Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2016

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, we're closing in on finishing up the World Fantasy Awards with this 9th World Fantasy Award list, #35 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This award list is pretty self-explanatory: a "lifetime" achievement award category; notable quirks are that the recipients don't have to be dead/retired (or even close to done with their career), that the winner is announced when the nominees of the other categories are, and that since 2000 it's been traditional to give out two awards per year, generally to an author and a non-author. The WFAs give no reasons for the winners but a list of names is boring, so I've added fantasy works the winner had done prior to winning, a la FLs Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor, John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. The formatting on this list is functionally identical to the other sci-fi/fantasy award lists, and especially so to the other WFA lists, and comments from prior FLCs have been incorporated here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – well done and happy new year. -- Frankie _talk 15:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• " Individuals are also eligible for the Special Award—Professional and Special Award—Non-professional categories for their work in a given year not tied to a specific achievement." Several issues: 1. This seems out of place. The para is on the life award, here you go away from it and then come back in the next sentence. 2 Why mention these particular awards? Are individuals not eligible for other awards? If so, you should say so. 3. The word "categories" seems superfluous. 4. What does "a given year" mean? The previous year?
• "before voting on the overall winner." "winners"?
• "but at the 2015 ceremony it was announced that the award would not be made in future years". Presumably the statuette not the award - they were not ending the award altogether?
• These points are minor. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just cut the sentence
• Specified that its the winner of each category
• Clarified that its the statuette that's being dropped, not the category
• Thanks for reviewing Dudley Miles, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. --PresN 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very informative and complete list, well sourced. I am concerned with MOS:ACCESS on the table (Specifically having row headers which allow screen readers to understand which year is tied with what), however; I don't have the ability to test it at this time... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 02:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments

• Added "for example"

• Works for me

• Adjusted the first sentence to say that the attendees/judges pick the nominees; the judges are the ones who vote for the winner from the nominees.

• Definitely clearer now.

• Unfortunately it would be a mess; there's an awful lot of winners who were well-known for their editing but also wrote a book or two, or who edited a bunch of stuff and then founded a publishing house. It's impossible to say what they were most known for at the time of winning the award, and really hard to narrow it down even from a modern perspective. The whole column would be OR, and I'm stretching the line by including the "works they were known for" column, which does imply that somewhat.

• I see the challenge that presents, I agree it's better to not do that in this case.

• Yes, it's a project by Locus, the biggest sci-fi/fantasy magazine/trade journal there is. It used to be hosted on their website, but now it's on its own.

• Excellent, thank you.

@MPJ-DK: Responded below; I'll try to get to your FLC when I get a chance. --PresN 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: All good additions, I am going to say Support at this point in time. really great work.  MPJ-US  03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying.

• There have been problems found in other reviews by this IP: review struck for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Right, the referencing is pretty perfect, so I'm going to make some really nitpicky points.

• Most newspapers sources just have the work (#1, #2, #7), but the Chicago Tribune reference (#3) also lists a publisher. Is there any particular reason for the difference?
• For ref #4 the retrieved date should probably be updated to match the archived date. (I don't see a problem if the retrieval date is newer than the archived date though.)
• Ref #19 has "pp. 448–449." while #20 has "pp. 994–5." – be consistent.
• Spotchecks reveal no copyvio or close paraphrasing, and in each case the source provides the information cited in the article. My very picky points aside, all looks good. Harrias ^talk 10:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed Tribune publisher
• Done
• Fixed (994-995)
• @Harrias: Done, thank you! --PresN 14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on sources – To be honest, given how picky my points were, I was happy enough to support anyway, but all the better now! Harrias ^talk 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of minor additional source points:

• The two books will need locations for publishers
• FN2 probably needs a location – there are too many papers called The Star for easy identification

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Both done, though I personally feel that book publisher locations are entirely superfluous, given the modern global/online economy. That a publisher is headquartered in New York City does not prevent a curious reader in Scotland from getting their eyes on the text, or vice versa. --PresN 16:15, 28 January 2016 (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) 16:19, 28 January 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article to completely overhauled its lead (and some major changes throughout the article) and make it a better standalone list of all Taylor Swift's songs. I believe it overall meets the featured list criteria. It is likely to have glitches, which I will fix if I notice - by myself or reviewers. Any comment on the list from anyone will be very much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~– Well done Frankie.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work improving this Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from an IP - Good work Frankie! 1.52.124.206 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there was a lot of work that went into this, but do you think it meets the FL criteria? This isn't the first one-line support I've noticed recently from an IP, and this behavior is attracting increased attention in the FL community. If you don't want your supports discounted, I'd suggest making an increased effort to review against the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for noting that. Actually I was also initially concerned about the IP's support but this IP also reviewed my previous nomination (not sure whether they are the same), and also made some good points. Given that, I am not sure if we need to be concerned about the IP's support as they might review lists against FL criteria, before giving a one-line support. -- Frankie _talk 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GagaNutella

• Support: This list looks amazing. I just came here to give you one suggestion. Change the colors for "#BFFFC0" for the singles, pastel yellow for the promotional singles, and let purple for songs that are written just by Tay. She is great composer and you should highlight it. GagaNutella^talk 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: Few things to fix according to her discography: the second "Bad Blood" add (Remix Version); "Out of the Woods" is a single; "Crazier" and "Breathe" are not promotional singles; "If This Was a Movie", "Superman", "The Moment I Knew", "Come Back... Be Here", "Girl at Home", "Wonderland", "You Are in Love", and "New Romantics" are promotional singles. GagaNutella^talk 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I missed them. Thank you for your comments and support, much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No other concerns from me. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from  — Calvin999

• I think it's superfluous to include (Cover) and (Live). But if you are going to keep them, then for for "Bette Davis Eyes" I would include both words in one set of parenthesis, not separate.
• I would advise against including songs which have been record live such as at a concert. That means recorded on camera, not audio recording, and I doubt she recorded a version in the studio. Also, technically every track whether hers or a cover would have been recorded, but you've only picked out new ones.

If she just randomly sang songs live (such as the ones she has been singing at her 1989 Concert), I would not include them but she has released an album for that so I think it's worth adding.

• Songs were albums appear on two albums I would use an "&" somewhere just for differentiation.

These points aren't enough for me to oppose or abstain though, so you have my Support anyway :). I'm surprised it hasn't been promoted already.  — Calvin999 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- Frankie _talk 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check by PresN

• You're using the amazon-specific number (ASIN) as the "ID" in several references. That's... no. ID is a universal thing, not a store-specific id number; for e.g. ref 3, the Beautiful Eyes EP, that would be the catalog number by the publisher- BMRATS0140. Or you could leave it out, its not essential.
• Why do the album liner notes refs only have a release year, and not a full release date?

I believe that's not quite necessary just like we only add the year to a film. It's also based on FLs of its kind.

• You're kind of spotty as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you never link (MTV, Billboard, iTunes). It's not a big deal, but you should be consistent
• Consider archiving the online references you haven't already so that linkrot doesn't mess up your references, thereby unciting content or causing you extra work later on.

I have archived one of them. Will do the rest later.

• Spotchecks: refs 5, 13, 19, 29. Two issues:
  • ref 19, used for one song's row in the table, does not contain what the writers of the song were. I suspect that's an issue with many rows in the table that are cited to iTunes/Rhapsody. Is the cite only intended to cover that the song was included on the album/artist/year specified, and not cover the writing credits? Or are the writing credits present in the iTunes link and I missed them?

The Rhapsody reference does mention Tom Petty but not specifically as the performer or songwriter "American Girl" (as he is both) so I believe that one is safe to use.

• • ref 29 is used to cite ""Today was a Fairytale" was first released as a single from the soundtrack to the film Valentine's Day (2010), in which Swift starred.", but it only contains that Swift was in the movie, not that the song was first released as a single from the movie soundtrack.

So, minor issues, shouldn't be too hard to fix them- just watch out for playing it a little loose on references for facts that you know are true, but aren't completely covered by the ref. --PresN 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. Fixed 'em. :) -- Frankie _talk 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, the AllMusic refs are better than the iTunes ones. Source review: Passed. --PresN 21:55, 25 January 2016 (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) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Frankie _{talk and Snuggums (talk / edits)} 21:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was to featured list back in October 2008 but somehow things did not work out and was demoted in June 2009 due to criteria change. I have been working on it on on-and-off-again basis and have finally been able to make it here. I have modeled the list based on recently promoted lists by me -- accolades by Taylor Swift, Adele and Lady Gaga. I believe the list meets the featured list criteria and I would appreciate comments for further improving the list. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 21:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added myself as co-nom since I'm also a major contributor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from an IP - Good work, but this list have 1 dead link you should fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.52.120.50 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, IP. I've fixed the link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.52.120.50, why would you support a list when it had a dead link at the time? I understand that a lot of work went into making the article, but it's hard to think the list met the featured list criteria at the time of the review if there was a dead link. One of the nominators thankfully took care of the issue, but try to wait for the article to meet the criteria before supporting next time, or your support may not be given much weight. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks like it meets the criteria. Sources are reliable, and there is a good amount of information, everything appears to be sourced. Good work to everyone who worked on the article. Everything I was able to find earlier from quick skims last month, was fixed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Joseph :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: No other pressing issues found.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much appreciated, Birdie :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support –– Well done, Frankie and Snuggums.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, but a lot of these issues were basic and should have been picked up earlier, especially with the list already having numerous supports. Ref 190 is not formatted properly, I'll remain neutral for now, as I want to see what other reviewers have to say. NapHit (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Congrats, this list looks great. GagaNutella^talk 16:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks to you :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aaron

• I think the opening paragraph is too U.S. centric. I know she's American, but I think say adding the Brit Awards to it would be nice too.
• Two singles from the album—"I Kissed a Girl" and "Hot n Cold"—were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance → In two separate years, no? Maybe I'm being too picky...

Apart from that, I can't see why this list shouldn't be promoted. Support.  — Calvin999 10:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I think Brit Awards weren't included cause she only won one. But I do agree with you on the second point. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's never won a Grammy but that's included.  — Calvin999 10:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammys are more notable, and she has been nominated for 13. The Brit Awards seems pretty irrelevant in comparison. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean on this being US-centric, Calvin999, so I used Canada in place of US for "Roar" and "Dark Horse" as they both went number one there as well. Also added BRIT win. Thank you for the support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Grammy's are more notable than Brits? Grammy's aren't more notable to the people of the United Kingdom. The Brits is the British equivalent of the Grammy's. It's not all about America, you know Joseph Prasad. You're lucky you still have my Support and you have Snuggum's to thank for it.  — Calvin999 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: However, I envisioned the following "She has also been nominated for 13 Grammy Awards, 4 Radio Disney Music Awards and 4 Brit Awards (winning one)." The opening paragraph is still U.S. centric.  — Calvin999 17:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other nominee is FrB.TG, just saying. Added ARIA, Brit, Juno, Myx, NRJ, and Q Awards to lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, I assumed by how he said it he was your co-nom. Either way, my point still stands for Joseph. The world does not revolve around American industry and many people would take issue with what he said. I hope he learns from this. This is a really good list and I it will be promoted. I nominated one too today if you get time Snuggums.  — Calvin999 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I do feel it looks better now with more non-U.S. accolades to show diversity. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's always best to, otherwise people might think she never got nominated for outside the U.S.  — Calvin999 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, when I said more notable, I did not mean one Grammy is more notable than one Brit. I meant being nominated for 13 grammys is more notable than winning one Brit. If an act won, say 3 Kids Choice Awards in say, Mexico, but won 10 in the US, what would be more notable? Right, the US ones. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point trying to change or justify what you meant now, and here isn't the place for it.  — Calvin999 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a beautiful list. I support its promotion to FL status, assuming all concerns raised by other editors are addressed. Great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – With a minor comment, the second notation for "The songwriters, Perry, Lukasz Gottwald, Max Martin, Benjamin Levin, Bonnie McKee, Brian Wilson, Michael Love, and Calvin Broadus, were also nominated" should really be "The songwriters, Perry, Lukasz Gottwald, Max Martin, Benjamin Levin, Bonnie McKee, Brian Wilson, Michael Love, and Calvin Broadus, were nominated". Adding the word also implies there were subsequent others involved whereas it was just the songwriters. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Adjusted accordingly, IndianBio, and thank you for the support :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying. A few issues regarding their accuracy:
• Source 27 does not list the nominees of the 2011 Billboard Awards.
• Source 28 does not support anything the article claims. Neither does source 30.
• Source 166 does say that she won one award at Teen Choice Awards 2011 but not specifically which. There is also no reference for her nominations at the ceremony.
• Ref 167 does list the nominees and winners of TCA 2012 but not Perry's win for Choice Fashion: Red Carpet Fashion Icon Female.

Thanks for the source review. I have fixed every issue listed above. -- Frankie _talk 09:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review partially struck. There have been problems found in other reviews by this IP: review struck for the moment, although it's probably best to deal with these comments first. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are one or two occurrences of shouty refs that needs sorting (108, 117 and 121, for example, but check for others)
• Check your linking within the sources – Variety is linked on the second instance, not the first
• Check the dashes: FN29 looks like the wrong type

- SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully everything is fixed by now. -- Frankie _talk 16:50, 26 January 2016 (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) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (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) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a complete overhaul I now feel this list meets the criteria. I currently have another nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding comments. As always, comments to be dealt with as expediently as possible. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Parutakupiu

Hi NapHit, I already reviewed the page's prose and made some changes that I feel improved its flow and clarity. Also wikilinked some rugby-specific terms that may not be immediately familiar to readers. Regarding other points, here are my comments:

• There's a word missing in "Despite constant from the French for the remainder of the final..." that I could not guess which was during my copyediting. I leave this for you to fill.
• Ref. 7 does not support the 1995 final summary.
• Renaming suggestions:
  • "Results" (section title) → "Finals"
  • "Key to the list of finals" → "Key to colors and symbols"
  • "List of finals matches, their venues and locations, the finalists and final scores" → "List of final matches, and respective venues, finalists and scores"
• (Optional) Maybe move the footnotes content to just below the finals table? It's only two of them, seems little to have a section of its own.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Parutakupiu:, all been addressed. Regarding the key one, I simply changed it to key, don't think anymore is needed, as it's plainly obvious. NapHit (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: maybe you could mention the unfortunate (well, not using this adjective) fact of France losing all three finals in which it participated? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added @Parutakupiu:. Thanks again. NapHit (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, NapHit! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Really good article, lots of information as well as the list itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• I found the second paragraph a bit confusing, saying that from 2015 extra time is played when there is a draw after 80 minutes, and then going back to earlier games with extra time. Maybe give the earlier games first and then the 2015 rules.
  • The wording might not be the best, as these have always been the rules. The 'As of 2015' bit is so it is up to date, so to speak, for the reader. Removing this bit might make it a bit clearer and less confusing perhaps. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "A try by Pierre Berbizier in the final minutes, which was converted by Camberabero, settled New Zealand's victory in the tournament's inaugural final at 29–9." "settled" seems an odd word in this context - maybe "gave a slightly more respectable score of..."
  • Reworded NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A first rate article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments {[ping|Dudley Miles}}, both comments have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. However, I would remove "As of the 2015 tournament" as it is misleading. If it is needed for the rules, why not elsewhere, such as every sentence in the third paragraph? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from FrB.TG

• "They also won the most recent final, hosted in London in 2015" – according to WP:PRECISELANG, you should avoid terms such as "recent". I would probably rephrase it as "They also won the 2015 final, hosted in London."
• "The next Rugby World Cup will be hosted in Japan" – I think you also need to mention the year of final.
• Ref 1 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." I think you should get rid of Guardian Media Group.
• Ref 8 and 16 – ditto: Independent Print Limited and Guardian Media Group, respectively.
• I think wiki-linking the publishers of references on their first occurrences can help the readers with finding about them. (Sure that's a personal opinion which is why I "thought" it might benefit linking them)
  • I think is more personal choice than anything else. Some editors link the publishers others don't. There isn't a guideline about this, so I'm inclined to leave it the way it is. There's no benefit either way really. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Frankie _talk 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @FrB.TG:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – meets FL criteria, good job! -- Frankie _talk 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The table may be succinct, but the overall article is certainly worthwhile as a FL and will give the expansion of the table following further finals a good starting point. Miyagawa (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: All good, as far as I can see. Formatting is as per MoS; the sources used are reliable; all links to external sites are working; spot checks show the information is correct and that there is no plagiarism or close copying. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (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) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (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) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating the 2008 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. The previous nomination did not result in FL status, because I was unable to keep up with comments due to personal and education issues. I know there is still some concerns, but I will be updating the list within the next two weeks due to my winter break allowing me to make changes before school resumes on January 4. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nice work, again! -- Frankie _talk 18:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I don't see any green link now, and others are resolved. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the quotation mark issue myself here, thankfully nothing major. I now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – concerning the reliability and consistency of sources, I had provided my comments above, which are addressed. Using this version as a reference point for the numbering of the footnotes:

• Ref 2 – used twice. Article faithful to the source. One thing needed is replace -- with —.
• Ref 3 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 10 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 18 – used twice. However, the source does not support the fact that she became the eleventh performer for double acting nominations. It only says it "made her the third double acting nominee of the decade".
• Ref 30 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 31 – used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- Frankie _talk 13:41, 22 January 2016 (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) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (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) 21:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive revamping and extending the article's scope, references, lead, infobox, and the like, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Lost in Translation is the second feature film from Sofia Coppola, a comedy-drama about the one-week-long relationship between an aging, lonely movie star (Bill Murray) and an intelligent recent college graduate in an unhappy marriage (Scarlett Johansson) in a Tokyo hotel. It won 67 awards and was nominated for 109 total (including the wins). Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks great now. Congrats! GagaNutella^talk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support –nice work. -- Frankie _talk 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS; the sources used are reliable; no dead links; spot checks show the information is correct (with one problem below) and that there is no plagiarism or close copying. There is one tweak needed:

• FN 29 takes me to the 2003 Golden Globes, which doesn't refer to LiT – I think that needs to be redirected to the right spot.

It will be good to go after that final step has been taken. – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thank you for the comment and I have changed the Golden Globes ref to the correct year. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as passed, then. --PresN 20:20, 20 January 2016 (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) 01:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final Grand Tour teams and cyclists list of the 2015 season. I have already nominated List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España and List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France for FL and both have passed; I've also recently taken the main race article to GA-status. This list is closely modelled after the other two lists, although the sourcing for the Giro is a bit harder! Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fantastic work. Kudos on improving all the Grand Tour related lists for this year! NapHit (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't find anything that I'd change with the list. Good work again. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "by team" tables seem to be a bit redundant. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, I do know what you mean. They are, however, present in all the other equivalent lists, e.g. the two linked above. I see it as reflecting the difficult thing in cycling where riders are both riding for themselves and as part of teams. Relentlessly (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sure, but it doesn't seem to add much beyond what is in the big table. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean: there is a level of redundancy. It is a well established convention, however, and I think it is informative. Do you have any other comments, Nergaal? Relentlessly (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Made a final copyedit run through the lead to improve prose flow. Please check if it's up to your liking. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Parutakupiu for your comments, and many thanks NapHit for stepping in and doing some editing while I haven't been. I've made a couple of small changes in the lead for flow. I have changed it back to "were obliged" as "The teams obliged to enter" would make some sense and it is how I naturally read it without the additional "were". Finally, I disagree that the riders don't represent their countries (they do, for example win points in the World Tour rankings for their countries), but I'm content with the edit. Relentlessly (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man. You've marked your comments as resolved – can I check if that's a "support"?! Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting wise, everything looks pretty spot on. With a fine-tooth comb, I have found that the capitalisation of refs #145 (Pier Paolo De Negri rather than Pier Paolo De negri) and #174 (Nathan Brown rather than nathan Brown) are slightly off.
• I don't see any mention in ref #1 of the route entering France and Switzerland? I know Lugano is in Switzerland, so that can be extrapolated, but France? (This article suggests that only Switzerland is visited, though I appreciate there was plenty of time for things to be changed in between.)
• Refs #238 and #239 could do with some disambiguation, maybe "Giro d'Italia 2015 – General Classification – Startlist" and "Giro d'Italia 2015 – General Classification – Stages"?

Otherwise, everything looks good: the prose is well paraphrased, without any evidence of copyvio, and with the exception of the point above, the facts are all well cited to reliable sources. Harrias ^talk 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 1' 53" should be written out in full in the lead, as it is a little ambiguous in that form. Harrias ^talk 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harrias. All these are dealt with. Relentlessly (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant; with that done, I'm happy to support on sources. Harrias ^talk 10:16, 16 January 2016 (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) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (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) 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s):Aftabuzzaman, —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first fifers-list (of a player's) in a long time. Aftabuzzaman created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]