Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2015

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:13, 23 February 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset this is the next in the series (the fourth of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available. — Rod ^talk 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under Cadbury Camp the last 2 references are the same. Keith D (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks removed.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a high-quality list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Too many 'severals' in the lead.

• Several 'severals' removed or replaced.

• " Worlebury Camp which was probably built by either the Goidel or Brython people.[3] The Belgae people subsequently overthrew the initial inhabitants and occupied the camp for a time, but they were finally defeated at the hands of the Romans." The comments and sources are far too dated to be reliable. There are more up to date sources in the wiki article on the camp and at pastscape.

• I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. How old would you say are inherently too "outdated" to be reliable. Just because a report is from 2007 or a website last updated 2010 doesn't to my mind make them unreliable. Are you saying new information has emerged since then, changing our understanding of the site?— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your citations are dated 1919 and 1921 and the details sound to me like unreliable guesswork. E.g. Goidel or Brython people means Q (Irish) or P (British) Gaelic speakers, which does not make sense in this context, and it is unlikely that modern archaeologists would think that we could know that Belgae displaced earlier inhabitants.

• It has just clicked with me that you are looking at the references used in the lead (3 & 4) I was looking at the references used to support the entry for Worlebury Camp (92-95). Give me a few hours to check which source says what and I will revise the lead.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These claims removed from the lead. I will look at Scheduled Monuments in Somerset as I believe the same text appears there.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Aveline's Hole. The human bone fragments it contained, from about 21 different individuals". Barry Cunliffe says more than 50 individuals. Also you say Palaeolithic, but it is Mesolithic. I can amend if you wish.

• Happy for you to change it or give the Cunliffe ref so I can do it here & on the article.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing this one.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The box and ball at the top of the shaft was added in 1877." Shouldn't this be "were added" or are the box and ball one thing?

• They tend to be added as a single decorative feature, but I'm happy to be guided on this.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I leave this to you.

• "Deserted medieval farmstead, Banwell|Deserted medieval farmstead 420 m south of Gout House Farm" Repetition.

• My oops - now fixed.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The hillfort was refortified around 400" I would add CE (or AD).

• Added AD (was actually between 430 and 480 AD).— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - always useful comments.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "occupation extended into the sub-Roman period, from which much imported pottery has been recovered." No change needed, but there were imports from the eastern Mediterranean including Byzantium at this time, and it would be interesting if this is true at Cadbury.

• The best on this seems to be The pastscape entry which has " finds of pottery imported from the Mediterranean.".— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is known to have been occupied between 1290 and 1332." I would prefer is recorded in 1290 and 1332, as in EH. Known as occupied between implies a very short occupation, which may be wrong.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Coins and pottery from 250 to 360". I think it is always better to say CE or AD with early dates like that.

• Fair point - Done.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Motte-and-bailey castle 650 m NNW of Sandpoint Farm". You date this 11C, which is likely, but I cannot see it in the source.

• I have changed it to Middle Ages and added a ref (Gatehouse). The source previously used says "monuments of the early post-Conquest period" and "built and occupied from the 11th to the 13th centuries" bit these are general comments rather than specific to this site.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was occupied from the middle of the 1st century until at least the fifth century, demonstrated by the coins of Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and Arcadius". This is not quite right. EH says abandoned c.380 and then some buildings re-occupied (presumably by squatters) c. 400.

• I will take another look.— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have missed this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I meant to go back to that and obviously forgot. Now revised - could you take another look at check it properly represents the Pastscape source?— Rod ^talk 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a difficult one. Pastcape says it was a defended villa estate, the list entry that the view that it was a villa is out of date. As Pastscape is dated 2007 and the list entry cites a 2014 source I think it might be best to ignore Pastscape. I suggest something like "This was an Iron Age settlement Romanised in the late first century. It grew to become a commercial agricultural centre which was abandoned by about 200 AD. Around 300 AD a defensive wall was constructed up to 5 metres thick enclosing an area of about 7 hectares. Remains include both a mosaic pavement and evidence of industrial activities, and coins shows that the site was occupied throughout the Roman period. The site may have been finally abandoned during an outbreak of bubonic plague in the middle of the sixth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now gone with your suggestion - I'm just slightly nervous about whether "Romanised" should be capitalised or not.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wondered about that. Still in my experience some expert will come along and sort it out! (In general in my opionion on Wikipedia there is far too much lower casing of expressions which ought to be capitalised, but life is too short to argue about issues like that.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "in 1968 the priory and adjoining land of Middle Hope was purchased by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty" It seems a bit over the top to give the full name of the NT, especially as it only owned the site for a year.

• Shortened to National Trust (and linked).— Rod ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment I see that this is indicative of all lists of this type, but why is "scheduled monument" written in title case at some points, but in sentence case at others? Is it a proper noun or not? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. The vast majority (all but one on that list use upper case for Scheduled Monument) and I hope I have been consistent with all the Somerset ones (see Scheduled Monuments in Somerset). I think there historical variations linked to both articles Scheduled monument and Ancient monument. The law in the UK Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 specifies the legal basis, whether this makes it a proper noun I am unsure.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it does. As I've said on my talk page, the text of the 1979 Act refers to the uncapitalised "ancient monument" and "scheduled monument". Eric Corbett 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks I can move the Somerset articles (leaving a redirect from the capitalised titles) unless there is a more elegant (? bot) way of doing this? If I move this North Somerset one while an FLC is in progress will this break templates or similar?— Rod ^talk 19:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we generally end up moving articles ourselves rather than relying on Bots, particularly as we need to avoid double redirects etc. Happy to help if you can provide a list.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The main list for England is List of Scheduled Monuments (but many of these have not been created so would need the list editing rather than page moves). Scheduled Monuments in Wales has many more. I'm not aware of these for Scotland or NI. I will do the Somerset ones (see Scheduled Monuments in Somerset) but help with the others would be good. What might be a bit more work is actually checking within all the articles for the capitalisation. Do we also need to consider the categories (see Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments and all its sub cats)?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article, impressive work. I have one or two small points--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, Neolithic should be linked. There's also a problem here as in the table Aveline's Hole is listed as Mesolithic . . .
• Why do we need to know where Banwell Camp is in the Name column since there's a link and the information is in the description anyway? Same for Cadbury Camp etc. If this is the normal way of doing it, why are others not done this way (i.e. Aveline's Hole)?
• Since there is no consistency in the "Name" column (i.e. Aveline's Hole is a proper name, "Duck decoy, 250 m south of Black Rock Villas" is just a description), why is this been chosen as the primary method of sorting these monuments? Why not location or "Completed" (which by the way should be "Date Completed")?

Thanks for your comments. I have revised and slightly reordered the lead to give mesolithic for Aveline's Hole and then neolithic tumuli etc. I believe all the others are listed in the name column using the terminology included on the English Heritage data sheets (as they recommend to the Secretary of State that sites should be scheduled it seems reasonable to give that title) - I don't know why Aveline's Hole was not described in the same way but I have changed it now. The column names are generated by Template:EH listed building header which is used on hundreds of lists (including on the local ones on Scheduled monuments in Somerset) so I can't just change it on this list & a change to the column titles may need to be discussed on the template talk page.— Rod ^talk 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers. If those are the "official" names (as in the ones on the EH datasheets) then that is a perfectly reasonable explanation - it might be worth noting it in the article, perhaps as an inline notation or in italics at the top of the list, because if you don't know that it does look a bit odd. And I certainly wouldn't recommend messing around with templates. I think I'm happy to support, although do think about explaining in the article why the names are the way they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added a sentence (to this article and the other Somerset lists) saying "The monuments are listed below using the titles given in the English Heritage data sheets.".— Rod ^talk 08:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:15, 23 February 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back here with another New York Islanders list. With the seasons, head coaches, award winners, and players lists out of the way, it was time for another. The statistics have all been double checked, and information is all sourced, and I believe it's all well and good according to our FL criteria! Concerns and comments of any kind are welcomed. Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I'm tempted to oppose the list based on the 7–4 drubbing my Flyers received yesterday... Harrias ^talk 23:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harrias: Haha! It was a great game, what are you talking about? :) Thanks for the review! Gloss 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work! (I'm hoping for a better result tonight against the Pens, but the season is a bust anyway. Still, it doesn't even start until 00:30 over here, it better be good.) Harrias ^talk 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you again! And I'm pulling for you guys tonight too, keep those Pens off our backs!! Gloss 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Great work! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great looking list --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:14, 23 February 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A companion piece to Savilian Professor of Geometry, another list of Oxford University academics, which I took through FLC in 2010. I rewrote this in 2012, but never got round to nominating it - I think I just forgot. Anyway, I've rediscovered it, repaired a couple of deadlinks and I think it's good to go. No doubt you will tell me what I've missed, but I hope you enjoy reading about what Christopher Wren did when he wasn't rebuilding St Paul's Cathedral! Bencherlite^Talk 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, sir. Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just one comment from me: in Bradley there is a "discoveration of nutation". Would discovery be better? Superb otherwise! – SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good spot! Non-word changed to something in the English dictionary... Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 13:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent list, informative and interesting. No comments from me, although one thing I was wondering - was the stipulation that the professor stargaze every night repealed in the 19th century reforms? I imagine the records up to that point probably include a lot of clouds. --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Answering your question caused me to hunt down the original statutes (fortunately I found a 19th-century translation of the Latin!) and add some more detail. The short answer is that, yes, the 19th-century reforms removed the original specifications, which were very detailed and prescriptive, although the requirement to stargaze was in fact at "fitting times and seasons" rather than every night as my original source said, so the professors had a complete excuse for going to bed whenever they wanted! Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If they were anything like the lecturers I knew at university, quite a few of those observations would have been somewhat bleary-eyed. Glad I could help. Really is a nice article - I always enjoy your professor lists. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's very kind of you. By the way, Laudian Professor of Arabic is going to be "Today's Featured List" on 9th March, so anything you can spot to improve it before then would be welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another fine article - I left a couple of minor comments on the talk page, although its entirely up to you whether you want to action them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2005 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now: It says winners are "highlighted in boldface" whereas I can not see the winners (but categories) being highlighted in "boldface" as claimed in the list. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed the problem. It is supposed to be in double dagger for WP:Accessibility issues.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine on first glance. Will review it thoroughly by tomorrow. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 17:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I have been beaten. Anyways it looks good. I support. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• The "best film editing" category heading appears twice in the awards table.
• The caption under Blanchett's image needs fixing.
• " Best Actor winner Jamie Foxx became the only the second actor ". Redundant use of the second "the".
• I am a bit confused by what this means: "In other instances, the actor or actress would perform the announcement of nominees and presentation in the audience"
• "When the nominations has been announced on January 25,..". Grammatical error.
• "Television critic Frazier Moore commented Rock's performance as a "needed pick-me-up, presiding over the broadcast with saucy finesse." Confusing. Please rephrase. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed everything mentioned above with a few notes:

• Changed duplicate Best Film Editing to Best Visual Effects
• Fixed the caption under Blanchett's box. I misspelled the alt= as lat=.
• Delted the duplicate "the" in the Foxx fact.
• Fixed the phrase to read "In other instances, the actor or actress presented the award in the audience." I was trying to describe this as noted in these videos provided by the official AMPAS youtube account:[5][6]
• Fixed the phrase to read "When the nominations WERE announced."
• Fixed phrase to read: Television critic Frazier Moore commented THAT Rock's performance WAS a "needed pick-me-up, presiding over the broadcast with saucy finesse."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job as usual. Nice work on adding in the new more accessible table, hope you or others can do so for all the Academy Awards lists. Cowlibob (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 [7].

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of the actress, who is known for her melodramatic yet intensive performances. The filmography has been thoroughly researched by me. As usual, looking forward to a lot of constructive comments. FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

It is a really good list. I have spotted some small changes which can be made to make the list look even better.

• "and essayed the role of a tomboy in Karan Johar's highly successful romantic comedy Kuch Kuch Hota Hai opposite Shah Rukh Khan.[14][17][18]" — Just 1 or, at the most, 2 references would suffice.
• "Kajol starred in ₹1.17 billion (US$14 million)-grossing film Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... (2001), an ensemble melodrama.[23][24]" — the entire part about KKKG can be rephrased as "Kajol starred in the 2001 ensemble melodrama, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., where she essayed the role of a Punjabi girl. The film grossed ₹ 1.17 billion, therefore becoming the highest-grossing film of all time in the overseas market."
• "a highly successful romantic thriller set on the backdrop of terrorism." — Rephrase it as "The film, a romantic thriller which was based on terrorism, was a commercial success."
• "Also that year, she appeared in the 3D animation Toonpur Ka Super Hero." — Can you source the sentence?
• There should be a mention about Minsara Kanavu in the lead as it is her only Tamil film to date.

• @Ssven2: Thank you for your comments :). I think that they have been resolved. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you for addressing my comments quite quickly. This article has my Support. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me —Vensatry _(ping) 07:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think it is a well written list based on prose. Barring anything previously mentioned above and making improvements, it's fine.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• A mention must be made of the extensive work that she has done with Shah Rukh Khan and Karan Johar.
• Wikilink NRI.
• Mention that she played dual roles in Dushman.
• Replace "long sabbatical" with the number of years she was absent from the screen.
• The sudden listing of her Filmfare Awards, in between her roles in 2010, is jarring. Please mention it at the end of the paragraph.
• In the filmography table, use footnotes to state that she played dual roles in Hamesha, Dushman, and Kuch Khatti Kuch Meethi. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krimuk90: Thanks for the comments. They have been resolved. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good now, after a further round of copy/edits. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:17, 16 February 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Abhishek Bachchan's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. This is my 1st FLC so please don't be too harsh to me. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite in a poor shape when this FLC was created but thanks to Cowlibob who helped Jim improving the list. All of the issues that I raised have been resolved barring overlinking in references; however, that's not an issue and and that is something that varies from user to user. That anyways does not stop me to Support. Good job Jim Carter! --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jim Carter: I've decided to go at this nomination from a different angle. I'm recused from supporting it because of the work I've done now but have ensured that the table and lead look good so that hopefully this FLC is more palatable for others. Hope it helps Cowlibob (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've made a further round of copy/edits, and it looks good to me now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now, please have the Bollywood Hungama image reviewed by a license reviewer. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Changing to support --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• I would recommend all of the films where he makes camoes and special appearances to be placed under a separate sublist (Thereby making it two lists under the "Film" section — One, where he plays prominent roles, the other where he makes special appearances (both in the films and song sequences).

@Jim Carter: Previous FLs have kept everything in one table such as SRK, Hrithik, Aamir and clarified the cameo/specials in the notes but I don't think it would be less of an FL if it was split out into a separate table. Again up to you as nominator, if you'd like to action this recommendation. Cowlibob (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob, FrB.TG, and Ssven2: I'm not sure why this changes are needed. Wikilink in citations are not considered overlinking and I don't see any reason why the list should be split. So, I ask Frb.TG and Ssven to reconsider. Jim Carter 15:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob, FrB.TG, and Jim Carter: It was only a suggestion. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The latter was the highest grossing Bollywood film of the year." can be rephrased as "The latter was the highest grossing Bollywood film of 2006." as the year sounds quite anonymous. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2 and FrB.TG: I have replaced the image with another one. I have also rephrased it. Jim Carter 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "2006", I would suggest to replace it with "to that point" as the film was not just the highest-grosser of the year but of all time (at the time of its release). And yes replace the source too that should support the claim. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Good point there. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 11:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG and Ssven2: I couldn't find a reliable source that describe Dhoom 2 was the highest grossing film ever at the time of the film's release. Can you find a reliable source? Jim Carter 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter: You can use this as a source as it clearly shows it was the highest grossing film of all time (at the time of its release). — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 15:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2 and FrB.TG: Fixed. Thanks Ssven for the source. Jim Carter 10:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:16, 16 February 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another scifi/fantasy award list, FLC #31/? in the series, and #5/10 for the World Fantasy Awards. Following up the last FLC for Collections, here's the World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology. It's been given since 1988 for the best anthology of works by multiple authors, ever since it was split off of the Collection award for overwhelming the category. The list looks... well, pretty much identical to the other WFA lists and the other sff awards lists I've done, just with different information in the table. Comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks fine, but the topic seems a bit obscure/niche. Hopefully these comments would improve such issues. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've heard of both Nebula and Hugo awards, but never of WFA. Are they really on par with the other two as the intro seems to suggest? If yes, have any of these current winners received a nod from the other two?
• wikilink anthology since it is not a very common term
• is it possible to have a list of actual authors? I feel like publishers and authors are like producers and directors for movies, where the directors do most of the work
• there are many redlinks. you think redirecting them to the main editors would be appropriate?
• what do the winners get other than bragging rights?
• who is the organizer of WFC? or in other words, who is behind the reputation of these awards?
• in this particular case it might make sense to list the 5 judges also
• not sure why you don't use rowspan=2 for novel and publisher entries with double editors, and =x for the year column

Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order:

• WFA is the top of the "fantasy-only" awards, of which there are few; it's been described as the third major spec-fic award after the Hugo/Nebula, though I've also seen people call the Locus awards the third. It's certainly #3 at best, though, Hugo/Nebula are much bigger now. In the 80s especially it was basically on par with the Hugo/Nebula, but they've gotten even bigger over time and have outsripped the WFAs. If you think this list is niche, do note that I have an FL on the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel, which isn't even the biggest spec-fic award named after Campbell. As far as overlapping winners goes, neither the Hugo nor Nebula have an anthology award, but checking novels- A Stranger in Olondria won this years WFA for novel, and got a nomination for the Nebula; The Ocean at the End of the Lane got a nomination for both, as did The Golem and the Jinni. The Hugo hasn't had an overlap since A Dance with Dragons (nom for WFA/Hugo) and Among Others (nom for WFA, won Hugo/Nebula) in 2012, since it's heavily weighted towards sci-fi.

change "along with" to "along with the sci-fi awards". I got mislead into thinking fantasy=scifi by the current wording. I don't care if the awards are niche, but if they are, then a more introductory intro would help the reader get into the topic. You could mention some of the overlaps if you think they are notable.

Clarified that the other two big awards are scifi and fantasy. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked
• Mmm, I'd rather not- the award is given to the editor who puts the collection together and chooses the pieces, not the authors inside, and I was modelling this after Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine which also is given to the editor and not the authors. Some of these anthologies can have up to 20 authors or so, if it's all short stories, so this list would get incredibly long if I listed them all out.

• Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm really against this. Academy Award for Best Picture (the list or in real life) doesn't list all the actors who were in the films- because the award isn't given to the actors. This award is not given to the authors of the works inside the anthology, it's given to the editor who created the anthology. The works themselves are eligible for awards for best short story, etc., just like actors have their own awards separate for the one for best film.

The difference there is that those movies have their own articles. For the winning redlinks, I propose you add a footnote with the authors, or alternatively, add a link to amazon with its ISBN or something.

I'm really against treating redlinks separately from bluelinks in the article. Rather than argue, I'm just stubbing out articles for the winners- 9 done, 5 to go as of this writing. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Past consensus from reviewers for these lists is to link the winning work, even if no article exists, under the assumption that a work that wins a notable award is worthy of an article, and therefore a redlink (though I was missing a couple). These works do get articles created for them over time, as my watchlist informs me. I'd rather unlink them then make redirects to the editor, though.

See above

• A small statue; added with a ref. I'll backfill this to the other WFA FLs. I've used this ref for it's pull quote of the WFAs being a "prestigious fantasy prize" as well.
• The WFC is it's own entity, just like the World Science Fiction Society (Hugo awards) is its own entity. While many members of the board are themselves fantasy authors, I don't think that's a requirement. The list states that "The panel of judges is typically made up of fantasy authors".

The confusion I have is that conferences usually have organizers, or somebody to oversee things. For example E3 has ESA.

The World Fantasy Conference is run by the World Fantasy Board, which only exists only as a name for the organizing committee of the conference- it's not even a registered company. There is no separate entity that runs the WFC- the WFC runs itself. The ESA, on the other hand, does a lot of things as well as putting on a conference- most speculative fiction book cons are independent, self-perpetuating entities. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The judges change every year, just like they do for the Nebula awards. Do you mean just list who the current judges are?

Nvm

• I was under the impression that rowspans weren't WP:ACCESS-compatible, but it looks like they are, it's colspans in the middle of a table you have to watch out for. I'll play with this and report back, since it's not trivial and I want to see what it looks like.

• @Nergaal: Okay, done, and removed a lot of useless css code while I was at it. --PresN 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but put the year column as "!!", with grey background. No need to have them as blue

Done. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: responded to your other points. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

As one list in a series of World Fantasy Awards FLs, there is the benefit of being consistent. This list follows the same style, format, layout, references, etc. as the others. However, I have a couple of questions/suggestions:

• An image in the infobox would help with the visual appeal. I see that the Lovecraft statuette may be replaced, but how about a photograph of a winner or a convention? Or a poster or ad for an event? Something should qualify as fair use.
• Who describes the award as prestigious? Perhaps reword as "fantasy journalists" or "critics" describe... or even the writer if notable.
• "7" should be spelled out (MOS:SPELL09)
• "Bust" doesn't seem to need linking.
• The table could be wider to almost fill up the page.
• The same blue shade is used in the year column as the winner row. It looks awkward. The use of rowspan is an improvement, but unshaded would be better.
• The winners are shaded in blue and have an asterisk. The different color should be enough.
• For FLs, I would minimize the use of redlinks to those with articles in progress. To the general reader, they may appear as mistakes or incomplete.
• World Fantasy Convention is linked in the infobox. An additional "See also" link is unneeded.
• "xo Orpheus..." is in the reference, but some may see it as a typo.

The lead is well written and the links and references check out. Good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

• I'll look around for a good image to use
• Expanded to say "book critics" and called out The Guardian specifically
• Spelled out
• unlinked
• Widened
• Changed to non-blue
• As per WP:ACCESS, color alone can never be used to differentiate winners and such- people with no/poor vision are unable to see it, as screenreader software won't mention it
• As I stated above, consensus for notable award lists is to redlink winners as worthy of an article; I'm going through and creating stubs for them though, so it's not an issue either way
• Removed
• I know, but it is what it is

@Ojorojo: Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My comments have all been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo and Nebula Awards which cover both fantasy and science fiction. - Unclear: does speculative fiction as a genre cover both fantasy and science fiction, or do the Hugos and Nebulas cover that but not the WFA? (I'd use a parenthetical here)
• they won the award seven times and were 38 of the 56 nominations - "were 38 of the 56 nominations" sounds off to me. "Represented"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: done and done. --PresN 02:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Roberts is one of the most successful film actresses. Known for her lead role in romantic comedies such as Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding, and Notting Hill. She is an actress who helped to break the glass ceiling in Hollywood by commanding pay cheques normally reserved for actors. Roberts also won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in Erin Brockovich. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job, looks pretty sound to me!! My only criticism would be that maybe the lede is slightly too long.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the support. I've cut down the lead some more. Cowlibob (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• I think the length of the lead is being increased by the mention of the Golden Globe categories. So I suggest instead of expanding the category, we simply say Golden Globe Award for Best Actress (Drama) or Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress, because the first two paragraphs only deals with her film roles.
• "Roberts appeared in the black comedy drama August: Osage County, for which was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress". "She" missing before "was nominated".
• I find three instances of "two years later". Can we tweak the prose to reduce that?
• " The film grossed over $463 million at the worldwide box-office, and sold the highest amount of tickets for a romantic comedy in the United States as of 2014". I think this is a bit too detailed. We can mention either the gross or the latter fact, though it's okay if you feel otherwise. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I've cut some more from the lead and tweaked the prose. Cowlibob (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All good! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Here's my nitpicks.....

• "the film sold the highest amount of tickets for a romantic comedy in the United States"..... include a figure
• "Roberts won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress (Musical or Comedy)"..... for Pretty Woman, I assume? Reword this to make it more explicit
• "During the late 90s" → "During the late 1990s" per MOS:DATE
• "She has, as of 2014, executive produced"..... something doesn't seem grammatically correct to say someone "executive produced" something

Very nice work overall. Shouldn't take long to fix up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have, I now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work on this one. Just one minor thing, add accessdate to the Time Out source.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Good catch. Added. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work on one of Hollywood's most celebrated actresses. Just one minor thing — In the "Television" section, you don't have to wikilink the television channels everytime. Example for HBO, the wikilink at Baja Oklahoma is enough. Same goes for all channels. Just wikilink each channel once. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 13:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Thanks for the support! The channels are all wikilinked because the column is sortable. Cowlibob (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Oh, I see. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent work!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 [11].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list broadly follows the format laid out in List of Cricket World Cup centuries. I have omitted a number of the statistics columns as in many of these matches full statistics were not available, so it would be make a poor comparison. As always, all thoughts welcome! Harrias ^talk 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Being the uncultured American I am ;), this list is mostly Greek to me. However, I'll see if I can be of any help.

• As far as I can tell, the term "century" is neither defined nor linked to anywhere in the article.
  • Oops! Added both a link and a definition on the first usage.
• Are "WSC Australia" and "WSC West Indies" in rows 1 and 6 meant to have "XI" at the end. If not, are they teams that were not mentioned in the lead?
  • Just an idiot mistake. Sorted.
• In several places on the table and one place in the last paragraph of the lead, the later (larger numbered) reference comes before the one with the smallest number. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but my personal preference is to never have this happen, since it looks a little less professional. Just my 2¢.
  • Should all be in order now.
• Just as a note, all references appear to be proper and reliable. No dead links.

I'm really not a good judge of prose, so I'll leave that to others. This appears to be a well-composed list. Once those few points above are corrected, I'll be ready to support. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all of your points. Harrias ^talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now that my points have been addressed, I can't find anything wrong with this. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it's a good list, but I am not sure that every reader understands what "Ref" is. I suggest to use {{Abbreviations}} to clarify it and the refs. are not in proper order. Consider using proper order, such as [8][3] should be [3][8] and so on.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I've fixed the ordering of the references I think, and added {{Abbr}} for clarification. Thanks! Harrias ^talk 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Good one.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – meets the criteria. --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully taking Vidya Balan's biography and awards page to featured status, I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of Vidya's film, television and music video appearances. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG

• Krimuk, please reduce the number of awards mentioned in the filmography as she has won so many awards. She has won Best Actress (Filmfare) awards thrice. You could add the awards just in one line instead of mentioning them in each sentence.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to know which films she won the Filmfare Awards for.

Indeed it is but you could add something like "she won the Filmfare Awards for Best Actress for Paa, The Dirty Picture, and Kahaani" instead of mentioning them in each sentence of the films. This is just to avoid repetition as most of the sentences start with something like "for her performance in XYZ, she won an award of ABC".--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, changed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the third line of third para is really long. Consider splitting the sentence.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the long sentence. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments FrB.TG! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the featured star on the top of the list. I support for this one and thanks a ton for yours on mine.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All sorted. Well done! I don't know if 2 lists + a FA count as a FT but a great effort on these articles nonetheless. Cowlibob (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review Cowlibob. Much appreciated. :) And yes, I will be taking her to FT next. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh wow! In fact I was gonna suggest you the same, Krimuk! Anyway all the best for your filmography and featured topic :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amazing list by Krimuk90. You must complete your "Vidya Balan" trilogy on Wikipedia.—Prashant 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prashant. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work on this list!--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 [14].

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC), Hwy43 (talk)[reply]

We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventually topic. We are close. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. We have also taken suggestions from the previous nominations into account.

This nomination was attempted before but opposed due to low interest and having only 8 municipalities. Yukon has, however, only 8 municipalities. There was a brief discussion with featured list delegates here that encouraged us to try again. Any and all input appreciated to help us get to featured topic! Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Permanent link; my talk page archives pretty quickly) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 3.b fork of List of communities in Yukon I don't understand why you put this much energy into convincing people that 8 entries deserve the featured status instead of it just giving it a try to the communities list and see if you can bring it to decent level. Also, it is hard to AGF when this FLC does not even feature a link to its parent article List of communities in Yukon. Nergaal (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: the navbox Template:Subdivisions of Yukon has been added to the article, within which the parent article, List of communities in Yukon, is linked. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I wanted to give you some tips how to make List of communities in Yukon a FL instead, but I am sure that you would rather try to prove me wrong than give the communities list some TLC. Nergaal (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It has nothing to do with you, but your request is both impossible and does not make sense. First, it was determined through discussion that it was not a fork, please see here. If you want to debate that please take it up at WikiProject Canadian communities. Second, I have had a discussion with the mods regarding the number of entries and received their encouragement to nominate again (please see above). Third, we are on a quest to make a featured list of all municipalities in Canada by province and territory, we are almost done, and your request goes against the scope of {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}. Also, please read previous nomination for details, but I will summarize the problem with your suggestion here:

  • There is no definition for what makes a community, whereas municipalities are official incorporated settlements of which there are exactly 8. What you propose is to add First Nation Reserves, bed and breakfasts, ghost towns, and mining camps among others. How do you decide what to include and what not to include? This must be answered for your suggestion to be taken seriously. If you do find a non-arbitrary list from which to draw upon, keep in mind there are no reliable statistics for those that are not municipalities. So the list you propose would have Whitehorse with 23,276 people and 416.54 square km and a bed and breakfast (Silver City) which has a single building of unknown population or area, that if it closed tomorrow would have to be removed from the list. This does not make any sense. You are arguing against a defined criteria, with an ill-defined criteria. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have been paying a close look at wp:FT for very many years, and I've seen many topics. Having a "Municipalities of Canada" topic where one article is piped to a wider article such as communities instead of municipalities is 100% fine. At wp:FTC you will not have problems because of this issue. Secondly, a communities FL would include the municipalities list as is now AND as much of the other communities that have an actual reference for. There hare plenty of FLs that are technically never 100% complete, but do have a sensible level of completeness. For whatever is beyond the scope of municipalities, there does NOT need to be a similar level of detail. For example:

unincorporated and First Nations: Name, Status, Population, location coordinates

ghost towns and abandoned communities: location coordinates and year of abandonment would suffice. Further information would be nice but not actually required.

Other and Small Yukon places: have a sentence for each with a citation. If exact location is not available, a name and a reference will suffice IMO.

Nergaal (talk)

Thanks for your reply. If we were to go your direction we would still need some kind of source that tells us what makes a community. Above you suggest four types: municipalities, first nation reserves, ghost/abandoned communities, and unincorporated places. What else? It's like you are making a list of cars, and you suggest throw in a few trucks, and a few airplanes. However, given you are passionate about this, can you province some kind of reference that provides a exact scope for your suggestion? I can then try to dig around, otherwise it's just arbitrary and random.

On a side note, it just seems odd that you are happy to trade in a 100% complete list referenced list, for one with a scope that is impossible to complete and challenging to cite (how do we know we found all unincorporated places? Does that bed and breakfast count)? I am interested in providing a high quality list of municipalities in Canada, and am not interested in researching ghost towns or bed and breakfasts as I see them as very different things. It's hard for me to understand why you insist on combining such very different things into one list. The length as is has been determined by two admins to be acceptable. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Matt; as legally defined, a community =/= a municipality. Conflating the two does not make sense, at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If the List of communities in Yukon used the Yukon Geographical Names Database (or the corresponding Canadian Geographical Names Database) and the Yukon Gazetteer to define scope as 'populated places' it would have upwards of 100 entries. −maclean (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maclean25: you participated in the discussion for the last FLC nomination and now this one. Do you have a position to share on this nomination? i.e., oppose or support?
  Also, thanks for the Yukon Gazetteer source. It can be used to greatly improve List of communities in Yukon. Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. I've copyedited; be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: thank you for your support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported the previous nomination and I see no reason to change my mind. Just one niggle.

• "Yukon's eight municipalities cover only 0.2% of the territory's land mass but is home to 80.2% of its population.". Shouldn't this be "are home" to agree in number with municipalities? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Thanks for your continued support! Mattximus (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: likewise, thank you for your continued support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported the nomination for the Nunavut list, and this one... is basically identical. I'm convinced by the arguements that a municipality list is a distinct thing separate from the amorphous "community" list, and that even with only 8 towns/cities this list should stay separate. One tiny point- should the canada template at the bottom (of this and the other similar lists) not be "Canada topic|Lists of municipalities in", since that's where the article is? (if you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC up above). --PresN 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 23:15, 3 February 2015 [15].

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, a filmography about an Indian actress, Preity Zinta. With unusual roles in several blockbuster hits, Zinta has proved herself one of the finest actresses, but sadly she is not seen these days in the male-dominated industry (Bollywood). The filmography is well sourced and researched. All types of helpful comments are welcomed.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it looks good now! Support AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• "National Award-winning dramedy Dil Chahta Hai". "National Award winning" is WP:UNDUE
• "The film is believed to be the most expensive Bollywood film of its time". "Believed to be" is not encyclopedic. It either is one of the most expensive films or not. I would suggest saying "it was the most expensive Bollywood film to that point".
• Instead of saying she achieved "commercial" success, just say she achieved success.
• "performed phenomenally well outside India". Phenomenally is undue again. Just performed well should suffice.
• I get a little offended by a phrase like "working woman". No one says "he played a working man" in a film. Please mention her profession.
• Bhaiyaji Superhit did not release in 2014. Since the status of it is unknown, say TBA in the year column.
• In her television appearance, the channel in which the show originally aired is enough. So for "Up Close & Personal with PZ" just mention UTV Stars. Also, having a "role" column in this section will be good. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments, Krimuk90. They have been resolved, I think.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good job! I have made some additional copy-edits for a better flow, but this is a job very well done.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Two minor things.

• You could mention that she played the villain in Armaan as she very rarely does those roles.
• I've added updated source for Har Pal. According to it, the project has been shelved with no plans for release so unsure if we keep it in her filmography.

• @Cowlibob: Thank you for thorough review. I have added the villain part and you are right actually I wanted to remove it too, but it had to be complete. Since you've suggested, I have removed the film from the table. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: Finally, this is just personal preference but I think this list would look better with a picture of her smiling which she is famous for. Options: [[18]], and [[19]], and any others you could find.

• Thank you :) You are right. She is really famous for her dimples in fact she is sometimes referred as "dimple queen". Today is her birthday and I have added the dimpled picture. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• Lead is in good shape.
• It's Rediff.com not Rediff.

• Done.

• Acessdates are not needed in book citations, also it would be good if locations are added to them.

• Removed; the locations are not written anywhere and that they are unknown.

• Link Indiatimes at first instant as Indiatimes.

• Linked.

• It would be better if the Koimoi source is replaced.

• I think that Koimoi source is reliable, but I have removed that anyway and I have not replaced that as the source did not support anything and the BO India source is enough.

--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the Bhaiyyaji Superhitt info can be updated and also it should be placed before the Happy Ending one.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Skr15081997: The status of BS is still unknown and as for HE, it's already released so I think it's okay to be before Bhaiyyaji. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The order should be by release date. I guess you could use this source for filming confirmation as of 2014. [[20]]. Or maybe these two: [[21]], [[22]]. Cowlibob (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cowlibob! I have updated the ref. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Good job on the list. Looks nice! — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 15:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 23:15, 3 February 2015 [23].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1995 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. I have a little more time on my hands to work on this. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks good. The only thing I found was that in the ratings and reception section it says "6% decrease" in viewing figures when it's actually 7% increase from the previous year if I did my maths correctly. That's easy to fix though. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Changed figure. Oh, and I will look over your nomination, but it most likely a support as well. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry for the delay![reply]

• The intro is too much on the "light" side. It doesn't even mention Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption. Even the text below don't mention these two cult classics. No critics were surprised that they did not win anything? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulp Fiction won Best Original Screenplay as indicated in the table. This list primarily focuses on the winners/nominees and the production of how the ceremony. I understand that many critics were upset that Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption were not named Best Picture, but for the sake for neutrality purposes and avoiding accusations of bias, we agreed to stick to what has actually won. We've had issues about who was snub in several instances, but there have been many opinions as to what has been snubbed or not. We decided to stick to what actually has happened. The only opinions mentioned are the critical reviews of the telecast since it pertains to the ceremony.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get your point. You are saying that what has happened is "many critics were upset" but that is not covered in the article. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. It's kinda like when people thought Fruitvale Station got snubbed for the 86th Oscars. Even though there were critics who thought it was snubbed, reviewers for WP:FLC deemed it too subjective.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is about the ceremony. If a film is perceived to be "snubbed" (which occurs every year by the way), that can be expressed in the articles devoted to the films themselves. By mentioning the winners/nominees, we are just reporting what happened, not picking a side. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very well-compiled and sourced list Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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