Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2018

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Mr.Apples2010 (talk), 14:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much along the lines of List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu, Habana is his nation's record try-scorer and has some breath-taking action in his locker. There are a couple more lists of this nature waiting in the wings, so happy to get this one "good and proper" before unleashing those beasts. As ever, thanks for any time and energy expended on making Wikipedia's content just that little bit shinier. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yep looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• Why not use a photo of him playing such as File:2015 Rugby World Cup, South Africa vs. USA (21845972899).jpg?
• "as he failed to score for almost fifteen months after." This seems awkward. Maybe "as he then failed to score for almost fifteen months"
• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks Dudley Miles, I replaced the image (who knew?!) and revised the text, not exactly per your suggestion, but perhaps you'd be kind enough to check what I did write and see if it's cool with you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• About the only thing I can see is.........I think the photo needs a better caption than just his name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude quite so, have embellished. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Happy to support this champion list, JennyOz (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PresN this looks good to go...? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

id Software burst onto the scene in 1991 as one of the most influential video game developers of the era: their first game, Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons, showed side-scrolling games as viable on the PC, and they followed it up with essentially inventing the first-person shooter genre with Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, only to eclipse themselves the next year with Doom, which was so popular that for years shooter games were called "Doom clones". After another hit with Quake in 1996, they slowed down, focusing mostly on further games (though high-selling ones) in the Doom and Quake series ever since. id's a ways away from being the face of the industry and run by rock stars like they were in 1994, but they're still a big name in the industry, and developed quite a few games over the last 25+ years. I started this list from scratch a couple months ago after I did the list of games by their first publisher, and I think it's ready to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Alright everything looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by The1337gamer

I've glossed over the list and it looks solid. I will take a more thorough look this weekend if I have some free time. Might write some more comments.

• Should Master Levels for Doom II by italicised in the Doom II notes as it is the name of an expansion?

• I guess; as per the above it's a little awkward since it's not really a new plotline, but Doom II itself doesn't really have a plot either... I guess it's more than a set up unconnected levels, and not intended to be extra levels before/during/after Doom II itself, so... italicized.

• Should Final Doom be mentioned in the Doom II notes?

• Yes, that was an ommission. Added

• Rage had a third DLC pack called The Scorchers.

• Added

• Doom 3: BFG Edition was released for Android (Nvidia Shield exclusive) in 2015. [3]

--The1337gamer (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Added

@The1337gamer: Responded to all comments, thanks! --PresN 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They also released Quake: The Offering and Quake II: Quad Damage, which were the mission packs bundled with the main game. Might be worth adding these in if you can find reliable sources on them. Regardless though, this list is good and I'm happy to support its nomination for FL. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources, added. --PresN 18:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The1337gamer have your concerns beend addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ye. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ritchie333

Crikey, this takes me back to long-forgotten days of playing network deathmatch Doom and Quake with friends. Looks like a fine list to me, given the comments so far, so just a few questions:

• Should Doom not give a brief mention to the WAD culture, which (IIRC) was groundbreaking at the time, to have a game that was so customisation

• The game's article should definitely do that as it was a big part of the game's legacy, but this list is focused on the official/semi-official releases by the company in question (id); the modding scene is outside the scope of the list or else all of these lists would have to go into detail about the legacy of every game in them.

• Doom was ported to Linux by 1994, I remember playing it on kernel 1.1.59

• It was, however, that was an unofficial port by a fan that id unofficially supported until/after id released the source code because Carmack/Romero were cool with that. id never actually published a commercial Linux version like they did a Mac version, so it's not listed in the same way that there's like 20 other unofficial ports (that Carmack/id devs personally helped out with at least somewhat) but id itself never publishing anything for that aren't listed

• I'm pretty sure I was playing Quake on Linux no later than 1997; I seem to remember getting a Python script to patch a file in pak0.pak so it would run. I think 1999 was when the source code generally was released. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as above, with a twist- there was an unofficial version made for Linux that id was unofficially fine with, but unlike Doom id released an official Linux version in 1999 to correspond with the Linux ports of Quake II and Quake III at the same time

Ritchie333 replied inline. --PresN 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unofficial ports would be useful as a footnote - otherwise other people like me might look at them and think "that's wrong!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 are you content with the responses? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so, but I'd still like to see the footnote about the Linux ports I mentioned, because as I recall (which is not a reliable source, of course!) the Linux ports of Doom and Quake were major news in the community at the time. There was a Linux book (sorry, can't remember the title and my google-fu on WorldCat is not up to snuff today) by Que Publishing c. 1994 which included the Doom port as a stock package on its CD and made a big song-and-dance about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: footnotes added! Both ports were done by Dave Taylor, who was a programmer at id during Doom/Doom II/Quake. --PresN 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it's Support from me Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: That's a support from everyone, then. --PresN 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PresN I'll trade it for my Habana list...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Haha, roger that, I'll do an FLC pass this afternoon and make sure to hit that one. --PresN 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the lists from 2000-2005 inclusive having either been promoted or gained multiple supports, might as well keep the train a-rollin'....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Unsort the ref col. Great job as always! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column now unsortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all done almost to my satisfaction! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to me to fit the FL criteria, and as the name states it lists all 200ish species of fruit bats (and some extra stuff). I've done something similar on list of parrots   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It's a well-written article with appropriate citations. The layout is easily navigable and I like that you included pictures and range maps where possible. It seems pretty exhaustive of the fruit bats when compared with the species I included when I revised the section on the list of bats earlier this month. Minor detail—I think you should list the subfamily as Pteropodinae instead of Pteropodidae (it's listed once that way in the classification section and another time in the header of a section). Nicely done. Enwebb (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't review the tables of the article, though they looked pretty reasonable on the whole when I skimmed them (and I'd presume after the lengthy list of parrots FLC that you know what you're doing there), but the text needs a major overhaul. I rewrote the first paragraph for you, as I found it really hard to parse when I looked at it, but the rest of the lead continues on with little context as to what it's talking about (and is focused on bats as a whole, instead of how megabats fit into all bats), and the body text also zooms through a lot of details without any explanatory text pulling it together. It really needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.

I did a little copyediting, what else looks a bit off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, just looked at the table, and those "list of subspecies" boxes are pretty slick. Just verified that turning off javascript just leaves them expanded, so that meets WP:ACCESS requirements too. This is exactly the kind of list that I wish we had more of at WP:FL, so I'll try to help get this one through- and faster than the interminable 4-month parrot list if I can! --PresN 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists like these are actually pretty easy to make (this took like a weekish, parrots a week). I might do seals next so be on the lookout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The classification section and one of the table headers link to Macroglossini, which doesn't seem right.

I do not like the tables-within-a-table for the species that belong to a subegenus; I'm not sure if I've ever seen another article with that sort of formatting, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the list

Genus Rousettus has "List of subspecies" right under it, which I believe should be synonyms. Reywas92^Talk 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the wikilink and the Rousettus thing, but the classifications follow MSW3 which subdivides those into subgenus, then genus, then species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to get rid of the subgenus, but it would be better to have mini-headers like you have with tribe and genus already. It seems quite odd to have the table format for all others species squeezed into a cell of a table for subgenus. Reywas92^Talk 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "morphological" in lead is a dab link. That needs to be fixed.
• "Andersen" is dab link. That needs to be fixed.
• "Nyctimee" too.

The rest is awesome. It is an immaculate article, and very well written. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - A fantastic article for a featured list, and very well-written for a shiny star! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comments Several pages of "Order Chiroptera" are repeated in the References section – pages 314, 335 and 341 each appear five times, while page 324 appears six times. I'm guessing that this is because you've created a new citation each time you want to reference a page, rather than just reusing the citation that you've already created. This article would probably benefit from use of the Sfn template – I can talk you through how to use it, if you'd like. Also, Template:Main says that it should not be used in lead sections, as this article currently does. I'd propose removing that hatnote and replacing "Fruits bats" with "Fruit bats" in the opening sentence. You'd also have to remove Megabats from the See also section. Notes c and d need to end with periods. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in a list article there're generally gonna be refs in the lead. As for all the msw3 refs, that's gonna take a while to fix but I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean where it says "Main articles: Megabat and List of bats" in the lead – per the documentation for that template, it "should not be used in lead sections". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to {{Further|}} and unbolded and wikilinked "fruit bats"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: Any thoughts about my comment regarding the references being repeated? It really isn't something that I'd expect to see in a FL, and it shouldn't take long to fix. I'm happy to talk you through it, if you'd like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, things got busy pretty quickly. Is this supposed to be like the refs in Whale?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that would be fine. You may wish to put your own spin on it, but the most important thing is that citations aren't repeated in the References section, as they currently are. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Having the MSW3 reference in the External links section seems a little unintuitive to me – if I were a reader, that's not where I would expect to see it. I'd suggest following the suggestions in MOS:FNNR and, for example, renaming the References section either Notes or Footnotes, and then having a new section called References underneath it with the MSW3 ref. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Reference 21 is not much more than a titled link. It needs further formatting.
• Book cites that are multiple pages should have the page numbers be formatted with pp. and not p. (which is used for single-page cites). If you're using the cite templates, changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did both for them; also, Support after another read-through. I'm good to promote this, though I guess another member of @FLC director and delegates: should. --PresN 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, with Giants out for a while, and both delegates supporting (or "supporting"), I'm just going to go ahead and promote this myself. --PresN 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool is the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time and the ninth highest-grossing film of 2016. Due to the film's popularity and numerous awards, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text missing from the image.
• This green link should be archived.
• Provide sources for the plot synopsis and the 'financial and critical success' bit.
• MTV Movie Awards --> MTV Movie & TV Awards
• Critics' Choice Awards --> Critics' Choice Movie Awards

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 → ten in lead per MOS:NUM
• Use "plainrowheaders". See MOS:DTT for more info.
• Table still needs scope rows. Even though there's a !, they still need scope="row"

That's all I got. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick observations first, none of the recipients use {{sortname}}. Also the second and third paragraphs of the lead could use some improvements. The second paragraph talks way too much about the production of the film, which is not necessary for this type of article. Instead, maybe talk about when and where it premiered, its RT/MC scores, total box office gross. Also, you could specify some of the categories of these awards instead of simply listing the nominations in one entire sentence, in particular the major awards like for the Golden Globes and the Critics' Choice Movie Awards.

Accolades

• The table should be sorted by award name.
• 'Ceremony' should be changed to 'Date of ceremony'
• 'Recipient(s)' should be changed to 'Recipient(s) and nominee(s)'.
• Link Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild for Makeup Artists and Hair Stylists Guild Awards and International Cinematographers Guild for Publicists Guild Awards.
• All awards that do not have a Wikipedia article should be removed from the list per WP:MOSFILM
• Should use {{draw}} for Runner-up.

Top ten lists

• Consensus is not to include top ten lists per WP:MOSFILM & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_41#Removal_of_Top_10_lists_from_articles. It should be replaced with a 'See also' section with a link to 2016 in film like other FL accolades articles.

References

• Missing link to Gold Derby and Metacritic.
• Not sure AwardsDaily.com is a reliable source.

That's what I have after a first read-through. - Brojam (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. Some of the most frequent types of categories are included in the lead sentence of the third paragraph, the table is already sorted by award and I don't think {{draw}} should be used for Runner-up since "draw" indicates a tie. Also WP:MOSFILM states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." In this case consensus was established to include the top-ten lists here during the main article's GA review.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean with {{draw}}. For the sorting, I meant by the award's name instead of by the ceremony date (though I won't oppose this nomination because of it, just something that I've seen in most film accolades FLs). Alright, for the top-ten lists inclusion even though I don't see a consensus on the GAN review page, just an editor deciding to move it to this article instead of simply removing it altogether. Had the film not received numerous awards and nominations, then I could see the point in having this list, but since that's not the case it doesn't really serve much purpose especially considering only a handful are really noteworthy anyway. Having it just say that the film was included on multiple top-ten lists (which is already done in the lead) does the trick. Also, all the non reliable sources should be removed from the list: Reelviews, We Got This Covered, Cinema Blend, The Awards Show Show, and CinemaDope. - Brojam (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced {{draw}} with {{partial}}, as it is not appropriate to use the draw template for something that is not a draw, and I feel that partial is the closest to what we need of the numerous templates listed. I believe the sorting is based on previous FLs anyway, so it might as well stay how it is. For the top-ten lists, it appears from the links you have provided that the issue is with fan cruft, and that consensus is required so that we avoid indiscriminate lists of non-notable content. I believe being on the top-ten list of a notable critic is indeed notable, and it is important to have these somewhere if we going to give complete coverage of the subject. The problem that I can see with fan cruft is the ones that you pointed out, so I will go ahead and remove those ones and just leave the significant lists. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support this nomination. Good job with this list. - Brojam (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking some random items on the list...According to the website the Artios award was awarded to these people - Ronna Kress, Jennifer Page, Corinne Clark - (for their work on Deadpool, but not to Deadpool itself) but this list only names the movie. The reference "Best of 2016: Film Critic Top Ten Lists". Metacritic. Retrieved June 10, 2017." should include the author and date of article. The reference calls the "Key Art Awards" and the "Grand Clio Key Art Awards". According to MOS:FILM#Accolades "Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." - aren't the Golden Schmoes Awards just that? maclean (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Maclean25. --PresN 04:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, TriiipleThreat's edit is fine. I didn't oppose, but if asked, from a quick look, I would probably object due to not complying with WP:LEAD, specifically MOS:FIRST because the first sentence doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades, and MOS:BEGIN because the first paragraph doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades. Actually, the third paragraph is a great intro; it summarizes exactly what the article is about. Are list-class articles operating from a different standard from WP:LEAD that I'm not aware of? maclean (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is very similar to other FL-class film articles including List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road, and List of accolades received by Silver Linings Playbook, just to name a few.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we would usually introduce an article in its opening paragraph per WP:LEAD, as you say Maclean, in this case we have a sub-article whose primary topic is tied to a whole lot of information that is not here. To be more specific, this list covers all the accolades received by Deadpool, so it doesn't make much sense without a bit of context regarding that film. It makes sense to introduce that film, based on the lead of Deadpool (film), and then have what would usually be the opening paragraph as a lead-in to the actual list. If we did it the other way around, having an introduction to and summary of this list with context about the film coming second, we would still be confusing readers who had not read the film article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed other FLs and FLCs that do not conform to WP:LEAD so that is why I'm asking. If this is the case, as TriiipleThreat points out and as adamstom97 explains, that list-class articles don't have to follow these aspects of WP:LEAD to be promoted, then the director should ignore my comment as not being consistent with the FL criteria. If, however, FLs should then the director should not promote as I have pointed out the inconsistency. maclean (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film accolades lists seems to be following a precedent of having several paragraphs of explanation before talking about the accolades; since this list is just following that pattern I'm hesitant to block it on those grounds. That said, it is a lot of background before hitting the 'accolades' part, so I'm interested if any other @FLC director and delegates: have any opinions. In the meantime, Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My George Harrison list just became featured and my Joy Division list has two supports so I'll go ahead and nominate my next list. My first non-song list, I found this list like this and was really bored so here we are. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Thanks and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Thanks, looks good, Jmnbqb (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You can mention the total number of awardees in the infobox and prose.
• Remove oxford comma in the second sentence.
• Full stop missing from alt texts.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yashthepunisher All done. For some reason I can't get the statuette pic to stop being red but it's there. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great work on the list. Also, if interested, please leave your comments at my ongoing FLC. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem I'll get right to it! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only concern I had has been addressed. Good work. MWright96 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• prestigiousness - I think this word is better avoided as it is often used to suggest pretentiousness. Why not just prestige?
• I think you should state the number of awards by country.
• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles Done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although there is no logic to having UK and Scotland as different nationalities. A Scot was UK Prime MInister up to 2010. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC) & Vivvt [reply]

Vivvt has been working on this list for a while, I did further expansion and cleanup. Looking forward to constructive feedback. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for the comments and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Force Radical

• Fix alt text in images

Done

• Consistent ISBN's

Done

• Satyameva Jayate should be in italics

Done

• Explain in brackets what Sansad means

Actually Sanad means 'certificate' or 'diploma', which is already mentioned in that sentence.

• Preferably use UK US NZ and J as hooks for the footnotes instead of A, B, C, D

It doesn't look necessary to me.

That's all I have .Support — Force Radical ( Talk • Contribs ) 09:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support, Force Radical. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Ministry of Home Affairs (India) could be wiki-linked.
• Same with Indian Navy and Supreme Court of India.
• You mentioned Indo-Asian News Service in ref. 15, but do not mention other agencies like Press Trust of India for ref 1. You might want to be consistent with the same.
• Also, why mention Mumbai here exclusively?
• You might want to wiki-link all the publishers on all their occurrences. I have been told that it's standard practice.
• Other that the minor comments, all the refs are functional. VedantTalk 18:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant All fixed. Thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've checked the sources again as it has been 3 weeks. They are all proper and functional. The source review is complete now. VedantTalk 14:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PresN and Giants2008 It's been more than a month and this nomination has three supports, source review done, no unresolved issue. I think it should be promoted now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Numerounovedant has not confirmed that their source review is completed, and The Rambling Man has not confirmed that their review is concluded, which is why I didn't close it when I did a sweep this past week. --PresN 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found this old project of mine, where I started adding tables almost six years ago and gave it some polish and some prose. My current FLC has three supports and is about something totally different, so any issues there won't be issues here. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good work, Jmnbqb (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It follows the format of FLs such as Essex Wildlife Trust and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and I believe that it also meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support had a quick last look, happy with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded and completed the list to meet FL criteria, using the already promoted English and Scottish lists as a guide. Kosack (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Ah I gotcha. The list looks good to me. Happy to sign support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question I've been meaning to ask lots of people doing these kinds of list (myself included), what makes 11v11.com a reliable source?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for reviewing, I've sorted the issues you raised above. In regards to 11v11.com, the website is the official site of the Association of Football Statisticians. There's a very brief info section on the site HERE in which they also state that most football club statisticians are members of the organisation. Kosack (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kosack, best Wikipedia-football-sourcing-news I've had all day. Much appreciated. I support this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've been working on it for six years and I've put a lot of time and effort into adopting previous lists I've done to make it work for the sheer amount of songs and songwriters that are present. I hope it reflects what I've put into it.  — Calvin999 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, having every remix of every song is necessary. It's not just a few lines that are different. The vast majority of Mariah Carey's remixes are widely known for being completely different than their original songs, with different lyrics, writers, production, features, music videos, live performances, etc. She even has a remix album. Take a listen to the original version of "Fantasy". It also has a remix version "Fantasy (Bad Boy Fantasy Remix)" featuring Ol' Dirty Bastard, which is often credited as the first song to unite pop and hip-hop by featuring a rapper on a pop song. Then there is also the "Fantasy (Def Club Mix)". Take a listen to all three and you'll realize they're entirely different. This is similar to virtually all her other remixes. Her remixes are not the same song as the original. Heartfox (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Can we talk about Mariah Carey and her remixes sometime please :)  — Calvin999 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not an experienced FLC reviewer, I can give this wonderful work my support. Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good to me. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.  — Calvin999 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• External link links to non-existent page on the website; not sure what it should be fixed to. Heartfox (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure who added that.  — Calvin999 10:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my Daft Punk list has been promoted and my George Harrison FLC currently has two supports I think I'm safe to nominate this one. Another song list, this time it's the great English rock band Joy Division. Only together for four years (for a very sad reason), I've been working on this one for a while now and I believe it's now qualified for featured status. I'm excited to hear any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This green link should be archived.
  • Removed it. Felt it was unneeded.
• Remove periods before 'and' in every instance.
  • Most of them are actually commas. Should I still removed them?

Yes and actually I meant commas. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yashthepunisher Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The first two sentences of second para can be merged or rephrased.
  • Done.
• In 1994, Joy Division's planned debut album, Warsaw, was released under the name "Warsaw". --> In 1994, Joy Division released their debut album under the name Warsaw.
  • Done. I kept 'planned' in it because it wasn't their official debut.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yashthepunisher Thanks very much for the feedback! Comments above. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "a long-lasting influence on the post-punk movement of the late 1970s" "long-lasting" sounds odd for a movement which only lasted a short period.
  • Changed to 'impact'
• Looks fine. "break-up" does not sound right to me for a group which carried on under a different name after one member's death, but I cannot think of a better word. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to 'dissolution'
• Dudley Miles All done. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), SWASTIK 25 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hot on the heels of the soon-to-be-promoted Lionel Messi list, this is principally the same. Sweden's heroic top scorer, all-round football beast. AS ever, I'll be any comments as soon as I practicably can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job with this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

Just a few things I noticed (besides what's mentioned above):

• They are also the team against which he has scored the most goals with six. Would it be possible to reword this sentence? Perhaps it's me, but it comes across a little odd.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who knows very little about soccer, is "came" the correct word? The remainder of Ibrahimović's goals, 18, came in friendlies and More than half of Ibrahimović's goals have come at home

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the problems I can see. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte thanks, I hope I've addressed your concerns, but please don't hesitate to add further comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I had nothing to offer that wasn't covered above. Might want to look at goal 31, to see if you can figure out why the 2–1 isn't centering properly, but I can't see it looking at the code, so it might just be an anomaly in Firefox. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a pair of closing braces missing after the center template. I'm surprised it didn't manifest in a more hideous fashion. Fixed now, and thanks for you support and comments Courcelles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha! I'm rather surprised it didn't either, given how unclosed templates/wikilinks tend to break entire articles! Courcelles (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the lists for 2000, 2001 and 2002 all promoted and 2003 and 2004 now having multiple supports, you could probably guess what was coming next.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]