Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2015

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 20:26, 28 January 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this as a follow up to the nomination of List of accolades received by Star Trek (film) for FL, which as I type is second from bottom of the list with no outstanding work to be conducted. I've sought to incorporate the feedback received from that earlier nomination into this version, so hopefully colleagues should find it easier going!! Needless to say, Into Darkness was not as successful with the nominations as the earlier film, but I believe that I have everything covered. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good work. Harrias ^talk 20:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Awards ceremonies (with blue links) should be wikilinked
  • I went through the entire list and found three that were missing. (Now added) Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Abbr|Ref(s)|References}} → {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
  • Corrected as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The date for the BAF Awards is not correct.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The list says that "runner-up mentions are considered wins" and as far as I can see there are two runner-up, which are listed as "Bronze" and "Silver" and I don't think readers will easily understand that they are runner-up, so better explain them.

• I've edited that note to specifically mention the Bronze and Silver awards (I've given them as examples). Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. 37 is dead.
• Fix the redirects of ref. no# 31, 32 and 40.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa I think I can give my support once I am clarified with my comments.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for reviewing - fortunately those links all got fixed when I included the archive sites per A Texas Historian's comments below. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Comments: Although I am not a good judge of this, the lead seems to be well-written. I'll go ahead and look at the rest of it.

• I assume that the "recipients and nominees" column is sorted by last name? If so, then I see a couple of problems:

• Benedict Cumberbatch's Britannia award is sorting between "AV Squad" and Maryann Brandon.
• Shouldn't Jay Cooper et al. come before Chris Pine?
• If it is going by last name, shouldn't Zoe Saldana come before Stefan Sonnenfeld and Star Trek Into Darkness?

• Yep, there was a bunch of unsorted surnames - I've fixed them all now (including the three above). Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a suggestion: considering the problems already with dead links, I would suggest you archive the sources so that problems don't arise in the future.

• Good suggestion - there was already one dead link in there. I've archived ever link now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am really close to supporting this. Once the reference problems and sortability issues above are dealt with, I think this will be ready. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All of my concerns have been addressed. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — A good one. Also, if possible, please have a look at this--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

• based on a production budget of $190 million, - since this is the budget, and

• I've moved that around. Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You tend to make sentences with a lot of clauses, which is somewhat confusing, and which I think would work better with separating the more compound sentences such as the second sentence of the lead, the one with the writing and producing and directing.

• I've gone through and trimmed those. Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• recommend combining intake with intake and standing with standing (most successful worldwide, etc), rather than NA and worldwide

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This was out of 44 nominations, with the visual effects work highlighted by the number of awards ceremonies that they were represented at. - who is "they"? The awards, or the film, or...? Are awards represented at ceremonies?

• Reworded. Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the most wins came from the Key Art Awards - recommend saying how many — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:08, 26 January 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Anderson, the highest wicket taker in international cricket for England, has taken 18 five-wicket hauls at international level. This list includes his Test and ODI fifers, and is based upon pre-existing featured lists of the same category. Since this fulfills the FL criteria so I think this deserves a nomination at FLC. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another good list. Make sure to update the figures after the tri-series or put as of a certain date as he's sure to get more wickets pretty soon. Cowlibob (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I'll surely update the article after the tri-series. Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very well-sourced list and it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carioca: thanks for the support. --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Good list but I think that a separate header for the references would be nicer.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: thanks for the support. The references already have a separate header! --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Sahara4u I mean separate row and column.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The list already has a lot of columns. Recently promoted lists of the fifers have the same patron, have a look at [3], [4] and [5]. --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm you're right. Anyway I withdraw my request. Please see this if you could give some kind of help. It will be appreciated.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:08, 26 January 2015 [6].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise is perhaps known better nowadays for his offscreen activities than his films but as this list will hopefully show the "Cruise Missile" is one of the most bankable stars that Hollywood has ever seen with a string of hits and three Golden Globes in his long career. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to refine it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

• "also appeared in the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture winning romantic drama Cocktail" → also appeared in the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture-winning romantic drama Cocktail
• "Two years later he made his breakthrough by starring in the romantic comedy Risky Business (1983)."
• "In 2005 he collaborated again with Spielberg on the science fiction thriller War of the Worlds and received"
• "Three years later he appeared in the satirical action comedy Tropic Thunder (2008) and played Claus von Stauffenberg in the historical thriller Valkyrie (2008)"
• "Cruise played the eponymous role in the thriller Jack Reacher and appeared in the romantic musical comedy Rock of Ages (both 2012)."

Not major concerns, but these will make the sentences better.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I think I've sorted these. Thanks for having a look. Cowlibob (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to mention the future events in the lead. "Cruise reprised his role as Hunt in four more films in the Mission Impossible film series ... the upcoming Mission: Impossible 5 (2015)".--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that as it's still filming. I've updated the lead to reflect that. It can easily be updated later in 2015 when the film releases. Cowlibob (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good list and thanks for yours on my one.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• The "xxx-directed" is quite repetitive. Maybe you can change a few instances to something else.
• "In his next film he portrayed anti-war activist Ron Kovic in the Oliver Stone-directed drama adaptation " -> "In his next film, the Oliver Stone-directed drama adaptation of..., he portrayed anti-war activist Ron Kovic"
• " Cruise next appeared in the 1993 film adaptation of the John Grisham legal thriller of the same name The Firm" ==> "Cruise next appeared in The Firm (1993), a film adaptation of John Grisham's legal thriller of the same name"
• The last two sentences, on Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow, can be merged. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I think I've sorted the above points. Thanks for the review. Cowlibob (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks good now! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

• I noticed that Born on the Fourth of July also gave Cruise his first Golden Globe nomination, so suggest rewriting the sentence. Perhaps ""For his performance Cruise received his first nominations for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama and the Academy Award for Best Actor".
• Aaron Sorkin is a big name, suggest crediting him as screenwriter for Cruise's appearance in A Few Good Men
• I always dislike parenthetical statements in articles, so perhaps changes "...of his production company Cruise/Wagner Productions[14] (founded in 1993)" to "of his production company Cruise/Wagner Productions,[14] which he founded in 1993".[15][16] (or "founded three years earlier").

Otherwise the list is looking really good! (Cruise is that rare actor who looks better with age. I mean, that smile is still rather dazzling). But I digress... Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruby2010: His first nom was for Risky Business which I have now added in. I had no idea that A Few Good Men was based on a play, have added this in. Also changed the Cruise/Wagner Productions sentence. Thanks for having a look at the list. (On a side note, I agree, he's like a fine wine.) Cowlibob (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 20:24, 21 January 2015 [7].

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaani is one of the best women-centric films produced in India. I have worked on this list and have closely followed other awards lists which are featured presently. It had a minor copyediting during the peer review. I think it meets the six featured list criteria FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In response to Cowlibob's comment above, the main article summarizes the awards information in one paragraph, which I think is quite necessary and doesn't really qualify as content duplication. So I think this one is quite okay on that front. Otherwise, I copy-edited the lead during it's peer review, and I think it is in decent shape now. A source review is what necessary now, but I am currently busy with other commitments to do so myself. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll try to do it later. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• "Kahaani (English: Story) is a 2012 Indian mystery thriller film" Indian cinema doesn't mean only Bollywood. Link should go to Cinema of India or better remove Indian from this line.

• Done.

• In 2nd para Kahaani has been mentioned 3 times. Reduce it by using "the film" or "It".

• Done.

• Names under "Recipients and nominees" column should be sorted by last name.

• Several FLs use the same format and so do I.

• List of accolades received by Her (film) uses {{sort}}.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Skr15081997: Done.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Not sure this has been fully done. Chatterjee is still being sorted under Parambrata and Saswata. Prasoon Joshi, Ritesh Shah, Sujay Ghosh, and also Vidya Balan are not sorted by their last name. For it to work, every first recipient/nominee in each row needs to have sort template applied not just at the first occurrence of the person's name in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob, I think I have resloved them.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Lions Gold Awards notable?

• @Skr15081997: Not sure of its notability but it has held 21 ceremonies so far and has been mentioned by several renowned online sources.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 14:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work on this @FrB.TG:, surprise Us!--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose: The prose looks good to me now! Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: After supporting this, I found a glaring error in the table. The film did not win a Best Lyrics awards at the National Film Awards ceremony as claimed by the article. I have removed that, but would request a thorough source review to see that all the claims are cited correctly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I had asked for that to be added because the following was in the CNN IBN source: "Best Lyrics: Prasoon Joshi for 'Chitrangadha'(Bengali), 'Kahaani', 'Gangs of Wasseypur', 'Dekh Indian circus' and 'Talaash' (Hindi)'". I can't read the official PIB source from my location so if that disagrees or I've misread fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So the source gives the wrong information. I think it will be wise for Frank to not use that source anymore. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I think that Krimuk has a very good point. I don't really think that the film has actually won the Best Lyrics award and this is not mentioned by the Directorate of Film Festivals (the official one for the National Award), which can be trusted more than CNN-IBN. There seems to some kind of error in the source and I think we can remove the latter from the list to avoid confusion.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Joshi didn't even write the lyrics for the film. The Government of India pdf source is enough to cite the awards. Please remove the CNN-IBN source.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with that. Media often make mistakes. Cowlibob (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the source and have resolved {{sort}}. It does not need further source review as it's been thoroughly reviewed, thanks to Cowlibob. Thank you both for your respective reviews. Thanks Skr and Krimuk for supporting :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good effort on this list. Hope you can tackle some more Indian film accolades list as they are currently severely lacking. Cowlibob (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:34, 20 January 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Raj Films is one of the leading film production companies in India. This article provides a fully sourced listing of all the films that they have produced and distributed. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the progress of this and it looks good. Some minor things I noticed:

• Inconsistency with numbers, you use twenty but start with 1. I think you should word numbers below ten and letter above, or all in letters. Words will definitely look better in the image captions.

I've used words from numbers below ten.

• A car racing champion meets with an accident - "meets" doesn't really seem right here♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pipe FBI to Federal Bureau of Investigation.

@Dr. Blofeld: Done. Thanks for the comments! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Following a car accident, a woman makes a promises God to...". Does not look sound.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was a typo! Corrected. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've made some copyedits of the plot summaries so that they hopefully read better, feel free to revert changes you didn't like. Good effort on this list, can't wait for your work on Dharma Productions. Cowlibob (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Cowlibob. :) I'll begin work on Dharma's list by the end of this month. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list is a brilliant one. I just want you to change the summary of Daawat-e-Ishq as Gullu plans to con people to seek revenge from dowry seeking people.—Prashant 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent list. Meets the FLC requirements.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prashant and Skr. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• Kabir Khan (Kabul Express, 2006), is a disambig link
• "protagonist" is usd a couple of times: see WP:protagonist

- SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Both the points have been addressed. Thanks for taking a look! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:53, 19 January 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC), and Earthh[reply]

Another one from my series on the most awarded 2013 films. This one for Dallas Buyers Club which saw Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto sweep the majority of male acting awards that year. Before I worked on this, Earthh was the majority contributor so they have been added as co-nominator. As always, look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• Great job as always. Just three minor points:
• "before giving it a wide release" can be changed to "before expanding it" to avoid repetition of the word "release".
• In the sentence "Robin Mathews won for Best Makeup and Hairstyling, although she had a budget of only $250", the 'although' makes it seem like the low-budget was a bad thing. This may not be a major concern, but it think it will better if you can tweak this a bit.
• Any way we can talk about the actors winning the Oscars without having to repeat the category, as the categories in which they were nominated are already mentioned in the previous sentence. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I think I've fixed the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Well done! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the article. But, I think a note should be added to indicate that the "runner-ups" are considered wins in the list to clarify it to the readers.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I've added the note. Thanks for pointing it out. Cowlibob (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent list! Cowlibob, you've done amazing job as always. Keep it up! --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

• Last sentence of the third para and first sentence of the last para need references.
• There is a 'Pending' cell in the table??
• At "Central Ohio Film Critics Association", you have added two other films?
• How is the list initially sorted?
• Add an appropriate template at the end of the list

--Khadar Khani (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: Added refs. Pending as it has been nominated but results will be announced next week which is a simple update. The win for Central Ohio was for his performance in all three films. List is alphabetical. No appropriate template exists at this time. Cowlibob (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the standards! Please have a look at my FLC nomination when you get some free time. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:58, 19 January 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another women cricketers' list based on List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers (an existing FLC which has significant support) and List of South Africa women Test cricketers. I've worked on the list and I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Constructive comments and suggestion will be appreciated! Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It meets the FLC criteria and it is a well-referenced list. --Carioca (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good now. Cowlibob (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry _(ping)

• PDF refs. should have page nos.
  • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing like page no. 10 in the document. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the opening sentence is even partly verified by the specified part of the document. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Vensatry: I think the two references cover the sentence. Lets see what say Harrias, Lugnuts and The Rambling Man? --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No just tell me which part of the sentence is verified by ref #2. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • "A women's Test match is an international four-innings cricket match held over a maximum of four days between two" teams. --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "... between two of the leading cricketing nations" would mean that Women's Test Cricket is played between the top two teams
• Have a better caption for the image
  • Clarified. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Batool Fatima holds the record for the most number of dismissals with five" - Is this an overall record or just a Pakistani?
  • Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Runs scored per dismissal -> Average runs scored per dismissal
  • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why dashes sort (descendeing order) before figures in the Bowling Average column?
  • So what do you recommend? --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    

—Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: I've fixed your concerns. Please have a look now. --Khadar Khani (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice quick work, thanks. The prose seems a little like a set of facts in bullet point form, but I know it's difficult given that they've only played three matches, and they don't receive a great deal of media coverage. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank for the support! @Harrias: nice to see a green RC since long! --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, just noticed who you are, the change in signature threw me. Hopefully I'll be around a bit more again now, but we'll see! Harrias ^talk 18:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:57, 19 January 2015 [11].

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the great actors of our generation and deserves to have a well written career history article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments you've waited nearly a month for some interest....

• " in The Pawnbroker (1964), and A Man Called Adam (1966)." no need for the comma.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why the image captions avoid mentioning the subject matter?
  • I was told on another peer review/fl candidates comment that his last name isn't necessary since the article is about his career so it'd be redundant. I can add it back if you'd like. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he was on the television series" he was "on"? Reads weird to me, why not, "he acted/featured in"?
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What sort of show was The Electric Company? It may help us to understand the "various characters" you go on to discuss.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• " earned him second Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, the first for " seems odd to do this in reverse order.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he was cast in the films" he appeared in more than those you listed, so perhaps it should be "in films, including..."
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to link God.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he was in the science fiction action films" grim writing, need to fix it up a little.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Pawnbroaker"? typo.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Gone, Baby, Gone has no commas.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sortable tables mean linked items should be linked every time.
  •  Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a predominantly USEng article, why are dates in the references in BritEng?
  •  Done - changed dates to mm, dd, yyyy format. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: were all the suggestions you gave completed? Or do you have more? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Right, sourcing seems to be pretty much sorted except for the Earth Day Special which you can exclude if you want if you can't find an RS. I've done some reworking of the lead as I find that you share my tendency in making the prose of the lead very listy which doesn't really work in making "an engaging lead". So I've tried to reword it to be more like a story of his career rather than bullet points. It probably still needs a bit more work but hopefully looks better now. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I removed the Earth Day special, maybe a RS will come along one day :) Is there anything else you find that needs to be fixed before you support it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: It's close I'll have a look at what I can do with the lead. Just needs some tweaking, I'll try to have a good look at it tomorrow. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Ok I think that does it. Happy to support now, good work! Cowlibob (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much!!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in good shape. I'm sure you'll complete Cow's points. One thing though you might change the web source authors with surname first like the books for consistency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you :) I made the book cites [firstname lastname] for consistency just because there were fewer of them as opposed to changing all the web cites. Hope that's ok. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, I now support :D (sorry for the delay) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks so much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: @Cowlibob: @Dr. Blofeld: @SNUGGUMS: Thank you all so much for all your help! It means a lot! LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:17, 17 January 2015 [17].

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another fifers list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL, and List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls, another candidate of mine which has gained substantial support. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the criteria! Waiting for you at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pakistan women Test cricketers/archive1. --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• No need to link the Indian cricket team twice in the lead.
• "The former has taken took two". Giants2008 (Talk) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has fixed both. Thanks for the review. :) —Vensatry _(ping) 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It meets the criteria. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, thanks for your quick work. Nice list. Harrias ^talk 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:47, 13 January 2015 [19].

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives details on the most notable bridges in Seattle. Sortable table with images and specs. Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great list! I have a few comments:

Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you wiki-link the first instance of each bridge type? Bascule, Cantilever, etc.

• Sure thing. I might do every instance in the table since it is sortable.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes a bridge notable? What criteria was used to determine notability? I think this needs to be made clear so we can determine inclusiveness (FL criteria 3a).

• I tried to go over that in the first sentence but need to copy edit it. I went to every bridge article and verified GNG then created a couple more after finding sources. I really wanted to add an all but defunct rail bridge but the only source only found a single source. If I couldn't find sources on Google Books, News Archive, or other locations I did not add it.

• The googlemaps coordinates is excellent, however I got a warning "A Google Maps feature used on this page is changing soon. Custom map content will need to be migrated." Can this be fixed?

• Lame! Google Maps has undergone a massive change and it looks like the KML Data is not supported the same. I'll poke around but might lose it down the road.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink first instance of Seattle.

• Done.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead may need copyedit, ex: "The following list in of noteworthy" does not make sense. "Another body of water, Lake Union, is just north of the downtown area" is passive. To make it active consider something like "Lake Union is another body of water just north of the downtown area".

• Last minute addition that didn't work. I'll try again. Done?Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the 1970s, residents grew wary of congestion that made the previous connection the second busiest road in the state." needs a source

• Hmmm... removed for now. I'll try to pull it up but removing the line made the next concern more readable.

• " The bridge was left inoperable after" What bridge?

• Done?Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Shorten and merge these two sentences: "The area is also serviced by the Spokane Street Bridge. Built in 1991, it is the world's first and only hydraulically operated concrete double-leaf swing bridge"
• Sources needed for the span of a few of the bridges.

• A couple more to go but I am hunting them down.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a quick glance, once the changes are made I may be able to go over it in finer detail. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Getting those sources in did a lot for list (found a few errors). Any other thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. A few minor quibbles.

• The "circa" Arboretum Sewer Trestle bridge is interfering with the ability to sort. I think there is a way around this but I don't know it off hand. Everything else in the list looks good.

• Adjusted by putting circa after in parentheses.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead still needs a good edit. I think the sentence "The following list is of noteworthy spans throughout the city" can go, being almost tautological.

• Removed.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph needs to link to the idea of bridges, rather then just a description of waterways. The description is a bit confusing, as it's not made clear that Elliott Bay is a part of Puget Sound. If there is no bridge across lake union, is it worth mentioning in the lead? Perhaps I can take a stab at it:

Downtown Seattle is on an isthmus between Lake Washington and Puget Sound which are connected through canals and locks that make up the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Vehicles, trains, and pedestrians cross these bodies of water over X bridges. The largest bridge is… the oldest bridge… (these latter two are trivial and only a suggestion.

• I tinkered with it more. I kind of like the flow with it sections but I might have looked at it to long and am kind of stuck. I ended up playing with it based on your ideas. I think you might have been on to something. Let me know.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention that Magnolia Bridge is already deteriorated but the source you reference has no mention of this bridge.

• AddedCptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "A primary span" was left inoperable after being hit by a freighter in 1978, did this span (I think you mean bridge?) have a name?

• I didn't like the line after looking at it so it was removed/reworked.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my review, I'm happy to support if the above comments are addressed, good work! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: Thanks! I tried to hit some of your points. What do you think?Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I copy edited the lead a bit more, what do you think? I'm not the best ce, but I think it's better now. I'm happy to support, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, @Mattximus:. I was looking at it like a Neanderthal trying to bake the perfect apple pie after awhile. Thank you so much!Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You call it the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in the lead, but that's not its name (and the link is redirecting). The same redirect is happening in the table

DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Cowen Park Bridge the only one with a source for what road it's a part of? It's not that I think you need sources for that, it's just odd that one of them has a source
• Cowen Park Bridge needs a source for opening date, as do several others

Phew... Done!Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fremont Bridge needs a source for length, as do several others

All leangths are now sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jose P. Rizal Bridge is redirecting in the name link, and you should link I90 in that row

DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Riged frame"

DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Swing bridge in Spokane Street Bridge, also in the lead

DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of your "see also" links are redirecting

DoneCptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kinda wish we had a flat-color city map in the article with the bridges highlighted, but that's a bit much to ask for

I hope the maps at the bottom of the list are sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The missing references are the big one here, but should be doable. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC, located just below this one. It's short! --PresN 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I need to do some reviews since it has been a bit. I need to try to tackle this sourcing issue. I think one issue (besides not having a confirmed length for Fremont it looks like) is that the sources are placed sporadically. Instead of repeating the sources in each cell I can do a column with references.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: My eyes hurt from going through so many pdfs! All lengths and years sourced (with some corrected). Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Switching to Support. Did one minor reference tweak edit. A thought occurred to me that bold and italics might not meet access requirements for calling out something, as opposed to putting a dagger or * after the word, so I've asked on WT:ACCESS about it to find out. Not going to wait for the answer to support, though. --PresN 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daggers and stars are a good idea. I'll make the change today or tomorrow (about to go celebrate a birthday for a friend just under one of those bridges) . Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

• the city's unique topography. - Who says the topography is "unique"? Feels WP:WEASELy to me.

• I'll change it to hills and water. American Scietific added as a source.[20]Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle also has some of the only permanent floating pontoon bridges in the world. - citation needed

• Added.[21]Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fremont Bridge crosses the center of the canal and is one of the most raised bridges in the world due to its clearance over the water of only 30 feet (9.1 m). - forgive me, but how does having a low clearance make a bridge "one of the most raised" in the world

• Sail boats and large vessels would hit the bridge deck at that height. Sources:[22][23][24][25] I'm not sure what change, if any, would be best here. Oh wait! I think that "raised" was a confusing term. Adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Titles of books etc. should be capitalized

• Done.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1991-built Spokane Street Bridge - Is 1991-built a standard term? Feels like this should be reworked; it's quite rough

• The year isn't needed since it s in the list and not the focal point of the line. Removed.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps someone else knows the exact guideline, but to the best of my understanding a header is necessary between the lead and the list proper to allow easier access for screenreaders and the like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing anything mandating a section for the list at WP:LEADFORALIST. I would like to make it easy on screen readers, though, if you have any suggestions on the headings title.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't seem to find the link either. Perhaps The Rambling Man is more familiar with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:DTT is usually the place to find these sorts of nuances. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shucks, it's not there either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review. I believe everything is now addressed except for the screen reader suggestion at the end. Thanks for noticing that CAPS in refs and a couple other things that look like no brainers after looking at it a little closer.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose; good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Only really small stuff. Bit confused why the list is part of the Lead. Notes b and f should end with a full stop. Ref 26 has no retrieval date. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 11 January 2015 [26].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian director, screenwriter and producer James Cameron is best known for directing two of the biggest box-office hits of all time: Titanic (1997) and Avatar (2009). This filmography article covers his early beginnings doing technical jobs through to his breakthrough direction of The Terminator (1984) and the box office success that followed. It also covers his television work such as Dark Angel (2002).

As always I welcome comments on how to improve the article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very finely researched and constructed. One thing, I see you format the author names of sources like Siegel, Tatiana (July 31, 2013). "James Cameron Brings in Writer Josh Friedman for "Avatar 2" Script". The Hollywood Reporter (Prometheus Global Media). Retrieved December 20, 2014. correctly, but the NY Times sources stand out with the author in brackets which looks a bit unsightly and breaks the consistency, Can you place the author surname and name first? Although perhaps it is intentional to credit Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. as the publisher? I can't remember seeing his name in brackets after Ny Times like that anywhere else though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1997, Cameron directed, wrote, and produced the epic romantic disaster film Titanic which grossed over $1.84 billion[10][a] at the worldwide box-office and became the highest grossing film of all time.[b] For the film he received the Academy Award for Best Director, the Academy Award for Best Film Editing, and shared the Academy Award for Best Picture with the other producers. In total the film had 14 nominations (tying the record set by 1950 drama film All About Eve) and won 11 (tying the record set by 1959 epic historical drama Ben-Hur).[1" - I think it's important here to mention that he later re-released it in 3D and it has since passed 2 billion in earnings after many years in lower 1 bill range I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: For the first point, the NYT credit refs have no named authors and no dates of publication so that's why they appear different from others. I could add author=The New York Times Staff but it wouldn't be bracketed. Would that work? It would appear like this: The New York Times Staff. "Galaxy of Terror (1981) – Production Credits". The New York Times (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger). Archived from the original on October 17, 2014. Retrieved September 14, 2014.

I've already added the 3d rerelease info as note A. Only made an additional $340 million in the end but enough to cross $2 billion. Cowlibob (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, so you did, I missed the note. I'd have thought simply The New York Times as publisher would suffice if there is no given author. I don't think you need to enter the publisher's name.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty sound to me. You might add a column in the TV credit for what channel it was done for, that might help, but not essential of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added channels to TV section. Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Another job well done! Also, I have made some copy-edits by myself that I would have suggested here. Nothing major. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ce, review, and support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent work, once again!--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Although I will have to double check, the list looks very comprehensive.--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now: the lead has thirty-three instances of the word "film". That is more than 5% of its total length. Prose needs some refining. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Cut down instances to 11, hope that's better. Cowlibob (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it down to nine. Striking my oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 21:20, 4 January 2015 [27].

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.— Rod ^talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod ^talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.— Rod ^talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod ^talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shall I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates as I'm not aware of any other discussion forum for list layout issues - the MOS & tables guidance don't seem to help as far as I can see.— Rod ^talk 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other references. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Fixed.— Rod ^talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.

• Removed (and I will do it on the other 6 where I have used this).— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.

• I think this is because of a foundation around 762, however the surviving buildings are largely 15th century (according to [http://webapp1.somerset.gov.uk/HER/details.asp?prn=54318 this source).— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pastcape at [28] says thought to be founded 762 and remains of 8C church have been found. I think you can say 8C - definitely not 7th. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised to "probably" 8th century.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.

• I have reorded this (and shortened it in the light of the column width discussion above).— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.

• I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.

• This source has Algar, as does this book and this website. This one has it founded in 1142, which is strange as this one (also from British History online) does have Algar.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [29] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".

• Revised & I've put the date as Bronze Age or Norman as I think the jury is still out on this one.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.

• Revised.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.

• Revised.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.

• Moved.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another first rate list. A few nit-picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for spotting these. Further advice or discussion on the Muchelney Abbey and Bruton Abbey issues would be helpful.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Incidentally, nice to see a practical approach to some of the monuments, I don't suppose that even many inclusionists would agree that we need an article about a "A bowl barrow approximately 16 metres (52 ft) in diameter and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is at least one inconsistent date in the refs, so it may be worth just checking to make sure they are all formatted correctly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed a few using a script. Are there any others I've missed?— Rod ^talk 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. As to the proposed discussion on the contents, which was mooted earlier today, I suggest the FLC page would be a good place to go in the first instance, with notifications in the appropriate projects. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015 [30].

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because:

• Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
• Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
• Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
• Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
• Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
• Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.

I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoe can this NOT be easily included in the parent Catawissa Creek article? There are 20 entires here that have way too much information listed here which can be presented in a shortened format there. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the list has been well-improved to satisfy the comment I posted above (now collapsed). Glad to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest making the image column unsortable: it's not usual to sort by image;

• Done. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance of bundling the five citations in the "Mouth elevation" column?

• I know it does look a bit ugly, but all of them are needed. The elevation lists only list streams in one county each and four such lists are needed (the National Map is needed since Tomhicken Creek's elevation is slightly off in the elevation table). --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• the sorting is slightly off in places. "Mouth elevation" shows David run last, even though it's not the longest; distance from mouth: cross run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. (Check the other columns and tables too)

• Fixed Davis Run, the rest look good. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite: "Distance from mouth": Cross Run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be fixed now. --Jakob (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the numbers need to be sorted. 9.10 miles should just be 9.1 (and a number of others too; 08.3 should be just 8.3

• Fixed 08.3, but 9.10 should stay 9.10, since the source specifically gives it to two decimal places, like it does with the other tributaries. --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. It's probably best we retain consistency with all the figures as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good now. A map would have been ideal, to show the location and/or course, but there's nothing obvious on Commons. Maybe have a quick search to see if you can find anything PD, but that doesn't affect my support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was asked to comment here and find it meets the FLC criteria. I have made some minor copy edits to the article to polish the prose. I am impressed that there are so many images of the tributaries, and added one of Catawissa Creek itself to the lead. I think it would be great if a map could be added - have you tried asking User:Kmusser, who makes beautiful stream maps? Even when a map is added, I would still include a picture of the main stem (Catawissa Creek itself) in the article. The only quibble I have is that the reference links in the three Notes are just URLs and should be formatted like any other web ref in a FL. I am OK with this being different than the Larrys Creek trib list (which I am the main author of), but do think it would be pretty easy to add left and right bank info here (to the list itself), as well as mentioning river mile explicitly (I know it is linked). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015 [31].

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Akshay Kumar's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. Issues raised during the previous FLC have been addressed. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome.Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry for the delay. This looks better now, particularly the lead. Let's go through ref's again:

• Zee News is owned by Essel Group

Added

• Publisher for The Indian Express is Indian Express Limited

Added

• The publisher of The New Indian Express is Express Publications (Madurai).source

• Is "Koimoi" reliable?

Replaced

• Remove "Press Trust of India" from FN20 so it matches the other Rediff links

changed |agency to |author

I was admittedly skeptical about this becoming FL, but it seems to have a chance now..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work fixing this up Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• In the film section, please restrict the award nominations to National Film and Filmfare Awards, to maintain consistency with all other Indian actor filmography tables.
• Why are some talk show appearances mentioned in the television section? Surely, Kumar has appeared in many, many more than the ones mentioned. I personally don't think they shouldn't be included here as they aren't exactly part of his film or television "work".
• Also, in the television section it will be more beneficial to include the creator and/or producer information than the channel.

Will be happy to support when these points are addressed. Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Dipping in regarding the above):

• I think the awards are fine as they are: if he hs recieved awards from notable organisations (i.e. if we have an article about them), then the list is incomplete without the awards. Consistency between articles means little if it means we end up misleading by omission.
• I also think the talk show appearances are fine (I have them in a number of my lists), but opinions differ on the point).
• I am not sure that creator and/or producer information tell us anything about the programme. "Channel" is far more common in television lists, than excess amounts of other people connected to a programme.

- SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat The reason why I want to limit the awards is because there are more than 10 different awarding organisations in India, and Kumar has won awards from several of these. This particular list talks about Filmfare and IIFA, but omits the rest. My understanding is that we limit the awards to the most notable ones in this particular list, which are the National And Filmfare Awards, as the full list is already mentioned in his awards page. About the talk shows, why cherry-pick only Koffee with Karan when Kumar has appeared in many other notable ones. Either we mention all notable talk shows, or don't mention them altogether. I agree that the creater/producer information is not all that important, so the channel information is alright. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 2 In terms of the awards and the talk shows, I would include all or none. The only caveat to that would be that the awards have to be notable enough to have their own article here to meet out notability thresholds. So, if he has won awards from all 10 notable organisations, we should include all 10 notable awards. I certainly wouldn't put OR into deciding which are the "most notable". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit conflicts. Anyway, what you say is totally understandable. But with regards to the awards, why would we want to include all the awards in this list too when there is already a separate page for them? I don't mean to argue over this, but just want it to be cleared is all to avoid similar conflicts in other filmographies. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I missed the link to the awards page. In that case, I'd remove all the awards from this table (not the lead tho) on the same basis: you have to have all or none. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I'd back SchroCat on this. For filmography articles, the note section should not include awards won if a separate awards article is present as it's just repetition. Of course, you can still mention the major awards in the lead so nothing of value is lost. Cowlibob (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I have removed the information regarding awards and nominations from the notes column. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krimuk90: I have removed the information regarding the IIFA and Asian Film Awards nominations. Talk show appearances have also been removed. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Opinions may vary on the awards, but this version has my support. Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]