Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on similar lists for Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, this looks at the various Olympic ice hockey players from Poland. Its been a while since I've nominated a Featured List (or at least a successful one), so any advice on how to get the article to that level would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "and permanently added to the Winter Olympic Games in 1924." - what happened in 1924 to mean that the sport was "permanently" added (bearing in mind it had already been added four years earlier)? Whatever the answer, it could do with a source.....

Reworded, but will have to add a source in a few days, as I'm not able to cite something useful at the moment.

Found a citation for this. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Hilary Skarżyński has scored the most goals, 9," - the use of "comma, number" looks weird, and the usage right at the end of the same sentence looks even weirder. I would change it to "the most goals, with 9" and so on (which I note you have already done in some other cases)

Changed

• • I don't know much about ice hockey, but is a negative GAA possible, or is this a typo? If it is correct, the figure of -4.5 should sort as being lower than all the other values (currently it sorts in the middle).

Typo, fixed

• • The Toronto Star ref needs a retrieval date

Changed it to one that can be linked and viewed, and included an access date.

• • For the IIHF refs, I would show the publisher as International Ice Hockey Federation (as in fact you have done in one case) rather than showing IIHF.com as the work. Similarly Olimpijski.pl is (I think) the official site of the Polish Olympic Committee, so I would list that body as the publisher.

Done. And should note I've formatted all the references to use the "harvnb" template for consistency (I meant to do that prior to nominating; slipped my mind).

• • Does Podnieks 2010 not have an ISBN?

Unfortunately not.

Not a problem if it hasn't, I just wanted to check that it hadn't been accidentally omitted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I found a citation for that last issue above. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Allied45

• There is no ALTTEXT for the image in the lead
• It appears the definition for IIHFHOF should be "International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame" instead of "International Ice Hockey Hall of Fame"
• The "Tournaments" column in the skaters table should be "Tournament(s)" for consistency
• I feel "Team Captain" notes in the table should not be all caps, "Team captain" would suffice

That's all that jumped out at me :) Allied45 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied45: Thanks for looking it over. Will get to it shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied45: Got through everything here. Let me know if there's anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – all my concerns have been rectified, great list! Allied45 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NatureBoyMD

• The caption in the first image is not a complete sentence. Remove the period or reword.

Reworded

• In the image captions for Roman Sabiński and Wojciech Tkacz, link the Olympics they played in as is done in all the other captions.

Done

• Add a comma after "Since 1992" in the second paragraph.

Done

• Goltenders table: Use a sort key on Paweł Łukaszka (ex: {{sortname|Paweł|Łukaszka||Lukaszka, Pawel}}) so he sorts properly; the "Ł" throws things off.

Done

• Skaters table: The same sorting needs to be applied to: Feliks Góralczyk, Robert Góralczyk, Andrzej Jańczy, Andrzej Kądziołka, Władysław Król, Andrzej Małysiak, Dariusz Płatek, Andrzej Słowakiewicz, Józef Słowakiewicz, Aleksander Słuczanowski, Andrzej Świątek, Tadeusz Świcarz, Andrzej Świstak, Kazimierz Żebrowski, Andrzej Żurawski, and Karol Żurek. There might be a few more. I copied the default table order, pasted it into a spreadsheet, sorted the article's table alphabetically, copied, pasted, and compared. Any last names with the first (and sometimes second or third) non-standard characters need sort keys.

Done

• "It's a big world out there", the title of the first reference should be in title case to match the others that follow it: ("It's a Big World out There").

Done

Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: Sorry for the delay, but addressed everything here. Thanks for pointing out the sorting issue, I would have had no idea about it otherwise, or how to fix it. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: I found one more skater in need of a sort key: Maksymilian Więcek. (I, too, was thoroughly confused the first time I encountered that issue myself.) Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fixed that one. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks good to me now. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the format of similar pages for Major League Baseball teams (Template:Opening Day starting pitchers by team) which are already listed as FLs. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see any issues at all, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• Per MOS:NUMS, all numbers from 0–9 need to be spelt out (only affects the lead); also doesn't affect scores like 4–2

Everything else looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:NUMNOTES goes on to add: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. Each of the three sentences with single-digit numerals also contain double-digit numerals. In light of the MOS item I've quoted and since we're dealing with sports statistics, I think the best approach in these three examples is to keep the numbers rendered as digits rather any mixing styles within or between sentences. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yeah you right. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The only things I could really find is the sentence containing "Sounds starting pitcher Chris Smith" should be Sounds', and the table header colour makes it hard to see the sortable features. Allied45 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the header color scheme such that the background is now white. I understand what you mean regarding the addition of an apostrophe, but in that sentence "Sounds" is being used as an adjective such that Chris Smith is being described as a "Sounds starting pitcher". Changing "Sounds" to a possessive would also require making it "the Sounds'" and enclosing his name between commas. Therefore, I believe it currently carries the intended meaning and is correct as is. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm happy with that :) Allied45 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have prepared the page to the same standard as my recently promoted international footballer lists and believe it meets the required criteria. I have one active nomination already which has three support votes, no outstanding comments and has been open for more than two months. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Having made his international debut in his countries'" => "Having made his international debut in his country's"
  • "As of November 2018, " - is this still accurate?
  • "Moldova were not mebers" - spelling error there
  • Aras Özbiliz sorts at the bottom when the table is sorting by name, presumably due to the diacritic on the O
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've fixed the three issues raised above. In regards to the November date, that was their most recent match. I've left it as then as it's probably more clear when updating. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I just noticed one other thing - Hovsepyan's 100th match is said to have come in a game against Spain, but it you look at the RSSSF link, that was only his 100th match if the inaugural unrecognised international is included. So either change it to say that he got his 100th cap in the following game, or clarify that the Spain game was only his 100th if that first international is included. Does that make sense.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: My mistake, I wrote that before the non-FIFA cap issue came up and forgot to correct it. I've adjusted now to compensate for that. Kosack (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Strike the comma after "1992" in the first sentence. - Done
  • "... although the match is not recognised by FIFA as Moldova were not affiliated to the organisation at the time." I usually think of teams being affiliated with an organization. Change "to" to "with" unless this language is commonly used in association football. - Done
  • I'd probably put a comma between "Ukraine" and "having". (2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence) - Done
  • "...he earned his 100th cap in a 4–0 defeat to Spain..." Again, this could be common terminology in the sport, but I'd try something like "defeat of Spain" or (better yet) "defeat over Spain. See the same in the sentence following this one ("defeat to Lithuania")
    • Just to chime in here, "a 4-0 defeat to Spain" means that Armenia lost 4-0. So to say "defeat of Spain" would be totally incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Haha...) Nevermind, I think I briefly thought caps were about scoring goals, not appearing in games. Thanks, Chris. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of November 2018, Henrikh Mkhitaryan is Armenia's leading goalscorer of all time having scored 26 goals." Add a comma before "having". - Done
  • "Goalkeeper Roman Berezovsky is the second highest..." Add a hyphen, making it "second-highest". - Done
  • "Appearances and goals are composed of FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Championship and each competition's required qualification matches..." I think this reads better as "Appearances and goals are composed of FIFA World Cups, UEFA European Championships, and each competition's required qualification matches...") for clarity. - Done
  • The numbering is off starting with #17; the two previous players are tied for #16, so Hrayr Mkoyan should be #18 with the subsequent numbers adjusted as well. - Done
  • Image caption: "Henrikh Mkhitaryan is Armenia's record goalscorer with 26 goals" Add a period to the end. - Done
  • Image caption: "Roman Berezovsky is the second highest capped played in Armenian history with 94 caps." Add a hyphen for "second-highest". - Done
  • Note "C": Remove the period - Done
  • References 10, 15, and 16 should have titles in title case like the others. - Done
• Otherwise, everything looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, made a quick start. Should finish the rest later. Kosack (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: I've finished off these points now, let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Sargis Hovsepyan is Armenia's most capped player..." avoid the repeat of "cap" in this sentence, perhaps just make the second one "appearances"? - Done
• You mention Berezovsky's position (slight sea of blue though) but not Hovsepyan. - Done (and avoided back-to-back links)
• Not keen at all with the mixed date formats in each reference.

Fixed this now, an archive bot added a different date format when doing it's work recently.

• "friendly" is piped to a redirect, in fact you could link it directly to Exhibition game#Association football. - Done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the issues raised above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article for FL status back in January, but the nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I believe that the outstanding issues have been resolved, so I'm having another go. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• The following part (In January 2013, following the release of his album In a Time Lapse, Einaudi's singles) is a little odd. I think that the beginning part of the joining phrase should be "Einaudi" rather than "Einaudi's singles" to connect back to the "his" in the preceding phrase.

• ✓ Rewritten Please let me know if you think this is an improvement. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (E. L. James, author of the original novel on which the film was based, said that she was "delighted" that her readers had been introduced to the piece of music), I think you can paraphrase the "delighted" quote.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe for this part (At the time of the launch, classical music was becoming more popular in the UK:), it should be a semi-colon instead of a colon.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these very nitpicky comments, I think the list is in great shape. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Aoba! I'll try to find some time to review your list before the end of the week. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I supported before and don't see any compelling reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lirim.Z

• The scope shouldn't be the number, it should be the song.

• I guess I'd be willing to change this, but there is precedent for tables in featured lists to follow this format, e.g. List of Top Pops number-one singles, List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists, List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The table uses old syntax. You should change ( align=center ) to ( style="text-align:center;" )

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why you used ( style="font-size:90%; ) in the number-one table and not in the By artist/song/record label table?

• style="font-size:90%; is used only in the Key table right at the top of the section, not on the number ones table itself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• --Lirim | Talk 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lirim.Z have your concerns been adequately addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This will get a support if the author changes the scope to the songs. It's about the songs, not the numbers.--Lirim | Talk 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to change this, but I'd like opinions from one or two more editors first. Lists have been promoted to FL status with colscopes on the No. column for some time now (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), so it would seem to me that the consensus for this is that it's fine. But if the community's consensus is moving, then I'm happy for this article to move with it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your table is formated right, according to Help:Table. Support--Lirim | Talk 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when sorting the table by "No.", it reorders the first time round when it shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea why that was happening, but I think I've found a workaround now. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Damian Vo (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC) [5].[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows all the pro wrestling list guidelines as well as the FL guidelines. Format, details etc. all match the Featured Lists I have created in the past. Supplied sources and quotes from offline sources, translations of foreign language sources etc. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American Midget wrestling; it can also be very short wrestlers who work in the Mini-Estrellas division" - this doesn't quite seem grammatically correct to me. I would say "A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American Midget wrestling; wrestlers who do not have dwarfism but are very short also work in the Mini-Estrellas division"
  • "All title matches take place"- past tense for inactive title?
  • "Afterward, AAA replaced" - given the date at the end of the sentence, the first word is redundant
  • The sequence of the lead seems really odd. I would move the entire third paragraph before the second, removing the first sentence of the latter as this simply duplicates the last sentence of what will now be the preceding paragraph (hope that makes sense). I also don't think you need to state twice that Espectrito was the first champion.
  • "when Peña created AAA" - who is Pena? Not mentioned before or anywhere else.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was struggling with how to word the sentence on the Mini Estrellas, thank you for your help on that. I have move stuff around and hopefully addressed all your other concerns? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by LM2000
  • All recommendations involve the lede:
  • Link dwarfism.
  • Link midget wrestling and make the M lower case.
  • First mention of AAA be spelled out to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA)
  • First mention of CMLL should be spelled out to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) and linked. It is spelled out and linked further in intro but not at its first mention.LM2000 (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • LM2000 - I believe I have addressed all issues, as well as removed a category that did not belong on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a linking error. Looks good now, Support.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments by ImmortalWizard
  • "The Mexican National Mini-Estrella Championship (Campeonato Nacional Mini-Estrella in Spanish). or..." why full stop?
  • I feel like the "Event" column is not required since all of them are the same; it can be noted somewhere instead. Also if you decide to keep it, "Live event" could only wikilinked on first instance.
  • "The championship was introduced in January 1993,[l],.." why two commas? ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments, appreciate it. I have fixed the punctuation issues. As for event, it's part of the standard format for wrestling championships. I will do some research to see if there are more specfic show names to be used to make the article better. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Found, added and sources show names. ImmortalWizard MPJ-DK (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalWizard I believe I have addressed your concerns, does the nomination have your support or are there sill concerns? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all set. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the success of my previous nomination, here are the cardinals who elected Benedict XVI in 2005. Comments and suggestions made on the 2013 list have been incorporated in this one, which is almost identical in style, so there should be no major issues. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is that I don't understand this bit at all: "The number of votes required to be elected pope with a two-thirds supermajority and with a one-half simple majority were 77 and 58, respectively". How can there be two different numbers of votes required to be elected? The article doesn't explain this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Clarified accordingly. The simple majority would have only come into use in the case of a protracted stalemate (which didn't happen here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the position on this nomination in the light of the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605/archive1 on the ground that Cardinal electors for the May 1605 papal conclave should be merged with May 1605 Papal conclave? Pinging TonyBallioni, TompaDompa, The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Reywas92. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support doing it this way per my view that the lists should be covered separately from the articles and that combining them is harmful to the reader’s ability to understand what happened in the actual conclave. These lists are overwhelming (both modern and historical), and despite the view at the last FLC I don’t think that that mergers are a good idea regardless of the size of the main article. If the main article is short and FLC prefers it longer than the May 1605 conclave article was, my view is that the list should be held off on until the article is expanded so as not to have to deal with complaints here at the cost of reader’s understanding of very significant historical events. That being said: this article is much bigger than the May 1605 article, and shouldn’t pose an issue. We passed the March 1605 list at FLC and from memory the March 1605 article is shorter than the 2005 one. I think the issue with May 1605 was 1) it was a relatively uneventful conclave given that the March one had sucked up the drama, and 2) I’m in grad school which wears you out of writing so I never felt up to expanding the main article in ways it could be expanded in a way that could overcome the objections. I’ll likely take it back to FLC when I get a chance to expand the article because based on my understanding the objection was over that specific list/article pairing, not the split concept as a whole. Like you, I think we should just get a format for these and stick with it regardless of the main article, but that doesn’t seem to be the consensus view. But regardless of whether it should pass FLC, I oppose merging this in the strongest possible terms. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand this concept of "harmful to the reader’s ability to understand". You have sections "Background", "Conclave activities", "Results", or whatever, and "Participating cardinals". Whether a table listing the cardinals is in the same article or another is irrelevant to the contents and its reading level, and this basis is underestimating the reader's intelligence. Long articles with huge sections of prose can certainly be daunting to a reader and warrant a split, but that's hardly the case here involving a formatted table. Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely distracting and overwhelms the rest of the article by making it about the participants rather than the event itself. The history of these articles was that they were created as lists from an unreliable self-published source years ago. On the historical ones, I’ve been redoing them with academic sourcing and removing the lists as both distracting and as improperly sourced in the overwhelming majority of cases. I looked at the one or two GAs we had before that included lists, decided that the table of 60+ names (120+ for contemporary conclaves) would make it more difficult for me, as someone who already knows a fair amount about this having written 10/13 conclave GAs on Wikipedia, to read the article if I came across it on my own, and went with the separate format that already existed for modern conclaves. I’ve looked at dozens of these articles over the last 2 years, and improved around 15 of them. I can tell you that the inclusion of a list with the main conclave article is almost always a sign of the article being poor quality in this particular area. They are easier to maintain separately as a writer and as a reader easier to comprehend, no conclaves are likely to go to FAC anytime soon, but I would use a table as a reason to oppose there: it just makes for a bad article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note on this, tables can always be made collapsed (by default even) and allowed to be expanded should the reader (a) find the table "distracting" or "overwhelming" and (b) should they wish to delve into the information in more detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think they distract from the overall quality of these particular articles and and that the same result can be achieved in a better way by having a hatnote in a participants section. I view it as somewhat analogous referencing an appendix, which is where you would find such lists if anyone after the year 1970 included them in histories. Anyway, that's a meta discussion, and I don't think the issues raised on the May 1605 list are present here as the article is more than long enough to justify a split of over 100 participants in my view. I'll review later in the week. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with TonyBallioni above. The 2005 conclave had enough news coverage that its article is sufficiently long enough to more than justify a separate list of cardinal electors. In general, I would also prefer similar lists to be split off into separate articles, unless there is significant benefit not to do so. Such lists could also contain information more pertinent to cardinal electors, which might not be that suitable for the general articles: for example, the tables for cardinals' countries of origin in the 2013, the 2005 and the 1978 lists (so far). While some conclave articles (e.g. the May 1605 one discussed above) are relatively brief, these could conceivably be expanded with further particulars and bibliography in the future, potentially meriting a separate list for electors. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors calling for some sort of merger at the May 1605 FLC, I think that this list has a much stronger case for a separate article. It has about twice as many entries as the May 1605 list, the extra details in the table make the formatting twice as large, and the main article has quite a bit more meat to it. I can understand complaints that such detail would overwhelm the main article, which is a pretty good argument for a stand-alone list. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is voting public or by secret ballot?
• "generally reflecting seniority and honour" What does honour mean in this context?
• Looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. As with all conclaves (Latin for 'with a key'), voting is done in secret.
2. In general, this reflects the nominal relative importance of cardinals in regards to each other, as shown by the order in which they enter the conclave, sit in the Sistine Chapel, cast their ballots, etc.

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you have not amended the article to deal with my comments. Do you think that they are not relevant to the article? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Your comments are indeed sensible, but I'm still unsure of how exactly they'll fit in with the rest of the article. Conclaves are necessarily conducted in secret, whereas I think the explanation of precedence should be concise enough for the purposes of this list. I think some details should be best left to their respective articles, rather than here. Do let me know what you think. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would start the article "The papal conclave of 2005 was convened to elect a new pope by secret ballot" and add a note explaining "seniority and honour". Neither point is crucial but I would like you to say what you have decided before I formally support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: In general, I would prefer to keep such details to their respective articles: for example, if readers wish to know more about the conclave process, they would be able to follow the wikilink to Papal conclave or to 2013 papal conclave, in which it is more fully described. I also think that "seniority and honour" is adequately explained by the previous phrase ("This is the order in which the cardinal electors process into the conclave, take the oath and cast their ballots"). While I appreciate your remarks, I don't see them as a strictly necessary part of this list, which focuses primarily on the participants, to merit their inclusion. There would conceivably also be other details that could be of greater relevance than your comments but not in the list. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be some inconsistency across Wikipedia on whether "Papal conclave" should be "papal conclave". I.e. this list has it in lower case, but linked articles has it capitalised. I think that should be resolved.

• I'm not sure on the utility of the "Office" column being sortable, it's free text.
• Is there a good justification for the inclusion of flags or are they purely decorative?
• " announcing the election of the pope " is piped to a redirect.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would tend to agree, but someone made the case over at List of living cardinals that a sortable Office column allows one to get some form of breakdown of the roles of the cardinals in the table (e.g. archbishops, prefects); I've kept that convention for this list's table.
2. The flags are largely there to match the table in the Cardinals by continent and by country section, but they could serve an auxiliary decorative purpose as well.
3. Well, not any more.

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. Regarding the capitalisation of "papal conclave", I've just had the "YYYY Papal conclave" articles moved to "YYYY papal conclave" (per the topic's article, it should be a common noun), thus removing the inconsistency. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Would you consider supporting this nomination? Thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since this has stalled, and I think there's no good reason right now for it not to be promoted, I'll offer my support in the hope that one of the other FL operatives can now read consensus. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets end this eternal conclave! Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because 20 of these lists have been promoted to FL in recent months. Here's the proposed #21...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lirim.Z

• No problems with the table, lead, refs
• I would give more information at the pictures.
• Randy Travis topped the chart in January with "Look Heart, No Hands". Randy Travis topped the chart for two weeks in January with "Look Heart, No Hands". January is long.
• Alan Jackson had the longest run of the year at the top of the chart. Alan Jackson's "Chattahoochee" had the longest run of the year at the top of the chart in summer. Mention the song and some time period.
• --Lirim | Talk 23:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Lirim | Talk 14:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Only reliable sources used and all images have alt text. My only suggestion would be to capitalize the M in AllMusic.--NØ 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing I could fault is to change "Ref." in the table to use the abbreviation template: Ref.. Allied45 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done -- 18:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – can't wait to see the next one(s)! – Allied45 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry, I have several decades more primed and ready :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) and Popcornduff 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I previously nominated this back in November but after a while of inactivity, I decided to withdraw it. After reconsideration, I am renominating it because I feel it's featured quality. I received input from Popcornduff during the first nomination so I am nominating him with me on this one. I would appreciate any comments or concerns anyone has. Thanks everyone! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I'd love to support this... it's a really nice bit of work. I mean, if your article teaches even a diehard nerd like me something new about Radiohead, that's impressive. (I didn't know some post-OKC songs weren't produced by Godrich.) But I think the lead still needs a bit of work to be truly special.

• The claim about unreleased songs needs a citation.

• I got you. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This one's more difficult.. the description of the different albums is still not ideal, I think. It's rather abstract and doesn't give a really clear picture of the differences. For example, writing that OKC has "abstract lyrics that reflected themes of modern alienation" I think is fine - you're making a concrete claim there, lyrics about modern alienation. But "subtle, complex and textured songs" is rather abstract and waffly. Likewise the description of IR's songs ranging from "alternative rock to art pop". You're just sorta throwing genres there that don't sound different from the rest of their catalogue, and what is art pop anyway, really? However, I appreciate this is extremely difficult to do, especially when you can only restate claims from other sources. Popcornduff (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Popcornduff The biggest problem I've found with In Rainbows is that everything I find about it only talk about the type of genres it is and not lyrics or topics. I personally haven't heard In Rainbows so I can't make any claims as well. I'll continue looking. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Popcornduff I found a source where Ed O'Brien talked about In Rainbows lyrics being "universal" and Thom Yorke saying they're very personal. I also added mention of the difference of the political lyrics from Hail to the Thief. That better? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy this is good enough. Sorry for my slowness in replying. Support! Popcornduff (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and other comments

• All of the images used on this article have valid fair use rationales and alt texts. Though I'd prefer the alt for the first Radiohead image to be expanded a bit.
• "Since their debut in 1992" -- I do not believe this bit is necessary in the opening sentence, since its impossible for them to have released music before they debuted. It can be accomodated into a followup sentence though.
• I think saying Kid A and Amnesiac were recorded "simultaneously" is a bit confusing, this might sound better as "in the same year" or "during the same sessions" depending on what the source says.
• I do not believe The Guardian needs to be written as "guardian.co.uk" in the sources.
• There are instances of overlinking in the references, particularly AllMusic and Radiohead. Most featured articles only link the first instance of a source being used but its probably fine either way.

Great job overall with this article. These issues are minor and will be easily fixed.--NØ 06:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--NØ 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why the band is described as English instead of British?

• They're described as English on their main page and discography page. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that an editor has proposed a merger since the article was nominated. Giants2008 is it still eligible for FLC? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it looks like the proposal is for a merger into this page, as opposed to this article being merged into the main Radiohead page, I wouldn't consider a merger an automatic fail in this case. That being said, we'll need to see a decision reached on the proposal before a promotion can occur, both for stability and to allow the potential new content to be reviewed if necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume that it will be better to wait until the issue is settled before reviewing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles Giants2008 The merger proposal has been solved. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "anthemic rock". It seems a bit strange that there is no Wiki article about a style of rock. Maybe you could create a stub article to link to?

• I can maybe look into it, but for now I don't wanna have it red linked.

• "Radiohead recorded a title song for the 2015 James Bond film Spectre, but it was rejected." "title song" and "Spectre" both link to the film - two links to the same article in one sentence! The first should link to the song.

• Oops; Fixed

• Why are two songs shown as having no producer?

• Couldn't find them at first. Just did and added

• Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dudley Miles All done. Thanks again! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, made some tweaks, but source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my quest to develop more Australian Football League-related featured content, this will hopefully be my third FL this year after successfully getting Norm Smith Medal and List of Gold Coast Football Club players promoted. This time I have turned my eye to developing a format for VFL/AFL debut lists that can hopefully then be replicated across this series of existing lists. Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - looks good, just one minor point spotted so far: key tables should not have a full stop at the end of text that isn't a complete sentence. Also, given that the key says, for example, "The number of games played in 2008", is it really necessary to say "Statistics are updated as of the conclusion of the 2008 season"? Surely that's obvious/implied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude, all fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't know if it's just me, but reading the title "debut" and seeing that list includes players who transferred clubs confused me. I mean you can only make your AFL debut once right? By this token, a guy who's played in the AFL for 10 years would be listed as a "debut" in the AFT if he joined a new club.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)

  The lead covers this by saying (or at least implying) that the least includes debuts at both levels, i.e. the AFL level and the new club level. I'm also not entirely convinced that "AFL debut" should include the latter. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see what you mean, and I tend to agree to be honest; however it seems to be included in the majority of the related yearly lists for "AFL debuts" so I am unsure if removing it in this instance would upset the "status quo". Allied45 (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

• You can probably make "this year celebrated the 150th..." in the first paragraph a stand-alone sentence.
• Link "Carlton" to that club in the third paragraph.
• Image caption: "Matthew Kreuzer played 20 games this season, after..." Strike the comma.
• Image caption: "Adam Schneider formerly played for Sydney, before..." Strike the comma.
• "Summary of debuts... table": The first column only adds up to 82, but the total shows it as 84.
• "Debuts" table key: Change both instances of players' to player's since each cell provides the age and round for only one player each not several.
• "Change of club" table key: Change both instances of players' to player's since each cell provides the previous club and round for only one player each not several.
• "Change of club" table key: Remove the period from the end of the first five descriptions (Round to †) as these are not complete sentences.
• Everything else looks good. I think these changes should bring it up to meet FL criteria. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NatureBoyMD, have applied all suggestions. Allied45 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ... Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The explanation for the source I questioned seems sound enough, and my other nit-pick was fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – With my one reliability question from earlier resolved, I'd say the references are all reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. I spot-checked references 50, 67, and 88, and found no verifiability problems (although it did take me a while to find the debut appearance age at first). Overall, I think the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any outstanding issues myself, so with the source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (25 states and provinces so far...!). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some. Happy to improve these lists in any way. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • No need to link Durango Municipality twice inside three sentences in the lead  Done
  • The footnotes are complete sentences and therefore need full stops.  Done
• Think that's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review! I've made both easy fixes. Mattximus (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article on Durango says that the state has the second lowest population density - worth mentioning?  Done
• What is the difference between trustees and councillors?

• I don't know, and the citation states "they have the same... status".

• It is confusing to have the km area for Mexico rounded to a whole number when other figures are to 2 decimal places. They should be shown consistently.

• I agree but scanning the page every area has 2 decimal places. I can't find the one rounded to the whole number.

• The area of Mexico is shown as 1,972,550 sq km. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks found it now. The problem is, I cannot find a source that gives the area of the country to two decimals, I assume this is since the area is so large the error on rounding the coast exceeds 2 decimals of precision...hmmm

The figure for sq mi is shown as 761,605.81, and as this appears to be a conversion from a whole number of sq km it is false precision. I suggest showing both figures ending in .00. The columns will then line up and it will be obvious that they are only accurate to a whole number. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with false precision, however adding .00 would also be false precision. So I removed the decimals altogether so at least the precision is accurate. Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Article looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for reviewing my nomination! Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I should be grateful for a review of my nomination of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk if you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work. No problems here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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