Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2013

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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk and Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian of his day, became, later in his career, chiefly known for his pantomime dame roles in the lavish, spectacular and very popular Christmas pantomimes at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. Earlier last year, Ssilvers and I successfully saw through the promotions of Dan Leno to FA and his list of songs sketches and monologues to FL status. As we went along, we researched his pantomimes and his handful of other theatre productions and compiled this short list, which also supports the main article. We feel confident that this article conatins a thorough and comprehensive list of Leno's theatrical productions and that it meets the criteria needed for FL consideration. We invite any comments and suggestions, which would be greatfully received.Cassianto^Talk 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, for anyone interested in Leno's pantomime and theatrical acting career, as opposed to his far more extensive music hall career, this list article, including its sortable table of the theatrical productions in which Leno performed, gives, in convenient format, details about all of the theatrical productions in which Leno had acting roles that would have been too detailed for the main Leno article. We look forward to your comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – comprehensive, well-documented, with highly readable introduction. I don't see how this could be improved at all. Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Tim! :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had my say in PR and made a few little technical tweaks during the development process. It's a very good article indeed: it covers what it needs to, and does so in a very readable way. The table is noce and sortable and I think it all works OK, from what I can see. I've not done the images to any great depth, but they look good on a cursory scan of the licenses. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and advice, SchroCat. Wikipedia would not look as good without knowledgeable contributors like you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. Some need slightly different tags or a bit more details. Sources and authors provided, where available.

• File:Dan_Leno_and_Herbert_Campbell.jpg - OK (author info already expanded)
• File:Augustus_Harris.jpg - OK (i fixed erronous author info, please double-check)
• File:Mrs._Kelly.jpg - OK. Suggest to add publisher, location and year of publication to all book sources (ISBN, when available). A link can rot, so it's better to have the basic data directly available.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Leno_as_Sister_Anne_1901.jpg - not OK. 1901 is too new for PD-70. However, PD-1923 together with PD-UK-unknown will work (if you did a "reasonable enquiry" for the author without success).

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Leno3.jpg - not OK. Same as above, try PD-1923 and PD-UK-unknown if author can't be found

• Done. The author was found online as being Tom Browne who died in 1910. The image description has been updated. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• not listed remaining 5 images - all OK.

Cassianto asked me for a quick image check, but i won't formally vote, as i know not enough about the specific FLC-criteria. Nevertheless it looks like a great list with a lot of effort being spent on it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again GJ for taking the time to review the images it is really appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome, was fun to read up on an unfamiliar topic (status updated). Btw, is it "Sister Ann" or "Sister Anne"? Microscopic nitpick, but list and caption have both spellings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is "Sister Anne". I have requested that the file be renamed to reflect the correct spelling. Thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GermanJoe. Yes, I agree that it is Anne. If you google this pantomime, you can see the name spelled both ways, but this poster shows that at Drury Lane they spelled it "Anne" in this production. Of course, Bluebeard is a french fairy tale, so it is only a translation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A nice list. I have not noticed any particular problem. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your support. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very nice piece of work - well done! The table is well-organised, accessible and functional. Normally I might have preferred the production as the row header, but productions are not unique and some of the titles are very long, so you made a better choice by using the date. Just a few minor points about the images: a couple of them have empty alt tags, which should only happen for decorative images that have no link, because otherwise a screen reader will get a link announced but not necessarily know where the link goes. There are also a lot of images; on my widescreen monitor they extend at least one picture beyond the bottom of the article. My advice is to prune a few of them out - remember that images are meant to illustrate a point that you are making relevant to the article/list, not just to decorate it. Some are useful to show how Leno dressed for his parts, or how he was caricatured, but I'm not sure of the point being made by Augustus Harris.jpg or Leno, Danvers and Campbell.jpg, for example. It would be quite possible to create a commons category called 'Dan Leno' and use the template {{Commons category|Dan Leno}} on the page (and other pages!) to direct viewers to the entire category - that's the normal advice if you have a lot more pictures than can be comfortably accommodated on the page. Nevertheless, the points I raise above are minor and do not detract from my support for this very well-executed list. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you RexxS. Your support, as always, is valued. The category sounds like a great idea! i havent a clue how to do it, but I shall ask about and read up on the instructions. I will also check the alts again later today. We played around with the images on big, medium and small screened devices so we could get everything to fit, which it did. However, if you say the images are causing a bleed into the next section we may have to discuss a further prune. Ss, which shall we go for? I was thinking Marie Lloyd? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rexx. Yes, I deleted Lloyd and moved the right-facing cartoon up to the text. That should do it. I don't see any empty alt tags, though. Do you see what Rexx means? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a useful Firefox addon called "Web Developer Toolbar" that adds some neat tricks like outlining images with empty alt attributes - I find it very useful to spot missing alts. I've added some example alt text (which was missing) to the lead image. The 'Dame trot' had alt text but you hadn't put "alt=". I've moved the images outside of the table in wiki-text to make the table self-contained if anybody wants to copy it. Finally, I've moved up the left-side cartoon one paragraph as it otherwise pokes down into the Productions section on my monitor and moves the entire table over by 150px! The other option would be to use {{-}} before == Productions == to force a break. Please excuse me and feel free to revert, alter or re-use any of these changes - I just thought they were easier to do than try to describe them to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken up your advice and I'm now trying to understand the workings of the Toolbar. In relation to the moved image, I am getting a bit of text squeeze on my small screened device, but I suppose what works for one won't always work for the other. Your edit looks great for me, thanks again! -- Cassianto^Talk 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes seems good, Rexx. Thanks for fixing the alt text. I put the left-side cartoon back where it was (as Cassianto says, that caused more problems for most viewers), but I added the {{-}} as you suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Originally included on the main Ivy Queen article. I then moved the list of award tables to a separate article while expanding the tables with more awards and nominations. The list follows the same style as List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona which is also listed as FL. Regards. DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very well formatted and referenced. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—a job well done. I have nothing else for now, but if I do, I'll let you know. Thanks for the prompt responses! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from IndianBioSupport – Seems a pretty comprehensive list. Here are few of my quabbles. I initially wanted to just comment and was almost gonna support, but found quite a few prose and MoS issues that I'm opposing for now. Let me know if these issues are fixed. I don't watch the nominations so ping me in my talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interesting input and comments. I appreciate them. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt actions DivaKnockouts. For I have gone ahead and supported the list. Best wishes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review IndianBio :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:17, 7 February 2013 (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 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The first review went stale without flagging any major concerns. I hope that this time around the list draws enough attention. Thanks in advance for any constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't detect any issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport A couple from me.

• in the lead, suggest "has now been succeeded by" instead of "is now succeeded by". I don't think we quite got the tense right in the ACL's I reviewed recently.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posthumous recognition is duplicated as a link in the body ("Recipients" section).

done, removed link in the body MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• no dabs, external link issues, missing alt text, duplicate citations, reflinks issues, redirect probs or copyvios detected per those toolserver tools.

• no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have recently reviewed two (other) RK lists for A class, and this incorporates all of the suggestions made in those reviews.

• no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure about the need to mix Hauptmann (or any other rank for that matter) with "of the Reserves" in English. Given there is no appreciable difference between a given rank and a given rank of the Reserves (in terms of equivalence), you could render the first mention followed by (Captain) or (Captain of the Reserves) then carry on with the German version fully italicised throughout. Not a war winner, but I assume you are at the beginning of this series at FLC level, and it would probably be best to crack the rationale on this one early, especially as there have been queries about italicisation and anglicisation of German ranks at ACL in this series.

• The list is sortable. The order is arbitrary after the first sort. Because of this, overlinking is allowed on sortable lists. Wouldn't this apply to your suggestion about translations as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I still think you could render all ranks in German only, so long as they are linked, no problem. But a minor matter, not an obstacle to FL.

• At your usual high standard, well done.

• Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps add a visual representation (similar to the KIA and disputed entries) to indicate recipients with higher grade crosses in addition to mentioning it in the notes? Winning the highest military award multiple times is a major achievement so I think it would be good if the reader could easily identify the people on the list who have done so. Obviously this is only a suggestion and not a problem with the article. Chamal ^T•C 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could add something like (see below), would this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This along with the + (plus) indicates that a higher grade of Knight's Cross was awarded as well.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Chamal ^T•C 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Very high quality article. Chamal ^T•C 16:36, 22 February 2013 (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 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan, The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Cook is one of the best Test batsman in the history of England cricket. Zia Khan is very excited nominating this one. In fact, we have another similar list at FLC right now which "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" there. Zia Khan thinks that can nominate this list. The Rambling Man is interested in improving the list, so has the co-nomination. As always, look forward to the comments/sugesstions from anyone, especially FLCers. Zia Khan 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets the standards. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from me addressed. Waiting for Vesantry (who seems to know much more about cricket) to finish weighing in before I support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhh! thanks for your compliment :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its amazing! Have you really seen this right now? Zia Khan 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • No problem, thanks for the comments, BTW! Zia Khan 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on prose. Looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• ICC should be spelled out in the first paragraph.
• Reference 8 needs a publisher (Wisden). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Zia Khan 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list, I couldn't find any issues with it. Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No problems I can see. Chamal ^T•C 16:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Zia Khan 18:03, 22 February 2013 (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 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls (abbreviated as TES) is an action role-playing open world video game series developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. The Elder Scrolls games take place on the fictional world of Nirn, on the continent of Tamriel, a large landmass divided into nine provinces. The actual Elder Scrolls play a very limited role in the storyline of the series, serving only as framing plot device, and are rarely referred to in-game, or even in the in-game literature. The first game, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, was released in 1994. It was intended for players to assume the role of an arena combatant, but development shifted the game into a role-playing game (RPG), beginning a tradition that persists throughout the series' history. The first nomination failed because after two users opposed based on a misleading interpretation of the forking criteria for featured lists, I decided to withdraw the nomination and focus on other things. As I think it meets the criteria (or its very close to it), I bring this back again to FLC. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per 3.b I am not convinced that the tables cannot reasonably be included at the end of Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a table of all games released for a series be included at the end of an article of the development of only one of those games? This makes no sense. 3b has no weigh here, Nergaal. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^ What he said. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As I've said before, I really do prefer Template:Video game titles to Template:ListEntry/VG, but it's an aesthetic choice. I'm also fine with the multi-citation refs you have; it's not as immediate what goes with what as it would be if you stuck each ref in the appropriate table cell, but it's honestly not much different than sticking them all in a "ref" column. My one comment- seeing as there are two books and can only be a handful of albums, have you considered expanding the list into "List of The Elder Scrolls media"? Not required, but I think it would work well. --PresN 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I may expand it later. I was thinking about it, but given that I won't have much time soon, I thonk I won't be able to expand it anytime soon. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also like to see this whenever you get a chance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – In refs 9 and 10, there are books that use pp. for a single-page cite; those should be p. instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:06, 23 February 2013 (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 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a very nice list, and it does have sufficient entries, but why does this need to be separate from (and somewhat redundant to) List of airports in British Columbia? A region column could be in the table to sort by the unofficial subdivisions of BC. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reywas makes a good point I think it's feasible this list could merged into the British Columbia one and a region column added. NapHit (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure. The amount of detail in the lead and the additional fields in this list make it perfectly justifiable to standalone. The main BC list is massive, I have counted the entries, but I suspect there are well over 200 entries, which if expanded as this list has been expanded, would be unmanageably large and would require some SALs to be branched out from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rambling. The BC list is way to large. I think it would be best to separate each region into a separate list.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Okanagan" is sufficient, if people don't know what that is there's a short explanation and link in the lede. If the name is sufficient for the article, it's sufficient for subarticles. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rambling Man convinced me. This meets the FL criteria and can be a standalone list per the issues stated above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great list, no issues. Status 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Harrias ^talk

• What is a water aerodrome? I can't see anything on this list pointing to another article that tells me about it, and I frankly have no idea what to think. If we don't have a page that tells us anything, create a red link so that someone might think about creating such a page for people like me! It might be worth linking to airport and heliport too, just to be safe.
  • Done, there is actually an article on it. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Meanwhile, the towns of Oliver and Osoyoos are home to the Oliver Airport and Osoyoos Airport; the former is situated in Oliver, while the latter is based in Osoyoos." This sentence repeats itself, there is no need for the bit after the semi-colon.
  • Removed. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is an "unincorporated community"?
  • A place that has not been "incorporated" as a city, town, district, village, etc. I have added a link for now. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it appropriate to have an External links section for a Commons box and a Google maps/Bing maps box? (I genuinely don't know, but it looks odd to me.)
  • It is the general convention to provide links to Wikimedia Commons in the section, same goes for those boxes, another editor suggested them. They are external links, so... TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the review. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 22 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like cricket is taking over FLC right now, but that seems to be the way it goes from time to time. TRM has another, similar FLC running right now, which currently has three supports so he feels able to nominate this one. Zia Khan has done good work tidying it up as well, hence the co-nomination. We both look forward to the scrutiny of the community, and as ever thank you all for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Rambling Man, for considering me as co-nominator. I'll try my best to help you taking the list to FL status. Thanks again! Zia Khan 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "De Villiers' ODI debut came in February 2005..." Would prefer was to be used instead of came

• Done.

• "De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket, in 58 balls, when he hit an unbeaten 102 against India in..." Think this could be revised perhaps " De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket; he hit an unbeaten 102 against India off 58 balls..."?

• Done.

• "in that format" -> in the format

• Done.

• Seems to be a discrepancy with the strike rate when sorting by score on the ODI table. You have two scores of he same value, 102 has the highest striker at the top, while 107 has the lowest one at the top. I'm not too sure which way round it's should be, but it should be consistent either way.

• This is not strike rate, this is not out (102* is better than 102, same for 107)

• The balls column doesn't sort correctly

• Done. Zia Khan 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Small typo at the start of the sentence which follows "...this remains his highest ODI score." in the third paragraph. Other than that, very good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Zia Khan 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Quite picky on my part, but "man of the match" is hyphenated in the lead but not the key. I'm not sure myself which way it should be, but this should be made consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead its "man-of-the-match performance" but in the Key it is used as a noun. Zia Khan 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – No issues for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "...One Day International (ODI) and T20I teams" Why is ODI expanded on this first use, but T20I is merely linked?
• "He made his first Test century the following month, scoring his debut century.." "first Test century", "debut century" is unnecessary repetition.
• Could the first paragraph be expanded to mention his other double century against India in April 2008? Harrias ^talk 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks for your comments Harrias! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, no problem, good work. Harrias ^talk 18:01, 17 February 2013 (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. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:06, 22 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past few months and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images, looks solid enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support excellent list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (after a minor copyedit). Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 19 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Coal town guy 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first nomination of anything on Wikipedia. My area of interest and contributiuons has been unincorporated communities within WV, and certainly KY, PA, VA etc etc. However, having a FL list for WV counties is paramount for WV history and the associated portals throughout Wikipedia. All data is accurate and the current list represents substantial changes in quality and accuracyCoal town guy (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Congratulations on your first nomination! I can tell you've put a lot of work into this list. I was just wondering if you've had a look at other counties lists, such as Florida and Utah? I think consistency is usually good with these types of articles, and it wouldn't be too much work to convert some of your sections into four lead paragraphs. Just my two cents though; I'll let others weigh in. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that alot, believe it or not. In this instance I wanted to use seperate paragrapha because of the concepts. Example If I said Rights and Functions, I better have 2+ paragraphs, at least, that was my thinking. VERY much appreciate the comment. I did however take heed of your advice and others who helped. I used the more recent FL county lists as a template. I was totally blown away by New Jersey. EGAD....However, FL, MA, NJ, and KY each had pieces that really make a county list function well. Coal town guy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed the headersCoal town guy (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I believe this list now meets the all FL criteria. I have just one small question: What is the reason for including the list of state symbols as a "see also" item? I couldn't figure out the value it's supposed to add. If I were linking any "see also" items for this list, it would be the lists of cities, towns, and villages (which lists aren't anywhere near good as either this one or the list of state symbols). --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and THANKS for Support. I have added List of WV Governors (a FL) and List of National Historic places in WV. The State symbols list was removedCoal town guy (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I concur with Orlady that this list now meets all the featured list criteria following the edits by Coal town guy and those made by the editors addressing all the issues and comments raised above. Coal town guy did an extraordinary job framing the importance of counties in the governance of West Virginia in addition to the origins of their nomenclature and associated geospatial data. -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why two different references to Bakestress and Rice? Why not make life a little simpler by removing the page number for the references, implementing the <ref name> feature, and citing individual pages with {{rp}} after the </ref>? Our citation guidelines permit both styles (although of course you can't use both in the same page), so there's absolutely no reason for you to do this if you don't want to. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The data cited was either a span of pages, or on a specific page. I chose that specific style, both could be done. The page was submitted to GOCE and was reviewed twice. No preference for citation were stated. As to Rice and Bastress, Bastress is far better at the specific code and historic dates for the WV constitution, Rice is better at its interpretation. Both are effective, however for the point being made, I chose those references specifically. Does that address your concern? If not, let me know Coal town guy (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that's not what I meant; I wasn't attempting to question your use of sources. In the first Rice citation, why don't you change <ref> to <ref name=rice> and drop the page number, change the second Rice citation to <ref name=rice /> (deleting everything else from that citation), and then append {{rp|153}} to the first one and {{rp|247}} to the second? And why don't you do something comparable to the Bastress? Of course, "I don't feel like it" is fine; I just thought you might find it more convenient. See what I've done with citation #2 at Mechanicsburg United Methodist Church for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I found the accepted style I used to be easier.......and yes, I didnt feel like it might be a good part of that. used what I thought to be an easier style for the fact that the list in the form I found it required ALOT of content and work, an easier and accepted ref style made it better for me at least. I do however appreciate the info on another form of accepted refs. Otherwise, if there is something you do not support or do support, let me knowCoal town guy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints; I just wanted to make sure that you used a different style because you wanted to, not because of ignorance. My only substantive question also concerns the citations: on several of them, the end of the citation is a parenthetical statement, like (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) or (WV State Boundaries). What's the point of those? Is it perhaps some note-to-self, which could simply be put in <!-- hidden comments -->? I don't see how they're necessary, but I don't want to remove them if you have a good reason for including them. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The County list page is a great place to show the literature of the state and if a person were inclined to contribute more to a specific county article, they now have a reference, with a parenthetical that would guide them. There are a few County pages I would LOVE to have ANYONE get to and correct a few boundary issues (no finger pointing), a few of the origin issues etc etc. They now have a source should they go to the county list page. Hope this helps as this does not violate a Style rule or guide.Coal town guy (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it did, I wouldn't know about it, since I virtually never read WP:MOS. Thanks for your responses! Sorry for speaking earlier as if you weren't familiar with the ref name idea; I completely overlooked the fact that you're using ref name for other citations. I only meant to introduce the rp template, and with both it and the parentheticals I only was commenting, not objecting to the current format. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology is required at all. This is a learning experience for myself and really what a FL should be at this point on wikipedia. I cant learn these things unless, others show me, and point them out, and everyone here has in a very positive mmanner. Hope you support this FLC. I would not have it here unless you and many others pointed me in a constructive directionCoal town guy (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this earlier and have just re-read it. It has been greatly improved and I find it now meets the FLC criteria. I have one suggestion - "Wyoming" is a Lenape (Delaware) word, which this reference (which is already cited in the article) confirms. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for support added Lenape prefix, many thanks for your help in this effort!Coal town guy (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Looks good! Thank you for the quick response to my comments. Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for taking the time. This has been a learning process for certainCoal town guy (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the table should at least include a caption per WP:ACCESS, row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex. Why are the FIPS codes not sorted, ie some numbers are missing (2, 4, 6). Were there any former counties? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions I do not at all understand what you mean per tainig to tables. When you say you want a Caption and not a header I do not understand....How is this done. I have looked at WP:ACCESS and have no idea what to do, can you please help?

Done with FIPSThe FIPS codes are the exact FIPS code for each county that is provided for WV. There are no missing counties there are other states which also have gaps in the FIPS codes, New Jersey, as an example. The numbering is not always a sequence. The current values are sorted properly. No data is missingCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all County FL lists, I am not able to see a caption on any of these at all, ANY help would be wonderfulCoal town guy (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done but need help added a table caption and it does not display. I also looked at every county list for the United States, none have a caption. Please help me out hereCoal town guy (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{Countytabletop}} doesn't have the facility to include a caption (although I'd like to see it edited to add this feature - it just needs a line something like {{#if:{{{caption|}}|{{!}}+{{{caption|}}} }}). A caption confers the advantage that it makes the table self-contained for re-use and it allows some screen readers for visually impaired visitors to navigate directly to the table. However, the consensus has been that tables which are placed immediately below a heading gain sufficiently little benefit from a caption that we don't insist on having them. The reason is that most screen readers can jump to a heading just as easily as to a table caption, so the caption is somewhat redundant in those circumstances. The Countytabletop template correctly marks up its headers as table headers with a scope of "col", but I'd also like to see the template {{Countyrow}} mark up the name of the county as a table header with a scope of "row", as that would improve the ability of some screen readers to use the name of the county to identify the row when a screen reader user is navigating around the table.

In brief: there's not much you can do to improve the accessibility further without modifying templates that are used in 40+ other articles, and that will often require forging a consensus with the editors of those other articles. For now, the list is reasonably accessible, imho, although it could be improved. I'd certainly support it as a FL. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the info, feel free to add your support, it is always appreciatedCoal town guy (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unsure of what you mean by "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex". If you are referring to the column headings, these are absolutely necessary in order to identify the information. Jujutacular (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the row headers. The table does not need them if it has no complex features. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but noticed two minor problems.
  1. It says "Reforming public education became a county function in 1933. In May 1933, a county unit plan was adopted. Under this plan, the state's 398 school districts were consolidated into 55 county school systems." but it is unclear if education itself is currently a function of counties?
  2. I have a problem with sentence: "This enabled public schools to be funded more economically and saved West Virginia millions of dollars". This looks like an opinion not a fact, but it is stated as a fact. It should be probably attributed to the authors of the book to make it clear that it is their opinion.

Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for support. I added the word current to clarify that this practice continues today. As to the saving mllions of dollars, it is part and parcel of the Rice source on page 247, hence why I places the ref tag there. Many thanks for the supportCoal town guy (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 23:01, 15 February 2013 [12].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H. C. McNeile is one of the forgotten giants of the golden age of British detective fiction, although he is now more likely to be remembered for the rather odious views on race and anti-Semitism he included in his stories from time to time. Best known for his Bulldog Drummond stories, McNeile created the forerunner to later thriller heroes—Drummond was both a proto-Bond and Biggles—but he also wrote extensively about the First World War, while serving on the front line. He managed to write 80 short stories while serving on the Western Front and continued writing after the war. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images. Can't see any more issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – In the third table, the Ref column shouldn't be sortable. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted! Now sorted. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made a small copy edit to the lead as it seemed a bit clunky due to a series of full stops. I merged one and deleted "these were then collected together." It seemed a bit redundant when the sentence goes onto say "and published as collections through Hodder & Stoughton." Feel free to revert if you don't agree. The article is in great shape! -- Cassianto^Talk 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, your edit is great - many thanks for the tweak and the support: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 04:34, 15 February 2013 [13].

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a good look at film producers from the Indies, a topic I'm trying to make featured. No images because I haven't found any free ones of those involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why limit the article to 1926 to 1949? I understand that Indonesia is not exactly the same as Dutch East Indies, but I wouldn't think producers must be segregated by pre- or post-independece. The names in Category:Indonesian film producers would be a good addition to this list. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because a) it was not the same political body, b) as noted at Darah dan Doa, Indonesians have generally not considered films from the Indies truly "Indonesian" films, and c) we already have List of films of the Dutch East Indies and List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies; this is meant as a complement to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice list. Here are some comments you may disagree with.
• "Twenty-two people are recorded as having produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," I would write "Twenty-two people are believed to have produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," although I know that weasel words are not permitted, still I prefer such wordings in this case
• "All were men; the first female film producer in Indonesia, Ratna Asmara, produced her first film in 1953.[3]" - suggest "Among identified film producers from the Dutch Indies, all were men except at least one woman, Ratna Asmara, who has produced her first film in 1953"--Tomcat (7) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments and support. "Believed" sounds less encyclopedic than "recorded" (especially since they are on record) and 1953 was after the Dutch East Indies was dissolved, so Ratna should not be counted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle with some comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
    • Hmm... Good point. He was likely the producer of Eulis Atjih in 1927, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Good catch, reworded until I can confirm that he was the producer of Eulis Atjih. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Altogether they produced some 93 films in this period..." Is it a valid corollary to say then that a total of 93 fictional films were produced in the Indies between 1926 and 1949? If not, perhaps this requires rewording.
    • The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cameraman seems to have been "operator", but none of the sources have any more. Good wording, changing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – List meets all 6 criteria. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 18:11, 14 February 2013‎ [14].

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FA-criteria. The list includes all NFL champions and runner-ups prior to the league's merger with the American Football League in 1970. I think this will be an excellent compliment to the companion List of Super Bowl champions article, also an FA. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]