Mithen is credited with 26 votes in the overall tally but the individual panel members' votes only add to 23. Fixed. – Teratix ₵ 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great job Teratix. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Beautiful work Teratix! Thank you for helping expand on my work with these lists. I could not find any issues, and I have taken the liberty to archive all the citations to ensure link rot does not become an issue down the track :) Allied45 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – This article is a pass as far as the sources are concerned. The references are all reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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