Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2020

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) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 38 FLs, so here's the potential #39. Bobby Bare (the lead image) is one of my very favourite 70s country singers, and I am amazed that in this year he had the only #1 single he ever achieved...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Another great list. I'd personally archive the refs but no big deal if you don't. Great job to you. – zmbro _(talk) 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – A well-presented and nicely-written list with suitable illustrations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I agree with the above editors that this appears to be ready for promotion. I could not find any issues with the prose and illustrations are appropriate for the topic being discussed. Great job as always. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (though I formatted the isbns and archived the references); promoting. --PresN 02:37, 28 February 2020 (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, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): CHICHI7YT (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured list because I have made the list better than how it previously was when it was nominated for FL in 2013. CHICHI7YT (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the "lots of little tables" format has been deprecated for quite some time. The current standard is to have all awards in one table, like the recently-promoted List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright then. I'll fix that soon. CHICHI7YT (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Chrisnait (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – There needs to be more distinction between Santana the band and Santana the individual. Many of the awards are for Carlos Santana, particularly recognizing his contributions as a Latino/Mexican-American. Santana the band was/is a multi-ethnic/multi-racial American rock band. Although there is some overlap, the band is more recognized for its broader musical accomplishments than its "social engagement". There are many dead links, so it is difficult to assess what the sources are saying. This list may have benefited from a current peer review to address this and several MOS/format issues, including citation consistency. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a list detailing Carlos Santana's awards and nominations could be created instead of his accolades being detailed on this article, since the article is supposed to be about the band Santana, not Carlos Santana. Also, could you elaborate more on the "dead links" issue? Chrisnait (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind. I finished fixing dead links in citations by adding archived versions of the links or finding other sources. Chrisnait (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe take this up on the talk pages, but the awards received solely in Carlos Santana's name could be moved to his WP article, replacing the Carlos Santana#Awards and nominations section, which currently includes Santana band Grammies. That would free up this list for Santana band-only awards (probably too many to move to the band article). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is a good idea, but on which talk page should that idea be brought up? Chrisnait (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say Talk:Carlos Santana, since that page page would be impacted the most, with a note and link on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Santana and Talk:Santana (band). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a note on Talk:Carlos Santana about the awards and nominations issue. When a consensus has been reached, I'll move Carlos Santana-only awards to his WP article. Chrisnait (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I finished moving the Carlos Santana-only awards to his WP page. I think a different picture be used in the Infobox, since again, the list is for the band Santana, not Carlos Santana. Chrisnait (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't know if it's an issue with my browser, but (for me at least) the sort functionality doesn't work on any of the columns.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having the same problem, although it seemed to work before. Also "style="text-align:center;" doesn't seem to be working on several entries (couldn't this be added once at the top after "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"?). I don't see the immediate cause – maybe ask an expert. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The table used the format from List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, and style="text-align:center;" was only for the Ref(s) section. Chrisnait (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Minogue list and this prior version works for me,[3] but the latest doesn't.[4] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Who should I ask about this problem? Chrisnait (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind. I fixed the table. Chrisnait (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments on sorting: anything which starts with a " should sort as if the " isn't there. And anything that starts with "the" should sort on the next word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comment. Is there anything else in the article I need to change? Chrisnait (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The sorting in the recipient column still needs fixing as per my comment above
  • Image caption should be "Carlos Santana live in Barcelona, 1984"
  • In the lead you mention that the band has won numerous awards twice in consecutive sentences
    • Not yet corrected -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How's this for the lead?

Santana is a Latin-influenced rock band, formed in 1967 in San Francisco by its one constant member, Carlos Santana. Since its inception, the band has won numerous awards, including ten Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards, largely owed to 1999's Supernatural and its subsequent singles, especially "Maria Maria" and "Smooth". They were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Santana's works entered the Grammy Hall of Fame and Latin Grammy Hall of Fame.

The band released their self-titled debut award in 1969, but didn't earn a nomination until 1973, when their fourth album Caravanserai (1972) was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Performance with Vocal Coloring. In 2000, the band's album Supernatural was the subject of nine Grammy Awards, including the award for Album of the Year, tying the record held by Michael Jackson for the most number of awards in a single night.

Santana has sold more than 100 million records to date. The band's best-selling album to date is Supernatural, which sold over 27 million copies worldwide. According to the British fact book Guinness Book of World Records, Supernatural is the best-selling album of all time by a Latin artist. Chrisnait (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The albums Shaman and Supernatural have sold a combined total of 30 million" - is there any need for this? In the very next sentence you mention that Supernatural sold over 27 million, so that means Shaman sold less than 3 million, which is fairly unremarkable, so there seems little reason to mention it here, especially as it doesn't appear anywhere in the table.
• The lead seems very short, at less than 900 characters (potentially even fewer based on my comments above) - surely there must be a but more to say?
• No reason to put line breaks between refs when two appear in the same cell of the table
• "First band with over 5 million record sales worldwide" - not accurate at all. According to the source it was for CBS acts only (needs to be made clearer) and it was for 5 million sales outside the US (not worldwide). Currently it suggests that Santana were the first band in the world to sell 5 million records, which obviously isn't correct (I suspect by 1977 that the Beatles had sold a few more than that ;-))

• You have changed this, but it still says "worldwide", which is wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Chrisnait (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does. Also, should the image in the Infobox be changed to a picture of the band, since the list is supposed to be about accolades earned by Santana, not Carlos Santana. Chrisnait (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, isn't the sorting in the recipient column not working the way it should because of the song titles that start with "?
      • You will need to use a {{sort}} template to make them sort correctly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gypsy/Grajonca", "Every Now and Then", "El Farol", "The Calling", and "Love of My Life" are redirects to albums that contain very little info about about the songs and linking them is not helpful. Using Template:Sort may help with sort problems and a band photo would be better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to fix the sorting issue in the recipient column right now. I tried to use the {{sort}} template for that column, but it puts brackets in front of and at the end on each row when I preview it (i.e. [["Smooth" (with Rob Thomas)]]) How do I fix this? Chrisnait (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a quick test and it seemed to work, but double check before re-adding it. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - definitely looking a lot better now, however the lead still states that the band has won numerous awards twice in consecutive sentences. Also, at only 800 characters, the lead is really really short (and will be even shorter if you take out one of the two references to numerous awards). Surely there must be a bit more that can be said? The group won eight Grammys in one year, for a host of different recordings - could you expand on that?
  • Also, is it even true that the band have won "numerous" awards? A total of 24 doesn't actually seem that many over a 50 year career, and is only half the number apparently won by Billy Ray Cyrus, of all people....... --ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded the lead section a little bit. How is it now? Chrisnait (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would be my suggestion for the lead:

Santana is a Latin-influenced rock band, formed in 1967 in San Francisco by singer/guitarist Carlos Santana, who has been the band's one constant member throughout its career. The band has won a number of awards, including ten Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards, largely recognising 1999's album Supernatural and the single "Smooth". The band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, and Santana's works have entered the Grammy Hall of Fame and Latin Grammy Hall of Fame.

The band released its self-titled debut album in 1969. In 1973 Santana received its first nomination for a major award when its fourth album Caravanserai was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Performance with Vocal Coloring. The band was nominated for further Grammys in 1993 and 1996. In 2000, following the success of the previous year's album Supernatural, the band was nominated for nine Grammys and won eight, tying the record held by Michael Jackson for the highest number of awards in a single night. The album won the awards for Album of the Year and Rock Album of the Year and the single "Smooth" received the Grammys for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals. Four other songs from the album also won Grammys. In the same year, the band received three awards at the Latin Grammys, including Record of the Year.

Santana has sold more than 100 million records to date. The band's best-selling album to date is Supernatural, which has sold over 27 million copies worldwide. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Supernatural is the best-selling album of all time by a Latin artist.

• Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It does! I'll add that lead section soon. Chrisnait (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Chrisnait (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a test for the ref formats MOS, consistency, etc. You may want to double check before re-adding (a couple still need to be fixed). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you give an example of what needs to be fixed? Chrisnait (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it was easier to demonstrate it on a test rather than trying to list. The automatically generated efn [a] and "References" in the infobox seem odd; usually they should appear at the bottom with the others, but I don't see an easy way to override this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The efn note and the References section comes with the Infobox, so if it seems odd to you, you should discuss that on Template talk:Infobox awards list. Also, are your tests supposed to show how a certain issue or two of the article looks like when it's fixed? Chrisnait (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything else I need to fix? Chrisnait (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment about the infobox was just an observation, but as you suggested, have brought it up on the template talk page. The rest were numerous small fixes, such as the Grammy link to Carlos rather than the band, the Brit source didn't show the nomination, etc. Generally, publishers are not normally used for periodicals and are not used for the name of a work or website (see the Template documentations). But it looks like these have been fixed now. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But is the article still not ready for FL yet? Chrisnait (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My concerns have been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does that mean that the article is getting promoted? Chrisnait (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be promoted as and when the FL director or one of his delegates feels it is ready to be promoted. It normally takes more than two supports. It also still needs a source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know. Thank you for telling me. Chrisnait (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Chrisnait: Sorry for being a month late. I just wanted to let you know that there are several awards and nominations missing for the Santanta (the band). I'll list them for you.
  • 2000 Billboard Music Awards (Archive) Santana didn't win any of them.
  • Supernatural won Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year in 2000 (copy this reference: "Lo Nuestro – Historia". Univision (in Spanish). Univision Communications. Archived from the original on June 26, 2015. Retrieved March 8, 2014.)
  • Two nominations at the 2014 Latin Grammy Awards Source
  • Two nominations for Africa Speaks at the 2019 Latin American Music Awards Source
  • Three pending nominations at the 2020 Billboard Latin Music Awards: Source

Hope these help! Erick (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will add the awards soon. Chrisnait (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chrisnait (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing the 2020 Billboard Latin Music nominations. Use the {{pending}} template since the awards don't air till April. Santana also received several nominations at the 2015 Billboard Latin Music Awards winning two of them. (Source for nominations and Source for wins) Just add the Billboard Latin Music Award accolades and I gladly support this list! EDIT: A quickie, the wikilink to Africa Speaks leads to a movie with the same name, not their album. Erick (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the awards Erick. Chrisnait (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I now support this list! Good work! Erick (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Having taken a closer look at the sourcing since my initial comments, I can say that the reliability and formatting of the references both look fine, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. I'd say that this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting, didn't find anything else when I looked it over. --PresN 02:37, 28 February 2020 (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, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Coleman Medal, one of the most important and keenly-monitored Australian football awards, is given to the Australian Football League player who kicks the most goals in a season. Always hotly contested, many winners are acknowledged as the greatest forwards of all time. The league may have existed since 1897, but the medal has only been awarded since 1981. It's fairly straightforward to write about but there is a surprising amount of interesting information to be uncovered. Jack Collins' disgusted reaction to retrospectively receiving an "inferior" Leading Goalkicker Medal is my personal favourite tidbit. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another ancient tradition that dates back to 1980. Great effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I got nothing. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Drive by comment in one of the footnotes it refers to discrepancies between sources and states that one source says something and the other source "correctly" reports a different value. I don't think this is a NPOV way to report discrepancies between sources, and I doubt that it is verifiable (unless a source states explicitly that the incongruent source got it wrong). Instead, suggest something like "Source A says X, but source B and C say Y." You can also silently drop incorrect entries if it's not controversial and you can verify the correct answer. buidhe 03:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: how does this change look? – Teratix ₵ 03:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks fine. buidhe 04:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I did not identify any issues. Good to see more AFL content at FLC! – Allied45 (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are a bit shorter than usual, but I didn't find anything objectionable when I looked the article over. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:37, 28 February 2020 (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, 25 February 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list concerns the Barry Sheene Medal, the most prestigious award in the Supercars Championship outside of its drivers' championship trophy. The equivalent to the Brownlow Medal and the Dally M Medal, it is named after the two-time Grand Prix world motorcycling champion and motor racing commentator Barry Sheene. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forwards to all comments and concerns. MWright96 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "cast votes of three, two and one points towards a driver" - this reads really weirdly to me. Maybe "award three drivers scores of three, two and one points". Also, does each member of the panel separately award 3-2-1, or does the panel as a whole award one set of such marks?
  • It is done individually. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Many considered it highly prestigious after the drivers' championship" => "Many considered it highly prestigious, second only to the drivers' championship". Also, could you clarify who the "many" are? Drivers? Journalists? Fans? All of the above?
  • The drivers. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "and is frequently likened" => "and it is frequently likened"
  • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "He took his maiden drivers' championship" - I would simply say "first", as this reads weirdly like he won the championship of driving maidens ;-)
  • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "and Ford's first since the 1997 season" - now admittedly I know nothing about motorsport, but where does Ford come in? If his team was Stone Brothers Racing, where does Ford fit in?
  • Ford was Stone Brothers Racing's supplier of racing cars. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it from me. Good work overall, and pretty cool that we have five different pictures of Lowndes to use ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: All of the queries raised above have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider using Template:Infobox sports award, which has some specialised parameters.
• Reward(s): Medal obvious and unnecessary
• Australian Vee Eight Supercar Company (AVESCO).[a][6] in 2003. superfluous full stop before footnotes
• who died from cancer of the oesophagus and stomach in March 2003 relevant to an article on the award?
• results are not announced until the championship's end-of-season gala why not just "results are announced at"?
• Drivers consider it highly prestigious after the drivers' championship I think the text is trying to convey that this is the second-most prestigious award after the drivers' championship, but it doesn't make sense as written.
• Australian Football League's Brownlow Medal and rugby league's Dally M Medal why provide the league for one and the sport for the other? I would just note the sport for both.
• took his first drivers' championship title "took" seems odd in this context; I would use "won", "earned" or "claimed", but it may just be my preference.
• first drivers' championship title that year and the first for the team's car supplier use of "and" here is slightly confusing, as it implies Ambrose's first title and Ford's first title since 1997 are different. Comma or semicolon seems more natural.
• have been voted the recipient of the medal -> "have won", "have earned" or "have claimed", doesn't need to be so long
• Lowndes was named the award's winner in 2005 the relevance of this sentence is unclear until the following one, and is slightly lengthier than required. I would integrate the two: "Lowndes has the most victories of any competitor, collecting the award five times: in 2005, 2006, 2011, 2013 and 2015."
• Winners list needs a table title for accessibility.
• Most if not all refs should have publishers
• Any reason ref 23 has no archive link?

Great job as usual, hope this gets the necessary reviews before slipping off to the archives. – Teratix ₵ 08:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Teratix: Have made adjustments to the list where necessary MWright96 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple of additional tweaks which you may wish to review. Support. – Teratix ₵ 10:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to meet FL criteria. A couple of things:

• It was instigated by Tony Cochrane, the chairman of the championship's organising body Australian Vee Eight Supercar Company (AVESCO), in 2003. - this sentence is a bit clunky: as a couple of suggestions, wouldn't it make more sense (for readability) to move the year up to the front of the sentence? "Instigate" sometimes implies something underhanded or improper, is there a better word?
  • Have reworded. MWright96 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any more information (a sentence is fine) on the journalists who judge the award (if a requirement for a FL is comprehensiveness)?
  • That information is not included anywhere MWright96 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You've mentioned Ambrose's team Stone Bros but no one else - is that deliberate? Should that information be included?
  • No. Have removed that information MWright96 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the photos relate to the year of winning? I notice some drivers have multiple photos and others do not, which looks a bit odd (unless there is a particular explanation for it?)
  • Not necessarily. Other similar featured lists of awards have a similar pattern. MWright96 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Good work overall. Bookscale(talk) 12:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with your edits or explanations - thank you. Support. Bookscale (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references all appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything looks like a pass on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 19 February 2020 (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) 03:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years after the last failed nomination, I bring this one back for your consideration. I'm a bit out of touch over here, as my last nomination was in January 2018, so bear with me!

Giants2008 opposed this last time around as a 3b violation, so let me address that point. List of first-class cricket records has a section entitled Highest individual score, in which seven of the ten entries here appear. However, the two lists are different statistics: the one listed here is every score of 400 or more. The Highest individual score list records only those scores that became the highest ever first-class score. This currently stands at 501, so any future scores between 400 and 500 would not enter that list. Giants2008 brought up the idea that "Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch?" This appears a reasonable point; but as laid out, these are different statistics: to include the missing three items would change the nature of the list. Another query was: "And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries?" As I laid out in the previous nomination (before I withdrew it), there are over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so such a list seems trivial and unlikely to be created.

Further issues were raised by Testing times. Some of these I have worked on and addressed in the article, while other parts of it I don't think are necessary or feasible, so those have not been included, but I am more than happy to be challenged on those points. As always, all comments and input will be greatly appreciated. Harrias ^talk 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'll say that I am still not certain about whether 3b is truly met, but won't oppose to avoid putting the FLC's chances in question right away. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Merge the single sentence "paragraph" in the lead into the one before
    • I have restored an older version of the text which had this merged already. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bill Ponsford is the only other player to have scored two quadruple centuries; doing so" - semi-colon should be a comma
    • Changed. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacLaren's score remained the only quadruple century for over 25 year," - missing S at the end
    • Added. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to MacLaren's biographer Michael Down, "standards of play are sometimes hard to assess."" - don't need the comma after Down and the full stop should be outside the quote marks, not inside
    • Done. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph about Hick is only two sentences so I would merge that with the next one
    • As above, this is restored with the older version. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only two quadruple centuries that was scored" => were scored
    • Changed. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "denotes the date the match started on" => "denotes the date on which the match started"
    • Changed. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any of the notes need full stops
    • Changed. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each point above. Harrias ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While I can understand the initial query over criterion 3c (not 3b, article is more than adequately cited), it feels coincidental and not something that would be rectified by merging it—the fact that this has been irreconcilable with the first-class records list since 1948 seems fairly definitive to me. The list itself seems in good nick on a technical level so I'm happy to support it. GRAPPLE ^X 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support happy with this, my unresolved comments were personal preferences, and certainly don't prevent my enthusiasm for the list. Good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Support Bharatiya29 20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the sources used appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. The source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Stranger Things is a critically acclaimed series that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Brojam (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "All episodes of the first season were released on Netflix on July 15, 2016,[3] while the second season was released in its entirety on October 27, 2017" - I would avoid using "while" there, as that suggests two things happening at the same time, which clearly isn't the case here
• "and a Peabody Award nomination" - I think the last word is redundant here as it is part of a list of nominations, so obviously it is a nomination
• "one of its Top 10 television programs of the year" - either it should be written as "Top 10 TV Programs of the Year" to match the table or else "Top" shouldn't have a capital T
• Character column in the first table sorts on forename, it should sort on surname
• AFI Awards are initially listed second, presumably because it stands for American Film Institute, but it you re-sort on that column it jumps to the top because it sorts under "AF"
• Same with IFMCA Awards, which jumps about when you re-sort on that column
• TCA Awards are listed before Teen Choice, but if TCA stands for Television Critics Assoc, then I would have thought it should be alphabetised based on that to be consistent with AFI and IFMCA, which are alphabetised based on what they stand for. Either that or alphabetise the other two based on the actual initials.
• People's Choice Awards should not be listed before Peabody Awards
• Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback. I have addressed all your comments. - Brojam (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

• Add a short description.
  • Add a short description of what? Since I already have one for the show. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant for the List itself, but I have added one now.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim it has recieved "Critical acclaim" needs a significant number of references per WP:PEACOCK.
  • Added. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Swap out the "E! Online" article with a different one that is more reliable per WP:RSP.
  • Changed. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Add some more references/inline citations for the lead (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) to meet WP:V particulary the second paragraph: "Stranger Things has been nominated for many awards, including 31 Primetime Emmy Awards (six wins)..."
  • No references are needed here since the content is already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Efn notes should state "Also awarded to" not "Tied" since it is not a race.
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• IGN should be in italics.
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find so far but may have a deeper dive at a later date, good work. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spy-cicle: All your comments have been addressed above. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those changes look good. The only other thing I have found is the that runner-ups are considered wins? I understand they are special recognition but conflating them with full on wins is somewhat confusing for readers if they want to find out how many actual wins Stranger Things has won at glance. Perhaps, if you wanted to note how many runner-ups + wins they recieved you could do that in an efn note separate to the wins tally.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spy-cicle: This is addressed with the note in the infobox: Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. - Brojam (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Brojam: I understand that award ceremonies sometimes give a Winner, runner-up then third place. But I do not see why Runner-Up should be equivialent to an outright win - especially if readers want to find out the exact number of wins at a glance not Wins + Runner-ups. I understand it is recognition but that can be noted on the table itself like shown in the example below.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the list is using {{Infobox awards list}}, we can't just add your proposed infobox table change just for this list. This is pretty standard for awards and nominations lists and such a change and discussion should probably happen elsewhere (like the WikiProjects and template talkpages) since as far I can tell none of the other lists of this type have such a thing. Also, since the actual awards list table is sortable, if someone wants to see the number of just runner-ups or just proper 1st wins like you mentionned, they can sort the result column to see how many the show got. - Brojam (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE. Question: Is this standard in MOS:TV or MOS:FILM?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spy-cicle: From what I can tell, yes this seems to be the standard and general practice for both; although neither MOS:TV or MOS:FILM really have much detail on lists of awards. - Brojam (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Brojam: Whilst I still disagree about the wins/nomination efn I will put that to one side since it is a "standard" across TV and Film awards lists (even though it is not included in MOS:TV or MOS:FILM). The only thing that needs adding is the publisher parameters for the references where applicable (i.e. website=IGN publisher=Ziff Davis; website=The Verge publisher=Vox Media etc). Once that is done I will support.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Spy-cicle: Done. - Brojam (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Brojam: I now Support this nomination.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Zmbro

• Support – honestly looks great to me. I can't find any problems. Great job to you! :-) Spy-cicle do you have a support or oppose yet? – zmbro _(talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lady Lotus

• Names in the tables or the references should only be linked once. So the main tables with the awards - Millie Bobby Brown, Trailer Park, Inc., etc. should only be linked once. For the references The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, should only be linked once. It's whoever is mentioned first.
  • Since the table is sortable, it should link linkable items every time. Similarly for the references, since you can randomly look at any one of them individually, they should also be linked every time. The important part for the latter issue is it must be consistent (either you link only the first occurrence or every single time). - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Any particular reason the "Total nominations and awards for the cast" table is set to center? I'd just be careful with so much text aligning when it's not necessary.
  • In order for the nominations and awards columns' values to be centered. I have removed the excess text-aligning in the table. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in this table - each "Actor" row needs a "! scope="row" |" next to it for accessibility
    • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Awards and nominations table, only "scope=row" the first row, not every row
  • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can really find, if you have any questions on the above just let me know :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback Lady Lotus, I've responded above as needed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Brojam, it's taken a while for me to get around to this.

Lead

• American science fiction horror web television series that's an awful lot of adjectives, can this be reduced?
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• and features an ensemble cast -> "which features"
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The nearby Hawkins National Laboratory Hawkins National Laboratory = no need for "nearby".
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• does experiments imprecise verb. Use "conducts experiments on" instead.
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• including those that involve human test subjects this is awkwardly worded. Maybe ", frequently / often / sometimes / occasionally employing human subjects" (I've never watched the show, use whichever adverb is most appropriate).
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• they have created a portal the use of "they" as a pronoun for organisations feels informal. "the laboratory has" or "the researchers have" maybe?
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• three Writers Guild of America Awards and a Peabody Award Consider using the Oxford comma here; since the list is so long, when reading aloud there would probably be a distinct pause between each accolade.
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• including being honored with nominations for this is awkwardly worded
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Cast member David Harbour should be obvious Harbour is a cast member without the description.
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, the last paragraph has a repetitive structure (X received Y Primetime Emmys and Z Screen Actors Guild Awards); could this be varied at all?
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• Awards and nominations received by Stranger Things avoid overlinking the show
  • Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally why? Seems misleading. Yes, it's a "specific recognition" and "is different from losing an award", but it is not equivalent to a win. Why not have a tally of runner-up mentions?
  • This is part of the infobox template and discussed above. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. The highlighted parts contradict each other.
  • This is part of the infobox template, however there are current discussions about its wording and meaning at the template's talkpage, which should lead to at least a cleanup of this text. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started a discussion on both issues at the template's talk page. – Teratix ₵ 09:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

• Total nominations and awards for the cast -> Awards and nominations for the cast (concision and consistency with subsequent header)
  • I've modified it so "awards and nominations" is consistent, but kept "Total" since I think it's important to note this is the total numbers. Since, without that word, it could mean the actual list of awards and noms for the cast. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote for the year column is self-evident and unnecessary.
  • Since some awards ceremonies occur in a different year than the year from which the works are being honored in (which is often confused as being the year of that awards ceremony), I think the note is useful and eliminates any confusion in that regard. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • True! Maybe just cut the second sentence. – Teratix ₵ 09:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Teratix: Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Publisher for ref 32, 49 and 88?
• Drop all caps for "Grammy" in ref 46.
• Typo in ref 66
• 103 and 104 are duplicates
  • All done. Nice catches! - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the suggestions are quite a bit to look through. Fantastic job for such a large list. – Teratix ₵ 04:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Teratix: Thanks! I've replied above. - Brojam (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The formatting of the references looks okay throughout after the fixes above, and the link-checker shows no issues. My only concern is with ref 102: Us Weekly has always struck me as a tabloid-style publication, and I don't consider it a particularly reliable source. Surely something stronger must be available for the most recent Teen Choice Awards? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: I've replaced that source. - Brojam (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new source is definitely better. With that done, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: would you mind holding off on that until this discussion concludes? I'm concerned that the infobox as it stands, and therefore this list, is giving misleading and inaccurate information. – Teratix ₵ 22:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this is a feature in many FLs, not just the one in question, I'm comfortable promoting this now and seeing where consensus takes that discussion. Nobody ever said that FLs can't be improved, and if consensus dictates that the wording be changed in the template, it will be. I see no reason to withhold promotion until that occurs, assuming it even does. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... It meets every criteria for FA. Simple and not overly detailed, yet a complete filmography with very strong sourcing. Lead is straight to the point, and covers the content below. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "It was his first film for Warner Bros. The film was a commercial success." - these two extremely short sentences could be joined together (Done)
  • "which starred Christian Bale, and told an origin story of the title character" - don't think that comma is needed (Done)
  • "His next film was the sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight in which" - however here a comma is needed after "Knight" (Done)
  • "who steal information from entering a person's subconscious" - I think "who steal information by entering a person's subconscious" would be better (Done)
  • "Two years later, he directed the sequel to The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) which grossed" - needs a comma after the brackets (Done)
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good for me. Hope this helps move it along. – zmbro _(talk) 19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Can't see any issue here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The formatting and reliability of the references both look good, and the link-checker shows no issues. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 6 February 2020 (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) 01:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It is in the same format as other wildlife trust FLs, such as Norfolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from CAPTAIN MEDUSA

• When talking about a currency can you include &nbsp which adds Non-breaking space. For example £5.7 million (please view this in edit mode)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove all of the unused parameters from the Infobox Organization.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a short description.

• Done. I have not done this before and I trust it is OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the sources need to be archived.

• As always, I have run the archiving tool but a few sources do not archive. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unused parameter from ref 7 can be removed (date=)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• foxes can be unlinked as they are common terms.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The image in infobox needs more info in caption i.e. when it was taken, and where it is located.

• Added date and wikilinked to the article which explains the location. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once the comments have been fixed. I will be more than happy to support.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the review CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dudley Miles, I support the candidate. Also you are welcomed to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nischal Basnet filmography/archive1. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This site has ancient woodland and species rich unimproved grassland. The wood has standards of pedunculate oak and coppice" - in this context, what is a "standard"? And should "coppice" be plural?

• I have added a note explaining. Is it clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "All three British species of woodpecker breed breed on the site" - duplicate word

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source and images reviews

• Both pass. Sources look reliable, spot checks check out. Images are available under free licenses and I added FoP UK to the first one. buidhe 04:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank:

• My main go-bys for this are WP:Featured lists#Nature reserves and conservation areas and what I've seen in FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Key says "Other classifications", column says "Classifications" ... is there a distinction? Also: is there a shorter word available than "Classifications"? I did some experimenting with shorter words, and the last column becomes less crowded at magnifications of 120% or more.

• Changed to Designations, which is slightly shorter. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ramsar site, an internationally important wetland site": I've seen this language many times, and I want to respect consensus, but it seems to me that "internationally important" is in Wikipedia's voice here, when it should be attributed to the Ramsar listing, or maybe reworded, for instance as "a site listed by the intergovernmental Ramsar Convention". YMMV. If some Python Convention had added this site to their list of sites of breathtaking beauty, we wouldn't describe it as a "Python Convention site of breathtaking beauty", we'd just say that it's a Python Convention site.

• I have added citations for all the designations. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "360 degree view": 360-degree view

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "unusual silver-spotted skipper": Does "unusual" mean uncommon, or odd, or something else?

• Changed to uncommon. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has a rich invertebrate fauna and breeding heathland birds include nightjars and stonechats.": comma after "fauna" to avoid the (tiny) garden path.

• Done. (I am more and more inclined to add commas for clarity, even though I have been told that they are wrong before "and".) Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "endangered with extinction": I get that you don't want people to misread that the fly is in some other kind of danger, but this sounds wrong to me. Try: endangered species of fly, a fly in danger of extinction, etc.

• Changed to "under threat of extinction". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "high quality water": not sure what this means ... non-stagnant water? unpolluted water?

• This is the wording in the source. It certainly means unpolluted, but it seems to also imply that the water has important nutrients, and as I am not sure I have not changed it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "two which": two of which

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is a variety of breeding woodland birds": "variety" sounds singular to some readers and plural to others, which means it winds up sounding wrong no matter what you do. I'd probably avoid the verb entirely.

• Changed to "Breeding woodland birds include". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FL criteria: it appears comprehensive and appropriately sourced, and meets the other comprehensiveness criteria, judging from similar lists. Also meets the navigation and stability criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your thorough review Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great now. Thanks for this list, it's given me ideas for how I might do something similar for protected areas in North Carolina. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (I may or may not claim Wikicup points; I've got a question in at WT:Wikicup.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 3 February 2020 (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, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest list of country number one songs by year. So far this little project of mine has produced 37 FLs, so here's the potential #38, covering a year in two 14-year olds hit the top of the chart........ - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (At the start of the year the number one song was "She's Got to Be a Saint" by Ray Price,), I believe there should be a comma after the word "year".
• The second sentence of the lead's second paragraph (i.e. the one about "You're the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me") seems rather long and dense with information. Would it be possible to split into two sentences to avoid having a somewhat run-on sentence?
• A minor note, but there seem to be additional space between some of the sentences that should be removed.
• For this part (Later in the year another 14-year old, Marie Osmond, reached the top spot with "Paper Roses",), I believe there should be a comma after "year".
• For these parts (In March Cal Smith topped), (In April Charlie Rich gained), and (In July Kris Kristofferson, who), I believe there should be commas after the months.

Wonderful work with the list. Although I am currently semi-retired, I thought that I should help with this nomination since it has not received much activity yet, so hopefully this will help get the ball rolling. Hope this helps at least somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: many thanks for taking the time to stop by. WRT your third point, can you indicate where you are seeing that? I might be being very dumb but I am not seeing it myself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I have corrected the spacing issues. I support this list for promotion. Great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why chart needs to be wikilinked? Maybe make it more specific and have it displayed as a record chart with the wikilink?
• Second sentence from the lede is a bit of a run-on and was kinda confusing. I'd maybe break it up as: " In 1973, 36 different singles topped the chart, at the time published under the title Hot Country Singles, in 52 issues of the magazine. Data was based on playlists submitted by country music radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores."
• Second sentence of the third paragraph has similar length issues. Maybe something like "Later in the year, another 14-year old, Marie Osmond, reached the top spot with "Paper Roses". Osmond became the first female solo artist to top the chart with her debut single and set a new record as the youngest female artist to top the chart."
• Table looks great.

DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) @DanielleTH: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – great as always. – zmbro _(talk) 19:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:09, 3 February 2020 (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, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been eight years since User:Courcelles and myself brought The Hours to FLC, and it's been largely untouched since that failed nomination. But, with the help of Newspapers.com, I was able to replace that pesky questionable source. I've also improved the article to match recent film award FLs, and I'm willing to carry out any further work suggested. I would love for this one to pass the second time around! - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The screenplay is based on the eponymous novel" - I don't think eponymous is the right word here. An eponymous novel by Michael Cunningham would be called "Michael Cunningham". Better to say "the novel of the same title".
• "the ceremony saw" - a ceremony cannot see anything, it doesn't have eyes. Find a way to re-word.
• "a LGBT-oriented" - "an LGBT-oriented", surely
• Refs should be centred
• Recipients column sorts on forenames, it should sort on surnames
• Also I think the title of the film should sort under H
• Neither notes is a complete sentence, so neither needs a full stop.
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you User:ChrisTheDude for your comments. I've made all the fixes, although I believe the list already sorts under H, unless I'm missing something? It is listed under H in the Lists of accolades by film category. - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The film title definitely sorts under T in the table. You need to use a sort template to make it sort under H i.e. {{sort|Hours|The Hours}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, in the table! Sorry, I totally misunderstood that. Fixed! - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks for making the amendments. Cowlibob (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I am uncertain about the link in the part "The film received nine Academy Award nominations" since it borders a little too closely on WP:EASTEREGG for my taste as I thought the link would be for the general Academy Awards article itself rather than a specific ceremony. As with the sentences on the 56th British Academy Film Awards and the 60th Golden Globe Awards, I would make the link clearer in the prose to avoid any confusion.
• This is more of a clarification question than a recommendation. For this sentence "The Hours grossed a worldwide box office total of over $108 million", would it also be helpful to include the film's budget as a point of comparison?
• For this sentence "The film was nominated for a total of eight awards from the Satellite and 9th Screen Actors Guild Award ceremonies, but failed to win any.", I do not believe "but failed to win any" is entirely necessary as I think that should already be clear by saying the film was nominated for this awards.

Otherwise, wonderful work with the list. Once my three relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for a promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost missed this, sorry! I've made the fixes, thank you User:Aoba47. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing these points, and apologies for putting up a review so late in this FLC process. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault, I wasn't watching this page. Thank you for the support! - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Since this has a few support comments already, I would recommend requesting a source review in the table on the top of the main FLC page. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:09, 3 February 2020 (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.