Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2020

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest list of country number one songs by year. So far this little project of mine has produced 35 FLs and another is close, so here's the potential #37........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uncertain about this sentence: "At the start of the year, the number one single was "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" by Charley Pride, its fifth week in the top spot." It reads a little awkwardly to me, and I think it could be made more concise. Maybe something like the following, "At the start of the year, Charley Pride's "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'" spent its fifth week in the top spot.", would be better?
• I have a question about this part: "totalling 11 weeks in the top spot with "My Hang-Up Is You", "Bless Your Heart" and "Got the All Overs for You (All Over Me)". Is "totalling" intentionally spelled like that? I am not sure if it is a spelling variation on totaling or a typo so I wanted to ask to make sure.
• This sentence, ""My Hang-Up Is You" had the longest unbroken run at number one, spending six weeks at the top of the chart in the spring, twice as long as any other song spent at number one in 1972.", reads rather awkwardly to me, specifically the phrase beginning with "twice...". I understand what you mean, but I am wondering if it could be revised to read a little better. Apologies for the somewhat vague comment, but I am not entirely sure how I would reword myself.
• It may be better to revise this part, "Jerry Wallace achieved the only country chart-topper of his career", to something like the following, "Jerry Wallace achieved his only country chart-topper", to be a little more concise with the prose.
• For this part, "after being featured in an episode of the TV show Night Gallery", I believe it should be "television show" instead of "TV show".
• For this part, "Tillis co-wrote the song with Webb Pierce, whose version went to number 2 on the chart in 1959,", I would spell out "2" as "two" since numbers under ten are spelled out with words rather than numerals in other parts of the lead.
• Since you specify the year in two of the image captions, I would do the same for the ones for Hart and Fargo.
• When I first read through the list, I noticed a few odd spacing issues where there were sometimes double/triple spaces left between sentences. I think that I have corrected all of them, but I would encourage you to check again and see if I missed any other instances.

Awesome work as always. Your productivity and consistently good work is very admirable. I enjoyed reading through the list, and it inspired me to check out some of these artists in the future, specifically Donna Fargo since I have a preference for female singers. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: many thanks for your comments, which have hopefully been addressed to your satisfaction. With regard to "totalling", that's how I would spell it but then I am British and I appreciate that this article should be written in US English. I am not 100% sure what the correct US spelling would be, so I have used alternative wording which hopefully avoids the issue altogether..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Upon further investigation, the totaling/totalling difference is really just an American/British spelling difference. I guess American English drops the double l for a single l. Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great as always. – zmbro _(talk) 03:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I had to strain to find anything worth complaining about, but is the space before the comma in the title of ref 1 meant to be there? If it's there in the original, it wouldn't be the worst idea to take it out for our purposes. That's the only (tiny) issue I saw. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: no, purely a typo on my part which I have now rectified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (pictured in xxxx) I would avoid including this phrase in the caption unless it's relevant and necessary to mention (e.g. Joe Bloggs (pictured in 1999) suffered severe facial disfigurement in 2000).
• ... Charley Pride and Merle Haggard each achieved three number ones in 1972, spending seven and six weeks respectively ... 1) You have already referred to Pride in full in this paragraph, so there's no need to mention his first name. 2) I would swap the order Haggard and Pride are mentioned, so that "six" and "seven" are in ascending order (and the artists are alphabetised by surname).
• Tillis did not record the song himself until 1972, when he went one better than Pierce to gain his first number one. "went one better" is slightly informal phrasing and awkward when near another instance of "one". Replace with "improved on Pierce's version's performance" or similar.
• Every number one in 1972 was by a solo artist; no bands topped the chart during the year. Without a source mentioning this, it seems like original research. But I concede it is evident after a glance at the table. Could be a "routine calculation". Not sure here.
• Artist(s) As all of the songs are by solo artists, there is no need for the (s).
• Ref. -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})

Excellent job as usual. – Teratix ₵ 14:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realise Williams actually suffered facial injuries! I don't see the relevance of (pictured in 1966) in Hart's caption – is that just an oversight or is there a specific reason? – Teratix ₵ 05:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: - I just missed that one. Now removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing (I promise) — a recent FLR jogged my memory: ‘hit’ is too informal for an encyclopaedia and should be replaced. – Teratix ₵ 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? OK, I have re-worded to remove the word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica has no problem with using the word "hit" in this context..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I note that same article also speaks of a manager who “fell in love” with the band, so perhaps it’s not the benchmark of encyclopedic style). – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, please find my comments below: Lead a total of 11 weeks with "My Hang-Up Is You", "Bless Your Heart" correct link to Bless Your Heart (song) Table March 11 to April 15 – correct link to Freddie Hart July 1 to 8 – correct link to Hank Williams Jr. August 12 to 19 – correct link to Freddie Hart December 9 to 23 – correct link to Freddie Hart Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Ianblair23: - all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Another fine list. Well done ChrisTheDude. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cowlibob

• The Billboard sources are tripping the external links tool as they should have https:// in front of the www.
• The Rolling Stone link is redirecting to this link "https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country-lists/10-great-songs-you-didnt-know-mel-tillis-wrote-125819/webb-pierce-i-aint-never-1959-126176/"
• I would recommend archiving the source using IABot to preserve for the future. "https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/"
• I think Ref 4 should be replaced by ref 13 as it verifies that it was charted as number 1 for 5 weeks.
• The book ref "Encyclopaedia of Country Music" should have a page number
• Spot checks verify information in article
• images appear appropriately licensed Cowlibob (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: All done except IABot, because I have literally no idea what I am supposed to do there............ :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. I've done it for you. It's pretty straightforward, you go to that link, click the login in button on the topright where it logs you in using your wikipedia credentials. Then in the next page, you type out the name of wikipedia article, you want the bot to edit. The default is to only archive dead links but if you tick the box below where it says "Add archives to all non-dead references", it tries to archive every link it can. Very nifty bot. Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks! I'll know for next time........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: @The Rambling Man: This is another FLC where I've supported and will not be closing, so once again I call on one of you to do the job when necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! --PresN 02:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the history of maps of Jerusalem is one of the most important topics in cartography, this is the best resource for the subject on the internet, the article has collated images of every single one of the most notable maps of the city, it clearly explains the reasons for the notability of each, uses the most respected sources on the subject, and this is the best of wikipedia's lists of maps and so may inspire further effort on an under-represented topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This article also is a list of maps of Jerusalem" - sentences like "this is a list of....." have been deprecated for many years and should not be in the article

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You now have "This article chronicles the known maps....", which is essentially the same thing. Articles basically should never say "this article....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "More than 12 maps" - seems oddly specific. Maybe "at least 12...." would be better?

Y amended. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Vellum is wikilinked the second time it appears - should be the first

Y moved, and also wikilinked the other materials. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "between the late-1400s to the mid-1800s" => "between the late-1400s and the mid-1800s"

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and few of the mapmakers had travelled to Jerusalem" - this should be a new sentence

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a random exclamation mark in the header of the first table

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't bold sentences or sections of sentences in the tables

The intention here is to highlight those maps which are at the highest level of notability (e.g. they were the first of their kind, or considered the most accurate of their generation). Do you think there could be another way we could achieve this?

Y now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Today, more than 12 such maps are known" - why "more than 12"? How many is it actually?

I have changed to “at least” per the comment above. The sources (both the same author) say "more than a dozen survive today", but provide no further information, and there are no other specialist publications on the Crusader maps topic recent enough to clarify.

Y Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence fragments such as "Thought to be from the 14th century." should not have a full stop

Y removed full stops from all fragments. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thank you for the excellent comments. I have made all the changes except the debolding – I have commented on that above, and would be grateful for your thoughts. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I based that comment on WP:MOSBOLD, which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". I can see where you are coming from, but I can't really think of an alternative approach. Let me muse on that (and also see what other editors who comment here think)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Y @ChrisTheDude: I have now removed the bold per Aoba47 and your agreement on the topic. Thanks again for your input here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I spotted one more thing - against the very last entry, the two refs are not in the correct numerical order, and ref 31 needs formatting properly using an appropriate citation template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @ChrisTheDude: I have now fixed this. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the lead image's caption, I do not believe it should have a period because it is not a full sentence.

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest adding ALT text, but I do not believe is a requirement for a featured list and there has been some dispute in the past about this subject. I wanted to raise this to your attention though.

Y added alt text to all. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with ChrisTheDude that the list should not refer to itself in the prose as it is done with this sentence: "This article chronicles the known maps of Jerusalem until the rise of modern surveying techniques".

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a wikilink for ancient times be helpful just to clarify the time period being discussed in this part: "the creation, editing, processing and printing of maps of Jerusalem since ancient times".

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with ChrisTheDude that sentences or sections should not be put in bold. I believe that this is typically discouraged. I have seen items put in bold for a lead to help identify redirect targets, etc., but I do not think I have seen it done in the body of a featured list or a featured article.

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think this part "Ground plan from De Locis Sanctis drawn for pilgrims, showing relevant Christian sites in relation to each other." should have punctuation as it is not a full sentence.

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more of a clarification question, but I noticed that some of the "date" columns have a reference while others do not. Is there any particular reason for it? I am not saying it needs to be changed, but I was just curious about your reasoning for it.

Y this was because some of the refs for the exacts dates were different to the refs for the descriptions. I have now added these where they were missing, so it is consistent now. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question about the current citation format. There are instances where the page number is given in the "References" section with a link to the "Bibliography" section with the full book citation, and other cases where the full book citation and page numbers are put in the "References" section. See Reference 3 vs. Reference 25 as an example. Any particular reason why it is done this way?

Y fair point - I have fixed these and moved all the books and journal articles into the bibliography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the list mostly does not use the Oxford comma as in this part "including parchment, vellum, mosaic, wall paintings and paper", but the Oxford comma is used in this list "original factual maps, copied maps, and imaginary maps" so I would remove it for consistency.

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the list overall. I hope that it inspires other editors to work on more cartography lists, and it is awesome that you have updated is what is most likely an extremely helpful online resource on the subject. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for your generous and excellent comments. I have put them all through. I also hope that others follow this article - it would be great to see articles like this for all the other major cities worldwide. One day perhaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything! If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. I support this list for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I really like this list but I don't see how this passes criterion 3a. The crusader maps are based on a catalogue, but the other three sections appear to be entirely subjective inclusion criteria. They're very interesting examples but how do I know nothing important is missing? If the Illes Relief is included why is the Holyland Model of Jerusalem relegated to a see also? Isn't the city model at city hall relevant to modern cartography? The Jewish Virtual Library has many more maps that seem important to the history of the city's cartography.
  • One of those lists the Brandis map as being the first printed map, pre-dating the Reuwich map by a decade (though with less detail of the city itself)
  • There isn't really a broad storyline connecting these maps either, such as discussing differences between the maps, how they improved over time, and how they were used. This is more of a "List of [selected] maps of Jerusalem" instead of "Cartography of Jerusalem", which I would expect to go into more detail about the study and process of mapmaking and the relevance to Jerusalem.

• Hi @Reywas92: thank you for your thoughtful comments, and for addressing what I think is the single most important question for this FL proposal. This was the question I was most focused on from the moment I began this article. Per the comments from other editors above I have had to remove a couple of self-referential sentences which tried to explain the scope of the article.

In summary, this article lists all the maps which progressed the cartography of Jerusalem; that is its broad storyline. It does not include “imaginary maps of ancient Jerusalem” (a topic which could certainly merit an article; this would include the Brandis map, the Holyland model, and most of the Jerusalem maps listed at JVL [which is usually non-RS btw]), nor does it include either copies of existing maps which didn’t progress it in any way or maps which were materially less detailed than maps already in existence. It stops at “the rise of modern surveying techniques” because after that mapmaking became commoditized. My conviction in building this article with this scope is that an attempted list of every map ever made of Jerusalem – if it was even feasible – would dilute the impact of the maps which were historically significant in the cartography of the city, making it harder for readers to “see the wood for the trees”. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense but the lead needs to define these inclusion criteria, best with a clear explanation for how we can trust that what's listed here is comprehensive and tells the story of cartography rather than just being a selection of maps. The commented-on part above mainly concerned "This article" and the rest can be rewritten. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: thank you. Could you help me understand how I should write this without self-referencing? I have read MOS:SELFREF which says what not to do, but doesn’t say how to explain the scope of a list to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be something like "The maps below represent the progression of mapmaking across the history of the city...They are the most historically significant..." or "All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here...This is a collection of the most important maps, because they show how mapmaking and surveying improved and outsiders could better understand the city." (Don't use my exact words but just omitting the word "article" while still talking about the list itself is fine). But the comments on each map could use a little more detail to corroborate why they're chosen. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: thank you. I have added an explanation at [3]. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to quote me but that looks good! Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Today, at least 12 such maps are known" – "such" simply being Crusader-era? This section description doesn't line up with those listed. (5) München is missing, and Cambrai and Sanudo-Vesconte are added to Röhricht's catalogue, but these numbers still don't add up then for what's included.

• Map (5) is the Arculf map, already in the section above. I have added a sentence to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No colon after "labeled"

Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Thank you for your very helpful comments. I believe they have now all been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but not the elaboration on the map descriptions themselves that relate them to what makes them important. E.g. the Hague map is called "the most famous" but does not give any detail why and I don't have access to the cited book to learn more about its importance. The Willenberg map says where it was published, but not how it progressed cartography. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvements, support Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no point in having the Madaba map as the lead image as it is shown identically immediately below. You need some variation, such as a different image, part of one of the other maps or a much larger image of the Madaba map.

Y very fair point. I put a modern photo instead for comparison purposes. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Most extant maps known to scholars from the pre-modern era were prepared by Christian mapmakers for a Christian European audience." This implies that there are a significant number of non-Christian maps but ref 2 says that there are almost none. I suggest changing to "hardly any". Are any non-Christian maps known?

Y changed to “almost all”. I think the reason the sources don’t say all/none is because there are likely a few known non-Christian sketches or illustrations on bigger maps like this one, but none which advanced the cartography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You should state your criteria for inclusion in the list, as you set out in the discussion above.

Y @Dudley Miles: thank you. I have added an explanation at [4], following the suggestion of Reywas92. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Early religious / pilgrimage maps" It would be helpful if you added dates to this sub-heading.

Y done Onceinawhile (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The dates in the left hand column should be as c.680 when the exact date is not known.

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The table heading 'Description' is misleading. 'Comments' would be better.

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The text in this column is very brief, particularly as it is such a short list. "Dated to the mid 12th century" just repeats the date column. It would be helpful to expand the information, although I realise that in some cases information may not be available.

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have expanded these throughout where information is available. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The comments still look too brief. There must be more information available about maps which are significant enough to meet your criteria for inclusion in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: thanks for your copyedit, which I am fine with, and for your comment above. Re adding more detail to the descriptions, most of these maps have enough written about them that they could justify an entire article on their own. How much detail would you consider appropriate in the table? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See for example List of local nature reserves in Somerset. This has 2-3 lines but less where details are not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "A "round map" showing simplistic buildings;" An argument can be simplistic, not a building. As almost all depictions of buildings on maps are simplified, I would delete the word "simplistic".

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The annotations considered to have been made by Haukr Erlendsson" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "The annotations were probably made by Haukr Erlendsson."

Y done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The comments randomly mix sentences and non-sentences. List of local nature reserves in Somerset sometimes has the first statement on each site as a non-sentence but all subsequent ones are sentences. I would prefer all comments as grammatical sentences, but you do need to follow some rule about which comments are sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I have gone for all comments starting with non-sentences, with the rest of the text being sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks fine apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: thank you very much for these comments, which have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles and Reywas92: thank again for your very helpful comments. I have put through almost all of them, and am currently finalizing the comments re adding further description where available. It is taking some time but I am not far from being finished now. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last set of comments being finalized above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – The first two words of the List of notable maps of Jerusalem could be omitted to make the section name tighter, as it is obvious at a glance that these are lists. Y removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The cartographers should be sorted by last name, not first name. The last couple of tables are where the issue is really apparent. Catherwood map: In a scan of the comment here, there's a year range that needs an en dash for style. Y fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] The Aldrich and Symonds map doesn't appear to have a reference, unlike any of the others. Y added. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Illes Relief: In the comment here, a space before the final reference needs fixing. Y fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reference formatting from refs 12 to 14 need work. A couple of them need publishers, and all three need access dates and publication dates (if available). Y fixed and replaced two references with one better reference. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008: thank you for picking these up; it seems they crept in whilst I was working on the other comments above. I have implemented all except your second point which I don't understand - please could you clarify where they are not in the correct order? Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Name sorting in lists is typically done by last name, not first name, although there are some exceptions. If you click on the column with the names of the cartographers, you'll see that they are sorting by the first name instead of the last name, which happens when there isn't a template in the table cell that makes it sort the proper way. The sortname template does wonders for such issues, and I think that's the easiest way to clean up the sorting here. Just fill out a sortname template for each cartographer name that is known, and that should get everything to sort properly. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008: thank you. I have now fixed this. All your comments have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources look reliable
• Please move unused sources (eg Laor) to a further reading section Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Add OCLC, ISBN or other identifiers to all print sources Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to cover the bases wrt content. buidhe 03:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: thanks for your comments. These have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: @The Rambling Man: Please note that I've supported already and will not be closing this FLC, so one of you will have to do the honors/honours when the time comes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a brief review but as a minimum the tables need row/col scopes per ACCESS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scopes added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• c. needs a space after it.

Spaces added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The article lists maps that progressed the cartography of Jerusalem..." according to whom?

The is set out in the sentence immediately prior: “All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here following the cartographic histories of the city, from Titus Tobler and Reinhold Röhricht's studies in the 19th century to those of Hebrew University of Jerusalem academics Rehav Rubin and Milka Levy-Rubin in recent decades” Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes in the tables should be consistent in the use of full stops.

Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " Czech travelogue of Palestine" sea of blue.

Unlinked Czech to remove sea of blue. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jerusalem].[46][43]" cites in order, check all.

Fixed. I checked others, there were no more. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The map was dedicated to empress Elisabeth Christine" sea of blue and needs citation.

Unlinked empress to remove sea of blue, and added citation Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which variant of English is used here? I see "catalogued" (Brit) and "categorized" (non-Brit)...

Fixed. There was also both center and centre, and one date was inconsistent. I went with the one that seemed more prevalent, which was British. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jerusalem;.[52] " no need for both punctuation.

Semi colon removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Page ranges in refs need to be "pp." and should use en-dash not hyphen for range separator.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cartography and Cartography by city are nugatory categories as they are super cats of Maps of Jerusalem.

Removed Cartography and Maps of Jerusalem Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very quick run through. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thank you. Please could you let me know what “sea of blue” means in two of the comments above? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I figured out sea of blue. I have now implemented all your comments. Thanks again. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks ready to promote; I'm going on the assumption that TRM is going to continue his long-standing practice of not returning to "quick run through" reviews. If I'm wrong, please let me know! --PresN 02:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently scored his 21st international goal, making him the all-time top goalscorer for his country, I have created Maatouk's list based on other FLs such as Ibrahimović's and Drogba's. I'm open for any suggestions and comments, so feel free to let me know if anything needs to be changed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Kosack (talk)

Comments The image doesn't need a full stop as it's a sentence fragment.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] "in the Lebanon national football team", I think " for the Lebanon...." or "who represented the..." would work better here.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Need an "as of October 2019" after his current tally.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] The second sentence is a bit long, perhaps break after all-time top scorer?  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Link penalty to Penalty (association football).  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Maatouk scored two brace during his international career", this shouldn't be in past tense as he's still an active player. Also, it should be braces to use the plural.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Could link brace to Hat-trick as it does mention what the term is for.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] "at the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifications", this doesn't really work grammatically I don't think. Same with the Asian Cup brace. I don’t know how to change this. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Amended during ChrisTheDude's comments. Kosack (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Internation goal", headings a bit off.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Ref column doesn't really need to be sortable since it doesn't actually sort refs. I don’t know how to make specific columns sortable, just the whole table. Can you help me out? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] I believe Lirim has already seen to this one. Kosack (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] The NFT ref has him at 78 caps and 20 goals with the others designated as unofficial matches. I’m unsure on why NFT does this, as all the goals he scored are full FIFA international games (as can be seen by the FIFA website). Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] The FIFA references, refs 4, 9 and 14, seem to have expired. The desktop version works well, I don’t know why the match isn’t displayed on mobile view. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] No need to worry if it's working for the desktop version. Kosack (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Ref 17 needs an author.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] It's a little short on prose I feel (just over 1400kb). Are any of these goals worth mentioning in the text, e.g. Important or historic victories? Not really, Lebanon have only ever qualified for one major tournament in their history: at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup. Maatouk scored in the final group stage match against North Korea to bring his tally to 20 goals, on par with the then top-scorer. The match ended 4-1, with a 4 goal difference needed to pass to the knockout stages: ultimately Maatouk’s goal was not influential. All other goals were either in friendlies, or other qualification matches (I have already written about his 5 goals in 6 games at the 2019 Asian Cup qualification). I’m not sure what else could be written. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Understood. Kosack (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] A few points from a quick run through. Kosack (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Kosack: Thanks for your comments! I have taken care of most of your concerns, and commented on the rest. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to Support. Kosack (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I did some improvements on the table already. Some comments are coming later, not much time right now.--Lirim | Talk 20:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lirim.Z Hey, I was just wondering if you had any comments regarding the nomination. Or even, if you support it (or not). Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

Comments "in the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualifiers on 15 October 2019" => "in a 2022 FIFA World Cup qualifier on 15 October 2019"  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] "at the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifications" => "in a 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifier" (and the same in the next sentence)  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] "More than half of his goals have come at home, having scored ten" => "He has scored more than half of his goals at home, with ten...."  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Ref 1 has no accessdate  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Refs 1 and 12 are to the same website but are formatted completely differently. One shows the website name while the other shows the URL, and they show Mr Strack-Zimmerman's name differently. Make them consistent. I've removed the URL, but I'm unable to change the naming format on ref 1 as it's a template (it doesn't display the usual Surname, Name).  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Same with refs 4 and 20 - one shows the name, the other shows the URL  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Why do you show the "www" in some websites but not others? You show "www.the-afc.com" but just "FIFA.com". Again, be consistent  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your help! Most All of your comments have been taken care of, except one small issue regarding Strack-Zimmerman's name. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Dey subrata (talk)

Comments Ref 1 excessive use, add any other citation to reduce the use of citation to 4 times. # With that I want to bring Giants2008 to decide on the authenticity of it. Same the Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann website "National Football Teams" reference is used. And in this case we don't have any RSSSF article yet. Even if I make one now for RSSSF it will be uploaded after several months. Thats why I was saying, the site is important for many wikipedia article as not all players have RSSSF article. And its authenticity as I described before to you already. Would ask you to consider it again, I think it will help a lot articles and afterall all the stats are correct here. Ref 1, 12 change (website=National Football Teams) to (website=national-football-teams.com) or (work=National Football Teams)  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Refs 2, 7, 22: change (website=The AFC)=> (publisher=AFC).  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Refs 5,9,13,14 FIFA.com to fifa.com better remove website and include (publisher=FIFA)  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] In all other references templete, correct the website to website names like (Elsport News to elsport.com) or remove (website) and include (work/publisher).  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] If Giants2008 allow to keep the NFT citation then include the same in the external link, seeing the importance of the citation.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] I would ask to change "Caps" to "Apps" in the "Goals by competition" to maintain consistency with "Goals by year" and to include "Apps" in the "Goals by opposition", otherwise thats looks incomplete.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Dey subrata: Actually, I have a problem with adding the caps to the Goals by opposition table, because either we put all the teams Maatouk played against (including the ones against which he didn't score) or we just keep the goals scored. If we were to add all the teams, the table would be ridiculously long. What do you think? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Nehme1499 I really missed this one, I did not see. No it will not be long brother(after all he will score more goals right, the table will get long in time, you can't stop it from getting long, he scored just 21 now, many more to come, right now in two frame the article is over. Its not at all a big article, so don't worry). I asked you to include in the same Table of "Goals by opposition". It will be more interesting for reader to see how many goals scored in how many matches against a particular country. Thats after all the full information. You can check List of Sunil Chhetri which I get promoted, and compare with Messi, which one you find more interesting, might be Chhetri's but if you compare with Ronaldo's list you will find Ronaldo's list is more interesting as it got "Goals by confederations" but not asking to include that cause Ronaldo have significant number of goals against different confederations. I think you must add, that will make the article more interesting and more informative. Dey subrata (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Dey subrata to be honest he won't really score that many more goals, he's 32 and has an average of 0.25 goals per game. Maybe he'll reach 25 goals, not more though. Anyway, I added the caps to the table and added the countries against which Maatouk has played but not scored. I still think that the table is a bit long, so I'll try to find a way to make a collapsible table inside the table itself so that it only shows (uncollapsed) the countries against which he scored, and hide (collapsed) the ones against who he didn't (and still show the bottom totals bar with 21 goals in 84 caps). Nehme1499 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Remove He made his debut for Lebanon in a 2–1 away win over Saudi Arabia on 27 January 2006., not required as seperate info. And write, He is the country's all-time top goalscorer and most-capped player. Since debuting for Lebanon against Saudi Arabia on 27 January 2006, Maatouk has scored 21 goals in 84 international appearances, as of November 2019.  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Also include the important information in the second paragraph, latest goals against Sri Lanka on 15th October which made him the highest goal scorer of his country surpassing Roda Antar's 20. In the image template both alt line & display line are same better change the line for alt (alt=Hassan Maatouk playing against Saudi Arabia) or change the display line "Hassan Maatouk playing against Saudi Arabia in 2019" to "Hassan Maatouk has scored 21 international goals for Lebanon."  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] For now these are my concerns. Dey subrata (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Dey subrata: I should have fixed all of your concerns. I'm still not fully clear about the national-football-teams problem though. For what I know, the source is reliable. Otherwise, I could replace it with an official table issued by the AFC which shows the goals and caps of all the players prior to the 2019 AFC Asian Cup (obviously, it's non updated to today as is shows statistics as of December 2018). Nehme1499 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] I know the NFT website is correct, but recently I had words with the FL director Giants2008, where he was skeptical about it. Because the same thing will be repeated here too. So let him take a call here, or if he wants to take a consensus among editors. Lets wait for him to response. And I would ask you if you have any AFC reference as you are mentioning above then use it where ever your can to reduce the use of NFT reference, because its still showing 6 times, reduce to 4 times with the use of AFC reference if you have. That will be better. Dey subrata (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Link Saudi Arabia team in the first para. And you missed the 2nd last point of including goal against Sri Lanka (21st goal) which made him the highest goal scorer of Lebanon. Dey subrata (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]  Done Nehme1499 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Also, the AFC table won't be updated in the future. It shows 19 goals in 72 caps, as of 31 December 2018. The RSSSF reference will be updated in December, and will show Maatouk having 21 goals in 84 caps. Until then, the only reliable source in NFT. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hi Giants2008 , I think you are busy, but if you please take little time to address the issue, this one is different from my nom. In my nom. there were other alternative citation, like that of RSSSF. Same the Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann website "National Football Teams" reference is used here. And in this case we don't have any RSSSF article yet. Thats why I was saying, the site is important for many wikipedia article as not all players have RSSSF article. And its authenticity as I described before to you duing last discussion. Here the nominator also agree with it and the reviewer who also reviewed my nom., Kosack and ChrisTheDude seems to agree. Would ask you if you can consider it again, I think it will help a lot articles and afterall all the stats are correct in the site. Or any suggestion to the best of your knowledge. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Frankly, my opinion of National Football Teams hasn't changed much from the previous FLC where it came up. I don't believe it is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, as useful as it may be, and think alternatives should be sought if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Giants2008 I find it strange to hear someone who says that NFT.com isn't a realiable source: actually, it is arguably the most reliable source for national team data. May I know the reasons why you believe NFT.com to not be reliable? Nehme1499 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] NFT is a generally useful site but there have been discussions in the past regarding whether it would qualify as a reliable source, several of which would suggest that it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. See here, here and here. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] I contacted Robert Mamrud of RSSSF, and he said that he will update the records page on December and will also add a personal page for Maatouk listing all the matches he played, the goals he scored and detailed statistics. Until then NFT is the only solution, albeit temporary. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008, @Dey subrata, the RSSSF page for Maatouk's statistics has just been released. As such, I have removed all NFT sources and replaced them with the RSSSF page, listing all the individual caps and goals of the player. Is the article now deemed suitable for FL? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I know. Sorry, I have forgotten about it to inform you. Anyway, its seems ok to me now. Dey subrata (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the list get promoted. Dey subrata (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• What makes National Football Teams (reference 11) a reliable source?

I've replaced it with another source. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• References 7 and 14 appear to be in a non-English language, which should be mentioned in the citation (as is done in ref 4).

 Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 9, 14, 16 and 19 are to print publications, which means their publishers should be italicized.

When I try to italicize them, an error message comes up stating: "Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the work= or newspaper= parameters instead of publisher. Either of those will give you italics without the ugly error message. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:  Done Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The link-checker tool only worked on a few of the references for some reason, but for those it showed no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I should have taken care of your concerns. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The last of my comments has been resolved, so I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu Reeves is a Canadian actor who has had an extensive film career. He is known for his roles in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989), The Matrix (1999), and more recently John Wick (2014). This list describes the roles he has had throughout his career with appropriate referencing. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you learn something new every day. I never knew Keanu was Canadian......
• Comments
  • "The following year, Reeves appeared in the crime film River's Edge. In the same year, he starred in the television films Babes in Toyland, Act of Vengeance, and Brotherhood of Justice." - I would combine these two sentences as the first is very short.
  • "dies of suicide" is an odd and unnatural sounding choice of words. Why not just "commits suicide"?
  • "He played time-travelling slacker Ted "Theodore" Logan in the science fiction comedy Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989) with Alex Winter.[3] It was his breakthrough role, and the film was an unexpected commercial success" - again, I would combine this, maybe as "His breakthrough role came when he played time-travelling slacker Ted "Theodore" Logan, alongside Alex Winter as Bill S. Preston Esq in the science fiction comedy Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989), which was an unexpected commercial success"
  • "In 1991 he starred in action film Point Break with Patrick Swayze. In the same year, he appeared in the science fiction comedy sequel Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and independent drama My Own Private Idaho" - again very "choppy" short sentences, which I think could be combined
  • "He starred as a police officer in the action thriller Speed (1994) with Sandra Bullock.[6] The film was a commercial success and garnered critical acclaim" - same again
  • "He reunited with Bullock on the 2006 romantic drama" - I would say in, not on
  • In the TV table, two titles starting with "The" sort under T, when they should sort under the next word
  • Think that's it from me. My main advice is to eliminate some of the really short sentences in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review, I have made amendments per above. Cowlibob (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Lady Lotus
• I have to really try and find things to comment on, good work from Cowlibob as always. I only have a few things:
  • On the sort for his characters name, Don Jon, it's sorted by "Don", shouldn't it be by "Jon"?
  • For his image, I would remove the image restraint of 200px and add "upright=1" or "upright=1.35" for the lead image
  • Regarding the references in the lead section - if the film and role is already referenced in the table below then I would remove the references from the lead. If it's referencing how well the film did then it could stay. Just try to remove the redundancy.
  • That's all I got really LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Thanks for your review, I've made the amendments as described. I'll try to have a look at your list later this week. Cowlibob (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – really happy to see this one at FLC, considering how big Keanu has been the past few years. Great job to you :-) – zmbro _(talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from DanielleTH

• Only concern: why is the online magazine Insider the only online magazine not italicized and the only source with a .com? Inconsistent from the rest of the sourcing.

Otherwise no issues. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH: Thanks for your source review. I've amended the reference above. Cowlibob (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After raising the 2017 Rising Star award to FL, I'm following up with the 2018 edition. The winner, Chloe Molloy, dominated her first season in the AFL Women's, winning just about every accolade for first-year players and becoming the first (and so far only) player to earn the maximum 50 votes in this award. The version at the time of nomination has three images, but there is also a four-image version; I would appreciate feedback on which is preferred. – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - for the record, I prefer the version with three images -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teratix, please find my comments below: Lead offering $20,000 in prize money → offering AU$20,000 in prize money live-streamed on AFL.com.au pipe link to AFL Media of the AFL Players' Association correct link to AFL Players Association back pocket of the All-Australian team → back pocket of the 2018 All-Australian team Like ChrisTheDude above, I happy with the three image version. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Links corrected. Not sure about the other two suggestions — as an Australian sport award, it should be clear prize money will be in Australian dollars. I’ve intentionally omitted the year from every annual accolade Molloy received (as it’s clear by implication), so I’m unsure why to break with this practice for the All-Australian team. – Teratix ₵ 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Excellent work Teratix. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good for me – zmbro _(talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/support from DanielleTH
Sources are either from the AFL itself or reliable publications, many of whom regularly cover supports. Sourcing is consistent. Great work on this! Support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Tone 18:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norway has a bunch of interesting World Heritage Sites, and not all of them are fjords (though some are!). The style follows that of a series of other countries, the most recent promoted being Austria. Per comment on one of the previous nominations, this time all descriptions are written from scratch and not only modified from exisitng article (when those articles were first created, there was a tendency to simply copy the description from the UNESCO site). Tone 18:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The church combines the influences of the Celtic art" => "The church combines the influences of Celtic art"
• At the end of the Rock Art section, there's an unnecessary gap before the reference.
• "people were harvesting" => "the inhabitants harvested"
• Transnational sites are denoted only by colour, they need a symbol too
• "a series of triangulation pointes" - points, surely (as indeed it is in the next sentence)?
• "They are to be classic examples" => "They are classic examples"
• "above the sea level" => "above sea level"
• "The industrial complex in towns" => "The industrial complex in the towns"
• You use harbour (British English) but also fertilizer (American English) - be consistent
• "They consist of chiefly of" => "They consist chiefly of"
• "the bird cliffs on Røst and Værøy are especially famous" => "the bird cliffs on Røst and Værøy being especially famous"
• "The islands have been used as whaling stations and by miners for centuries, now there are permanent Norwegian and Russian settlements" => "The islands have been used as whaling stations and by miners for centuries, and now there are permanent Norwegian and Russian settlements"
• "This is an transnational" => "This is a transnational "
• "Bouver Island" - wrong spelling
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, many thanks :) --Tone 18:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SUpport -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro (Just a few minor things)

• "over 10 000 years." → comma missing...?
• Make sure photos have alt text
• Could the lead be any longer? Seems a little short, but maybe that's just me.

Everything looks good. – zmbro _(talk) 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Zmbro: Done, the first two. As for the intro, I find it tricky to add something really meaningful and not to repeat the content in the table too much. --Tone 21:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support – zmbro _(talk) 01:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

• Map is missing red dots from the caption; Location should be plural
• hydroelectric doesn't have a hyphen
• No article before Rago NP Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Done! --Tone 08:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shearonink

• Prose. Professional standards of writing? Yes.
• Lead. Engaging lead that introduces the subject & defines the scope + inclusion criteria? Yes.
• Comprehensiveness.

(a) Comprehensively covers the defined scope, etc.? Yes,

(b) Statements are sourced where they appear + inline citations? Yes.

(c) In length and/or topic - meets all requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate content-forking guideline, does not duplicate material from another article, it could not reasonably be included as part of a related article? Yes.

• Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities? Yes.
• Style. It complies with the Manual of Style (especially for Lists) + supplementary pages? Yes.

(a) Visual appeal. Suitable text layout, formatting, tables, colour + few redlinks? Yes.

(b) Media files. Has topic-appropriate images & other media, following Wikipedia's usage policies, w/captions [+ appropriate alt-text for inclusion/accessibility]? Yes

• Stability. Not the subject of ongoing edit wars, content does not change significantly from day to day? Yes.

Am going to do a detailed deep-dive on the List over the next few days - so far am inclined to support. Shearonink (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Everything looks fine and have personally learned a lot about the various World Heritage sites. These types of Lists are a good jumping-off point to the various articles. Well-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "incorporates elements from the prior Viking church from the 11th century." The earlier church was not Viking. The citation refers to 'wood carving and sculpted decor of exquisite quality on the outside includes strap-work panels and elements of Viking tradition...which constitute the origin of the "Urnes style"' in the earlier stave church.
• "Røros is a town where the copper mine was active from the mid-17th century to 1977, when the company went bankrupt." This sounds awkward and there were several mines, not just one. Maybe "Røros was a copper mining town from 1644 until 1977, when the mining company went bankrupt."
• Rock Art of Alta. I would mention that there are thousands of paintings and carvings. Also the dates are approximate.
• Vegaøyan – The Vega Archipelago. There is no point in mentioning inhabitation over 10,000 years as that applies to countless places and the designation is for the cultural landscape of the last 1,500 years. Also you should mention the physical remains: "fishing villages, quays, warehouses, eider houses (built for eider ducks to nest in), farming landscapes, lighthouses and beacons".
• "who first carried out an accurate measurement of a long segment of a meridian – and along with it the size and shape of the Earth." This is an exaggeration. The citation says that he carried out an accurate measurement of a long segment of a meridian, but not the exact size and shape of the planet, which he "helped to establish".
• "This is a transnational nomination" This should be "This is part of a transnational nomination"
• "Two islands, both volcanic, are in Norway". This is wrong, as the text below makes clear. Bouvet Island is a Norwegian possession in the south Atlantic.
• "The Hyllestad quarries produced quern-stones and mill-stones" I cannot see any reference to mill-stones in the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quernstone (unhyphenated) is commonly a synomym for milltone, as in [9] and your ref seems to be using it in that sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I remove one or put it in the parenthesis? --Tone 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest "quernstones (millstones)". Both are unhyphenated in the three dictionaries I have checked. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, probably that's the best option. --Tone 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Excellent comments, as always. Thank you! I think I fixed them, I added an extra reference for the last point and rewrote the rest. --Tone 09:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews

• Images are free and correctly licensed
• Life in Norway is a group blog—non-RS
• Per Storemyr is also a blog, but probably passes WP:SPS
• Other sources OK. Source checks passed. buidhe 05:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove Life in Norway. That ref was added in order not to have only the UNESCO references. --Tone 16:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have one FLC active however, it currently has three supports and no outstanding comments so I believe it's OK to move ahead nominate a new page. This is another international player list, this time a slightly longer one given the history of the nation. I believe it meets the standards of the previous lists and is ready for FLC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The team is governed [....] and compete" - singular/plural disagreement
• "Austria have played 777 international matches since its debut" - and again
• "including three hat-tricks and six braces" - "brace" is not wikilinked, and I suspect many people would not know what it means
• "his final international goal but, Horvath went on to score two more goals" - I think the comma should be before "but", not after
• "If the number of caps are equal" - the subject of the sentence is "number", which is a singular noun, so plural verb is inappropriate
• Note a (at least on my screen) has a line break in it. Can't see any need for this.
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review Chris, I've amended all of the issues above I believe. Although, I can't see a line break on either my mobile or laptop? Do you know what's causing it? Kosack (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the issue with the note. I would still like to see "brace" (in paragraph 2) either wikilinked to somewhere or else clarified in prose, as I don't think every reader will necessarily know what it means..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, thought I'd added that in for some reason. Linked it now. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Of these Austria have won 40..." Add a comma after "these".
• The key table needs col and row scopes.
• Is the "Notes" column necessary when there are no notes for any player?
• Apply title case to the titles in references 3 and 18 to match the others.
• All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: Thanks very much for the review, I've addressed all of the issues above. I've added some notes about dual-representation to make the notes column worthwhile as well. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – List: The heading of the section is self-explanatory, as it is obviously a list. Something like Players or Footballers would be better. - Done What makes eu-football.info (ref 20) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Although I'm unsure of the actual publisher of the site, it is widely used across football articles and is included in WP:FOOTBALL's list of recommended links. The site also lists a substantial sourcing section including archives of the periodicals used. Kosack (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] I'm still not sure about this site, as not knowing who publishes it doesn't fill me with confidence. I'll leave it unstruck for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Kosack:, I am happy to help find an alternative source, if I can be of any use. What is the eu-football link sourcing that the other two refs at the top of the table aren't? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Chris, it's not actually supporting anything on its own. The rsssf list covers the table while Soccerway updates more regularly than rsssf does so to cover more recent fixtures. The eu-football was really just adding further backbone so it's not the end of the world if it needs to come out. Kosack (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Kosack: Since this is the oldest current FLC, the site still doesn't strike me as overly reliable, and it really isn't needed for anything, would you be amenable to removing it? I'd like to conclude this review ASAP, as this has been at FLC since August and the source looks like the last outstanding issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008: Sure, I've removed the source. Kosack (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• of all-time this phrase is superfluous everywhere it appears. Also, why is it hyphenated when it's not used as an adjective? - Removed
• Austria has played 777 international matches since its debut. The use of "since" implies this tally does not include the team's debut match, when in fact it does. Reword to "Austria has played a total of 777 international matches" or similar. Also, the tally has changed over the course of this nomination so you may wish to update it.

• Reworded, I'm preparing to update the list over the coming weeks along with the other promoted ones. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated now. Kosack (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• forced to wait nearly two years What does "forced" mean here? Was someone or something actively preventing Blum from participating in internationals? If not, reword. - Reworded
• unbroken consecutive spell "unbroken" is a synonym for consecutive, use only one or the other. - Removed
• most goals scored in a single match by one player in the nation's history -> "most goals scored in a single match by an Austrian player". - Reworded
• In the table: "National team career" -> "National career". - Done
• Instead of a separate notes column, put the three footnotes next to the players' appearance tallies.

• Unless there's a policy based reason, I'd rather keep this if possible to remain inline with previous list promotions. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely there's space for a few more images beside the list? - Added
• No authors for refs 1 or 13. - Added

Might add some more comments later, this is just from a brief examination. – Teratix ₵ 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed all of the comments above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPJ-DK

First of, I am part of the 2020 WikiCup and will be getting points for this as long as it is a comprehensive review. I also have my own FL candidate I just posted yesterday and as such is helping pay back for the input of other FLC reviwers. Looking at the age of the nomination I sympathize as I've had several die on the vine over the years. Let's hope this doesn't happen here.

Players

• composed of FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Championship and - to me there seems to be a word missing or something? is it FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Championship matches?

• Should have been plural for Championships, amended. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Key

• The link for the first entry goes to ""Austria national football team#Current squad", but the note mentions "eligable to be called up" - that seems to be two different criteria?

• The link is for being active, which links to the national side. The note is not really a criteria it just describes that, due to the fact that the majority of international players will never officially announce their retirement, any active player is still considered active unless sourcing can be provided to show he is retired. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List

• Since the first column does not sort there is no way to "reset" the list except to refresh the article. Is there a specific reason why the first column isn't sortable?

• The table is ordered by number of caps, so the position and caps column are listing the same value. Therefore it makes it rather unnecessary for them both to sort. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources cited for the table were checked in August 2019. So in other words the table is sourced up until August 2019 - Has the Austrian national team not played any matches since? and the article does not mention this date? shouldn't it?

• The table has been updated now. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes - is it really that important that 3 of the 128 players also played for a different country? Enough to give it its own column?

• Well it's rather unusual and is simply to denote the shared allegiance. As I mentioned to the user above, the column is not there just because of that, it is a design that has gone across several FL listed international player lists which I would rather keep to maintain consistency in these lists. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:FC Salzburg gegen Real Sociedad San Sebastian (22. Februar 2018, EL Sechzehntelfinale) 05.jpg - listed as own work, Google image search only gets wiki-like results. Appropriate for the article
• File:Polster Toni-7361-fmp (18560369719).jpg - Flickr free to use, appropriate for the article
• File:Gerhard Hanappi 1953.jpg - donated by the Dutch National Arhives, appropriate for the article
• File:20180610 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Brazil Marko Arnautović 850 1633.jpg - Copyright notices from the Wikimedia Austria, appropriate for the article
• File:Sterspeler Hans Krankl, Bestanddeelnr 931-7809.jpg - donated by the Dutch National Arhives, appropriate for the article

Sources

• The Rec.Sport.Soccer - 17 out of 23 sources are from this source. - on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links list, I'll take that in good faith since the project has determined this to be reliable
• Soccerway - on the WP:Football list, as above I am AGF that this is reliable
• eu-football.info - on the WP:Football list, as above I am AGF that this is reliable
• 11v11.com - this is not on the WP:Football list as far as I can tell, what makes it reliable?

• The website is the official online presence of the Association of Football Statisticians. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• National Football Teams - on the WP:Football list, as above I am AGF that this is reliable

I will come back and look at the prose as soon as possible, but I wanted to give my input for this right away. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've addressed all of the comments above. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through your replies, I'm good with the changes or explanations.

• Additional comments

"A friendly" - is that the common term? and is it a bit WP:JARGONy?

• The term is definitely a common term, uncompetitive international matches are always referred to as friendlies. Kosack (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...an unbroken spell of fixtures between November 1948 and May 1956 - if that means consecutive then why not simply write that? I had to read it three times to get it (granted I am slow ;) ) - Reworded

Statistics updated following match played on 19 November 2019. - but the accessdate for the sources state "25 August 2019", if the table was udated based on the data in the sources I believe the "Accessdate" should be updated to make sure it's clear. - Updated

• That is really it, and on the face of it these are just minor concerns. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @MPJ-DK: I've addressed the three points above. Kosack (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support, all my concerns hav3 been adddressed. Good luck, hope this gets the proper attention to pass. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Baxter was an American actress who had extensive film, television, and stage career over five decades. This list discusses her career. She received the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for The Razor's Edge (1946) for portraying a bereaved woman who suffers from alcoholism. Perhaps her best known roles are as an ambitious understudy in Joseph L. Mankiewicz's All About Eve (1950) and an Egyptian princess in DeMille's The Ten Commandments (1956). As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "she also appeared in Fritz Lang-directed film noir" => "she also appeared in the Fritz Lang-directed film noir"
• "as Egyptian princess Nefretiri in Cecil B. DeMille-directed" => "as Egyptian princess Nefretiri in the Cecil B. DeMille-directed"
• My only other comment is that it doesn't say which episodes of Batman she was in - is this information not available? Theoretically it could currently be interpreted that she was in all of them......
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. Hopefully the above is resolved now, have amended lead and added in episode titles.Cowlibob (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• "in film, television and on the stage." I think just "on stage" would be better (so there's not just one stage)
• "at the age of 13 on the stage in the Broadway play" same here
• "Two years later Baxter" → "Two years later, Baxter"
• Why no note for the Hotel TV series?

Rest looks good. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 04:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Thanks for your review. I think I've made amendments for the above. Cowlibob (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. Care to check out my current FLC? – zmbro _(talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I'll see if I can find some time later this week, it's a large list so may take me some time. Cowlibob (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lady Lotus

• In the tables, it should be Year then Title per WP:FILMOGRAPHY
• I'm not a fan of Networks being in television tables because they change or become outdated or don't apply to how people watch them, just seems excessive - WP:INDISCRIMINATE
• Same for the Directors column - for a single actors filmography, I just find the inclusion of Directors too much. If we include them, why not include the producers and writers and costars, etc. I have a whole conversation on this going on, trying to have something added to MoS to exclude that type of thing to actors filmography
• I would maybe suggest moving the Stage table below Film and Television? Seems like she's known more for her roles in films than theater
• "a ruthlessly ambitious understudy" - seems a bit peacockish. I would just remove "ruthlessly".
• I would remove the image restraints (ex: 200px) and add "upright=1" to all the images; add "upright=1.35" to the main image so it's a bit bigger than the rest.
• The certain rows with 3+ references, I would maybe put a break in the middle so the reference column isn't so big. Batman, The Name of the Game and Marcus Welby

Rest is very well referenced and looks good :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Thanks for your review. I've think I've dealt with the above. I have removed both the director and network columns. On balance, director collaborations are probably better off dealt with in the lead than as a separate column. Cowlibob (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great job on this article! :) I would agree with having directors in the lead, the ones that would be worth mentioning would work better there than everyone in a column. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. My only question would be whether a link was intended to be included in ref 120, but the source is verifiable without one so I don't consider it any sort of disqualifier. The source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for your source review, I've removed that ref as it actually gave no more information than the one present. Cowlibob (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:05:30 12 January 2020 (UTC) [12].

---

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Evans is an American actor best known for his role as Steve Rogers/Captain America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series of films. I am nominating his filmography to be a featured list because I believe it has been developed to be of comparable quality to other actor filmographies that have also been promoted to featured status. Any feedback on how this list can be improved is welcome. Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lady Lotus

• Support - very nice :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest a small edit - changing the "prolific" in this sentence "His most prolific comic book movie role would be as Steve Rogers" to "most notable" or "most recognized"? I would also remove "critically-acclaimed performances" sounds a bit WP:PEACOCKish. I'm also not a fan of Networks being in the television table - for any page, not just this one. Networks change or become outdated or don't apply to how people watch them, just seems excessive. The page as a whole is well written with correct table styles, after those tweaks I would certainly support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lady Lotus: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tables need to be in Year then Title format per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Full support after that LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lady Lotus: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• • The only thing I have picked up on the lead is that you seem to use "would" an awful lot, and I'm not sure it's actually necessary in most cases. For example, rather than saying "While comic book films would form the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s", why not just say "While comic book films formed the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s"?
  • The key shows colour and a symbol for upcoming projects, but then you haven't actually put the symbol against them :-)
  • If the tables are to be sortable then anything starting with "The" needs to sort under the next word
  • Images need Alt Text
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Very minor but in the last two tables, "Ref." is not abbreviated (meaning Ref.) while every other table has that
• Along with the previous comment, last table's ref col is not centered while the rest are
• The first table has "Ref." but some have more than one while the second table is labeled "Ref(s)" but every entry only has one. Think these should be revered
• I went ahead and archived most refs for you (so they never die).

Very good list. I'll be happy to support once these are taken care of. – zmbro _(talk) 17:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Zmbro: Edits have been made. And thank you for archiving the sources. Morgan695 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – No problem! There's still a few that aren't archived so you may have to do those manually since the bot didn't take care of those. All good for me now. Happy to support. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments by Cowlibob From a quick first runthrough Images have the appropriate licensing for use in the article. However I think three pictures next to the main table is too much. His appearance hasn't changed, there is no use in having three when one of the pictures would be enough. Resolved He may have described his early films as terrible but how were they received by third parties, were they all commercial and critical failures? It's useful to the reader to know his journey in films. (e.g. Did he have a serious of failures then a success?) Resolved "His most recognized comic book movie role would be as" this is strange wording as his acting career is very much active. I would probably going with something around him debuting as Captain America in First Avenger and then reprising the role in 11 films and a video game and that it was role that made him famous (obviously with a NPOV wording of this). Resolved: Word choice was originally "prolific"; I changed it at the suggestion of a previous reviewer but it still seems kind of puffed up, though I don't think anyone would dispute that it is his most recognized role. I think "prolific" works best, as it communicates that he has played the role a large number of times. What was his breakthrough role? Is there any role the critics particularly praised? Was there any role that was a big commercial success? Resolved Added a note about Fantastic Four being his breakthrough role. Third paragraph references his critically praised performances. "Evans' post-Marvel Cinematic Universe credits" this won't make any sense to anyone who hasn't followed the franchise closely Resolved I would avoid mentioning future projects in the lead Resolved I wouldn't include advertisements in an actor's filmography. All actors do some form of advertising, it's not really a "role", just like we don't include their appearances on chatshows. I think it adds interesting context to the list, since they are "performances" which are covered by the scope of the article. I would repeat the key in the television section as well. Resolved For his debut role, where in the ref does it say that his character was "Rick" Resolved For his role in Perfect Assassin, where in the ref does it show that it was a direct-video film or that he played "Young Ben Carroway" Resolved Those were just the first two roles, please could you check that for each entry in the filmography that all the information is verifiable eg. that he appeared in the film, role played, anything in the notes field etc. Resolved Cowlibob (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thanks for your comments. I have limited computer access for the next little bit, but I'll work at incorporating your feedback. Morgan695 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for making the changes. Further comments Single reviews can't be used as a reference for a film's reception as it's a POV issue. For example, contrarian film reviewers like Armond White could be used for most otherwise critically acclaimed films (Little Women, Parasite) to falsely dub them as being poorly received when they clearly weren't. Are there any references which make a summary of the reception that a film got? Advertisements are not counted in filmographies. All actors do advertisements and appear on chatshows, they are not "roles" as such. I'll try to do a source review and ref check on the weekend. Cowlibob (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob: Removed points about reviews in first graf to avoid POV issues and advertisement section. Morgan695 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for making the amendments so far. Further comments below. Film debut sentence should have inline ref to verify that statement Resolved. Also why was Fantastic Four his breakthrough performance? Was it his first commercial success, was his role critically acclaimed? It is unclear in the lead. Clarified that it was his highest-paid role at the time of the film's release, per source In the references section, the publisher / website should be wikilinked on the first occurrence. Resolved. Also in the references section, newspapers/magazines should use the Template:Cite news with the work= name of the newspaper/magazine Resolved. As an aside, there is no rush to promote an article to featured status, it is actually better that time is taken to make sure it improves in quality. So I would caution against pushing our co-ordinators to close it as you want it to be done quickly. Cowlibob (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Cowlibob Response to edits above.

Source review –

• What makes CelebMix (ref 39) a reliable source? The publisher itself seems shaky on reliability terms, and the article looks like a low-quality listicle.

Paper Boy is one I've really struggled with, as information on it seemingly does not exist anywhere on the internet. (Even the Chris Evans fan fourm bemoans as much.) The film clearly exists and Evans starred in it (per the American Illustration and Backstage sources), but I can't find any source confirming that his character was named "Ben" and that it came out in 2003, outside of IMDb. (Sources are also divided on whether it's Paper Boy or The Paper Boy, but the director and film poster refer to it as Paper Boy so that's how I've erred.) CelebMix is clearly a low-quality source, but was the only non-IMDb source I could find confirming this info. Do you have any suggestions/ideas for a remedy?

If you can't reliably source the name, I'd just remove it and put a dash in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:User:Giants2008 Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 63 (the Donatelli book) is classified as juvenile nonfiction, so I don't think it's that strong of a source. Other than these couple of references, the source reliability looks okay.

Replaced with higher quality sources.

• One formatting issue is worth noting: all caps in the title of ref 18 need fixing.

Resolved.

• I'm having trouble accessing the link-checker tool, but most of the references appear to be archived so I'm not overly concerned. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With the last point now done, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has received a source review from Lady Lotus, and is in good shape now. Pinging Giants2008, PresN and The Rambling Man to see if they have any additional comments, or if they believe the list is now in good enough shape to close out and promote. Morgan695 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:02:47 12 January 2020 (UTC) [13].

---

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 20 times by 16 female cricketers. Following on from List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket, I believe that this will be a great addition the cricket featured lists on the women's game. I await your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the two teams play a single innings, each of which is restricted...." - I know what this is meant to mean, but it doesn't make grammatical sense. I would suggest "each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted...."

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Twenty20 format was originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board for the men's county cricket competition with...." - add a comma before "with"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dottin's innings set the record for the fastest WT20I century" - well obviously it set a record as the fastest, if it was the first ever. Do you mean that it is still the fastest?

• It is still the fastest, reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and is most aggressive" => "and is the most aggressive"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a strike rate with 248.88" => "with a strike rate of 248.88"

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Batting at number six, this was also one of two occasions...." - bit of a grammatical mess here, as the occasion didn't bat at number six. I suggest "Dottin batted at number six, and this was one of two occasions"

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "by player batting at number five or lower" => "by a player batting at number five or lower"

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with two each centuries each" - don't need "each" in there twice

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "when she reached 124 not" => "when she reached 124 not out"

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "While at the age of 16 years and 233 days" => "At the age of 16 years and 233 days"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Posting a total of 148 not out, this is highest individual score in a WT20I match" => "Healy's final total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match including Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka" - until you get to the next sentence, the singling out of Atapattu here seems very random. I would suggest changing this sentence to simply "There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match." and then having the next one as "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures in the second innings of the first match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, her team lost the match"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This match was also one of three occasions where two T20I centuries were scored in the same match" - WT20I, surely?

• Yes it is. Typo fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players from 789 WT20I matches"W => "20 centuries have been scored by 16 different players in 789 WT20I matches"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Centuries have scored at 13 different grounds" => "Centuries have been scored at 13 different grounds"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 and 3 in that last sentence should be written as words

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me. Can't see any issues with the table or refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ChrisTheDude for your review. I have addressed each of your comments above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• a score of one hundred or more runs by a batsman I'm not too familiar with the terminology of women's cricket, but given the subject of the article, isn't it appropriate to use "batter" or "batswoman" throughout?

• As per the Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code released by the MCC in April 2017, "The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like "fielder" and "bowler" and uses "he/she" when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term "batsman" remains, however." So, it seems that those who were consulted on the updated Laws were happy for term to apply to the fairer sex, so that is the term that we shall use. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) is an international cricket match between two teams, each having WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). In a women's Twenty20 match, each of the two teams plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. Switch the order of these sentences, so the format is explained first, and shorten: "In a women's Twenty20 match, each team plays a single innings, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. A women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) match is played between teams with WT20I status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). " Also put the A and B footnotes here.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• an international cricket match between two teams ... each of the two teams plays a single innings ... New Zealand defeated England by nine runs "cricket", "innings" and "runs" have already been linked in the first sentence.

• Unlinked – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies who scored reword to avoid "scored" twice in close succession

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dottin, Danielle Wyatt of England and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney all lead the list with two centuries each the sentences before are talking about WT20I centuries scored by players batting at number five or lower, so it's not immediately clear what "the list" refers to here.

• Reworded and moved to the end of the paragraph – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The oldest player to score a WT20I century is New Zealand's Suzie Bates who was aged 30 years and 277 days I would put a comma after "Bates", just to break up the sentence a bit.

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• during the Tri-Nation Series with England this sentence is already long; is "with England" really necessary?

• Shortened sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• North Sydney Oval in Sydney in October 2019 cut "in Sydney", as the venue name makes that clear.

• Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Healy's final total "total" implies "final"

• Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings of the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019, Sri Lanka lost the match This sentence takes a very long time to come to its key point. Change to "Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, Sri Lanka lost the opening match of the WT20I series against Australia in September 2019".

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• a team was defeated with player scoring a century change to "a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century."

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 of the 54 teams that hold women's Twenty20 International status any reason why the abbreviation is dropped here?

• Only so that the abbreviation is not used twice in the same sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and that have played a WT20I match cut "that"

• Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alyssa Healy holds the record for the highest innings score shorten to "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score", as "highest" already implies "record".

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the key, the meanings of "player", "team", "opposition", "venue" and "date" are so obvious they can be deleted altogether

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table, use "Inn." to signify the term has been abbreviated.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ref" -> Ref. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• full women's Twenty20 International status to all its members as 1 July 2018 "on July 2018" maybe?

• Agree, reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No player of the match was awarded "named" sounds a bit more natural

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise it's excellent. A comprehensive, well-researched list. Well done. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Teratix, I have addressed each of your comments inline above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ianblair23, I support this nomination. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Two tiny issues I just noticed: per MOS:IMGSIZE, specifying image widths in px is deprecated, use the "upright" parameter instead; and there's several line breaks underneath the key for no apparent reason (looks especially ugly on mobile). – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just like to note I disagree with Dey subrata's three unresolved suggestions. They will make the lead excessively lengthy and will cause the introduction to dedicate too much time to comparatively insignificant details. The reader can find the information themselves in the table. – Teratix ₵ 14:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Teratix, I agree and have responded to Dey subrata's comments below. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Responding to Dey subrata) The purpose of the lead is to introduce the topic of the list to the uninitiated reader and note significant aspects of the list, that are not adequately covered in the table, in prose. Records are certainly a key aspect, but it’s possible to be indiscriminate and include excessive and trivial records, which I think is the case with the proposed changes. Additionally, the edits included grammatical errors (e.g. “two centuries scored by players of same team”).

I’ll disengage from the FLC for a week, until I’m back on a desktop. – Teratix ₵ 11:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Necessity of paid subscription citation? Better remove refs. 41 and 46 already 40 and 45 showing the stats.

• This was to show that no player of the match was recorded in either ESPNcricinfo or Cricket Archive. But I happy to remove it. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeated links of ground and places, link once, like that of Manuka Oval, Canberra or County Ground Taunton per MOS:LINK.

• As per MOS:REPEATLINK, links can be repeated in tables which I have done here. Every link only appears one in the body of the article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It says, "...may be repeated..". Here I don't see any requirement of linking in consecutive rows, like "Manuka Oval, Canberra" in 5 & 6, "County Ground, Taunton" in 8 & 9, "Rwanda Cricket Stadium" consecutively in four rows 12,13,14,15, same with "North Sydney Oval, Sydney" and "Pokhra Stadium" consecutively twice. Better to avoid such. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In this instance, as the table is sortable I have chosen to link every venue. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been three instances where a player has scored a century in the second innings of a WT20I match. You must include the other two centuries here and seeing the importance of Danielle Wyatt's centuries and both the centuries were scored in second innings and a record itself. Include it before (Despite Chamari Atapattu of Sri Lanka reaching triple figures during the second innings, .....)
• Include Beth Mooney century, which is the only and first instance to lost match after a player scoring a century. Include after (– one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century.)
• (This match was also one of three occasions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match.) After including above information, this line become insignificant and will be included in the last line, before that include (This is the first (the line is about Beth mooney's century) out of three occassions where two WT20I centuries were scored in the same match. The second instance was when Prosscovia Alako and Rita Musamali of Uganda scored centuries against Mali, which is also the only instance where two centuries scored by players of same team in a match. The third instance was on 29 September 2019 when Beth Mooney scored her second century in the first innings and Chamari Atapattu scored her century in the second innings.)

That is the full picture of the records that should be in the lead. You can modify with better wordings. These are the concerns which need to be fixed. I will be happy to support once the issues fixed. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last three points remain unresolved. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Dey subrata, I have included the fact that both of Wyatt's centuries were scored in the second innings. However, as there has been now been a fourth instance of two centuries being scored in a WT20I match, I believe that the lead now strikes a good a balance. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23 I think it was quite confusing for you to maintain what I have said in these three points and along with that new centuries in a recent match was scored, thus there were changes in records, that why I have included the lines myself accordingly. Check my recent edit and if you want to improve wording you can do, but I feel this should be the scenerio of the records. Please check, if need correction in wording, do it and inform me. Dey subrata (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a previous reviewer making points when he already given his conclusion and reverting my edits before you could even go through what I've added or not and before you could even make a point. Listen dear editor, this is a record page and every record is a record. And those record gives you a clear picture about if any player scoring century in any innings winning or loosing match or if two players scoring from same side or not, as a reader and record keeper I would like to know. That does not make any disbalance in the article, rather it gives a clear picture. And by saying the table give all those information in my last three points, if we go by that logic there is no need of lead at all, as the table already giving you all information the lead is discusing. I would ask you to include those facts which must be described in the lead and the table follows the lead not the otherwise. I hope you address it. Dey subrata (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96

• Perhaps mention that the ICC is cricket's world governing body for those who are not as well acquainted with cricket?

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Australia's Meg Lanning and Beth Mooney" - the 's of the word Australia's in this text should not be part of the first wikilink

• Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dottin's innings is the fastest WT20I century, reaching the milestone from 38 deliveries[12] and is the" - a comma is needed before the references in this section of text

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Healy's total of 148 not out is the highest individual score in a WT20I match[22][23] and the" - same query as above

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of only two occurrences where a team was defeated despite a player scoring a century" - the word only is redundant here

• Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The third footnote in the notes section will need to be referenced so that the information within it can be verified

• This information is referenced at the end of each entry in the table. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I found in the prose. The table itself has no issues. MWright96 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWright96, thanks very much for the review. I have addressed each of your points above – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Have no further issues to raise. MWright96 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry "The first century in a WT20I match was scored by Deandra Dottin of the West Indies, posting 112 not out against South Africa in the opening match of the 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 at Warner Park in Basseterre." Consider splitting the sentence as the construction looks a bit clumsy. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] "The other was Harmanpreet Kaur of India posting 103 against New Zealand during the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 coming in at number five." – Again, the sentence reads a bit odd here. Maybe something like "The other was when Harmanpreet Kaur of India posted 103 ..." might work. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] 'aggressive' and 'triple figures' don't sound encyclopaedic. Reword – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] "Alyssa Healy posted the highest innings score ... " –> Alyssa Healy posted the highest individual score ... Reword – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] twice –> two times Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] —Vensatry (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hi Vensatry, many thanks for your review. I have addressed your comments inline above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: I've made a few minor changes to the lead; feel free to disregard those if you disagree. This looks mostly good and I'm happy to support the nomination. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for tweaks Vensatry. Much appreciated. – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are all reliable. One formatting issue exists: refs 48 and 49 are the same and can be combined. The link-checker shows no issues, but I did see one verifiability issue in spot-checks of refs 35, 38, and 48: ref 38 doesn't mention Suzie Bates' player of the match award, unless I'm missing it (that's happened before with me trying to review cricket scorecards). The other references I reviewed did verify similar awards, so I don't know why this one doesn't, but another reference should be found to add to the existing one. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Giants, thanks so much for your review. I have combined refs 48 and 49, and I have added a ref to Cricket Archive showing that Bates received the player of the match award for the 20 June 2018 match. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With those fixes, the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Giants – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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