Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2016

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this article for featured list because the first nomination failed more so due to lack of eyes and editors voicing their support of it, then it not actually failing to meet FL requirements. Still, since the first nomination, the page has expanded some and is still a worthy addition to be named a featured list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great job, Favre1fan93 LavaBaron (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments were resolved and now giving my support. Consider optionally reviewing a nomination of mine if you're not too busy. Best – jona ✉ 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Lets see if we can keep this from being archived again.

• "and the crossover miniseries Marvel's The Defenders in 2017, and Marvel's The Punisher." - The Punisher when? 2017?
  • Fixed.
• "By September 2013, Marvel was developing a series [...] and in January 2014, was confirmed to be in development" - Marvel was confirmed?
  • Fixed.
• I'm not comfortable with the Characters key linking out to Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series/FAQ. That information should be in this header box
  • I personally felt as it was was okay, but I have moved the necessary info to the box, while still keeping the FAQ link, since that discuss it more in depth.
• That's... it, actually. I find the format of the series descriptions sections a little awkward, but I can't think of a better way to split in-universe and out-of-universe descriptions without a ton of micro-sections.

• Now Support. --PresN 19:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting: Thank you for archiving everything! Though ref 2 is broken- missing a c in archiveurl.
  • Fixed.
• Spotchecks: ref 125 has a "[better source needed]" tag on it. Don't know why, though, it's Marvel.com. Checked refs 24, 41, 88, 134; all clean
  • The reason this has the "better source needed" tag is because it is announcing the cast members who were appearing at Marvel's SDCC panel to discuss the upcoming season, but that does not necessarily mean that they are in the season. (It's a bit WP:SYNTH-y, because someone on the panel may not actually end up appearing in the season.) Yes, all of these actors are indeed appearing in the upcoming season, but it would be better for referencing to use a source like ref 8 that gives the fourth season synopsis and actors in the season. That source should be releasing within the month. I'm fine, if you're fine, doing two things: leaving as is, or removing these actors until that source I described is released.

• That makes sense. I'm fine with leaving it; I can see by the history that this list is actively updated. --PresN 19:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Completeness: Not seeing anything missing.

Couple tiny things to fix before passing the sr. --PresN 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks so much. I've responded above to each point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review Passed --PresN 19:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): SennKev (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the discography of American singer Selena Gomez. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and I believe the article is well-referenced and well-written.

I would support this article if the lead was in fact "well-referenced", which it's not. It has a mere three references for four entire bodies, and has quite errors.

• You need an extra space in between "Come & Get It" and "which reached the top 10..." in the lead's third paragraph
  •  Done
• Certifications (Gold, Silver, etc.) should not be capitalized when mentioned in the lead, so "certified Gold by the RIAA." --> "certified gold by the RIAA." in each instance this appears.
  •  Done
• I am confused as to why the first two paragraphs of the lead discuss her work with The Scene, yet there is no mention of it in the article. And since it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, I don't see the need for the first two paragraphs.
  •  Done

If you cite sources for each statement in the lead without one, I might change my mind, but for now, I do not support this FLC. Carbrera (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Is it okay now ? Thanks for your review. --SennKev (talk) 9:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Support, everything checks out with me now. Carbrera (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I now support the article. If you're not too busy, it would be appreciated if you left a review on my FLC Thanks – jona ✉ 23:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article meets the FL criteria, and happy to support it. Mymis (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Thanks for your support! --SennKev (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no more glaring issues and can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your support! --SennKev (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting: Any title that uses ALLCAPS for wording should be corrected to title case (e.g. ref 7 SELENA GOMEZ -> Selena Gomez). Ref 1: E! should be linked.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 7, 21, 38, 71 - all clean
• Completeness: nothing obviously missing.

Two small issues to fix before passing. --PresN 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review ! @PresN: I think it's great now. --SennKev (talk) 9:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, promoting. --PresN 00:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint nom, Cowlibob did the hard bits, I tweaked around the edges. A comprehensive list of the victories of one the greatest F1 drivers of all time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • As the European Grand Prix moves, it could be helpful in the lead to say the course of the 1997 controversy.
  • The 2000 Canadian entry says "Canadian Grand Prix", the others say simply "Canadian"
  • It might be nice to have other tables underneath for his number of wins by each season and event, but I won't mark you down if you consider that to be too crufty.
    • I'm leaning support, I'll hear your comments. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello tAD, I've addressed the first two comments, I'm not overly keen on bunches and bunches of summary tables that are simply synthesised from the main table. Cowlibob may feel differently, we'll see. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if the additional tables are not included. Support '''tAD''' (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "in a season in which he won eight races." don't think the first in is necessary here
• "His victory was controversial as when leading the championship he had been involved in a collision with fellow championship contender Damon Hill at the final race in Adelaide which resulted in both drivers retiring their cars." This is a very long sentence with no punctuation, I think a comma is needed after controversial and after Adelaide.
• "He won his second the following year..." Need to be explicit here, readers could interpret this wrong. Be clear it was his second championship.
• A lot of the sentences start with "In..." I would try and change this up a little to improve readability.
• " in a season in which he won nine races. no need for the first in
• "...with a consecutive four more championships." Not the best prose I would change to He followed this with fou consecutive championships from 2001 to 2004.
• "Schumacher broke Alain Prost's record for the most Grand Prix wins." Maybe state the number of victories that Prost had to give some context to the reader.
• "His 2002 season in which he was on the podium in every race included eleven race victories which broke the record for most in a single season." Another sentence that could do with some punctuation. After 2002 season and every race there should be commas, the last part of the sentence doesn't read too well. I would try and change it up a little.
• ref 63 seems to be a publication, Atlas F1 and should include this in the ref, with the volume numbers etc.

NapHit (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thanks for the input. Have made edits to the article, hopefully looks better now. Let me know what else you'd suggest. Cowlibob (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the lead and am happy to support the nomination. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Now that the comments have been addressed, I'm confident that this lists meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: No problems
• Spotchecks: Checked refs 8, 14, 46, 107 - all clean
• Completeness: no problems noted

Source review passed, no outstanding opposes, closing as promoted. --PresN 14:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor is the most prestigious award given in the Malayalam film industry of the South Indian state of Kerala in India. The award is part of the annual Kerala State Film Award instituted by the Government of Kerala since 1969. This is my second nomination for the same. Unfortunately, the previous one was failed without considerable attention or reviews. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Having carefully examined the article, I can say that it has my support and hope it passes the FLC this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash. Thanks for the comment and support. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall a great read, though there are way too many instances with the word "award"; I even misread some words in the lead because of that. – jona ✉ 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992: Reworded some of it. Is it okay now ? --Charles Turing (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now flows and reads better and I support its nomination. If you're not too busy, I have a FLC of my own that could use some comments; though you don't have to comment at all if you wish not to. Best – jona ✉ 20:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish to, but I am totally unfit for a review. Good luck on your FL. --Charles Turing (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• In ref #5: Press Trust of India is an agency, not author.
  • Date needed for the same. —Vensatry _(talk) 13:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is still left. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Date added. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotchecks done for refs #9, #10, #12 and #13. For the year 1985, Chidambaram is not included in the source. Rest is fine.
• No evidence of copyvio.
  

—Vensatry _(talk) 12:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Ref #5 corrected. Chidambaram is there (3rd paragraph, 5th line). Thanks.--Charles Turing (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Much improved since the previous nomination. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Damon is one of Hollywood's most prolific stars. In a career spanning over 25 years, he has acted in some (and written one) of the most influential films of recent time. His work in bringing up new talent through his Project Greenlight initiative is also praiseworthy. As usual, I look forward to lots of constructive comments. Happy Damon-ing! Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have another open FLC at the moment, but that has 3 supports and no outstanding comments. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great job, Krimuk90 LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LavaBaron. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yash. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No major issues, but I've got nitpicks:

• I don't think "the director" is really needed for Coppola or Scorsese
• It's probably worth noting in the lead that he was the title character in Good Will Hunting as it's one of his most famous roles
• "the Steven Soderbergh-directed Ocean's Trilogy"..... I'd go with "Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's Trilogy" or "the Ocean's Trilogy"
• "but the film polarized critics"..... "but" in this instance suggests you're contrasting the reception to something else, though all that comes before it in that sentence is Damon's involvement
• No need for "the actor" right before DiCaprio
• "was a disappointment" is both vague and POV
• "biggest stars"..... better to say "top-earning" or "highest grossing"

"Top-earning" would be in reference to Damon's salary, and "highest-grossing" would be in reference to how much a film earns. I guess "biggest stars" is appropriate in this context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if Daily Express is a good source to use

It just provides a cite to an uncredited appearance in a film. It's okay to use this reference in this context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Post and TV.com most definitely aren't recommended, especially with the latter being full of user-generated content

Should be good to go before long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Thank you for taking the time out to review this. All your points have been addressed. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. However, "failure" is still a vague description for Promised Land; you need to state whether this was critically, commercially, or both. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it received mixed reviews and was a box office flop, but I don't want to sound too monotonous, so I've tried something else. Is that better? Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I can now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Snuggums. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

• The statement in the last paragraph in the lead is misleading, there are countless "biggest stars" in Hollywood. You wrote that box receipts accounted for $2.9 billion in North America, which would indicate that he ranks as one of the most commercially successful or prolific actor in Hollywood, I feel as "biggest stars" is a term used so often in media reports.

Tweaked. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why you omitted the budget and gross figures in the table? Since this is a filmography, I would expect numbers to be one of the major components for such an article. – jona ✉ 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office recipts are not compulsory fields in an actor's filmography table. Most FL-quality lists don't mention them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, AJona1992. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• "I Do Do (2)" -> "I Do Do", it's a single episode, there are no parts
• "2001–05, 2015" -> Shouldn't it be "2001–05, 2015–present"? Cannot see any sources provided saying that it was cancelled or it was revived for one season only
• "The Chicago Tribune" -> "Chicago Tribune"
• Roger Ebert has an article, so should be linked
• I would italicize The A.V. Club as it's more like a newspaper rather than a database etc

Just some minor comments/suggestion; overall, very good job. Mymis (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Mymis. Sorry about the delay. Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the issues have been solved, you have my support, great work! Mymis (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

all reliable, formatting is good and spotchecks showed the information was correctly supported and no copyvios. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krimuk90 is on leave at the moment (according to a note on his talk page), but if he clears up Mymis's comments on his return, I'll be able to promote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After my failed attempt at making this FLC, I took Mattximus and Bencherlite's advice and added as much pictures I could find for the artists who have received the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. I also took Bencherlite's advice by adding the births and deaths of the artists and their occupations that are listed on the Latin Grammy website (however they do not show the occupations for the 2014 and 2015 recipients). Another Believer has been a great help and provided useful feedback. I am basing this list on the Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year which was made FL by Another Believer and Jaespinoza. I appreciate any feedback! Erick (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by FrB.TG

• "José José and Roberto Carlos were later honored" - I don't think you need to use full names, especially when their full names are in the preceding sentence.
• "Mexican singer-songwriter Armando Manzanero and American singer Linda Ronstadt..." - add respectively to the end of this sentence.
• I think para#3 should be para#2.
• Consider using {{Abbr}} for Ref in the table.
• Why are occupations from Willy Chirino to the end are empty?
• "The artists's occupation(s) are listed" → The artists'
• Ref 7 - BBC News (BBC) → BBC News, per {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}: "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work".
• Ref 8- who is the publisher of The Portugal News?
• Ref 9 - who is the publisher of Variety?
• Ref 17 - ditto.

Consider optionally reviewing a nomination of mine if you like the review. FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FrB.TG: and thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed everything you brought up aside from finding the publisher for the Portugal News, which appears to be a self-published newspaper judging by its website. Erick (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

Best – jona ✉ 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resvoling those issues, I can now support this article. Best – jona ✉ 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very comprehensive and detailed list. Issues from previous attempted FLC have been addressed as well as those expressed above. Great Job! DivaKnockouts 03:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is India's highest sporting honour and its bestowed upon 28 recipients so far since its inception in 1991. Looking forward to some constructive comments.

Note: I am nominating the list to FLC again exactly after 10 years. The last nomination was concluded on 19 May 2006. . - Vivvt (Talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My concerns were addressed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Leaning towards Weak Support. Support. I will provide a partial c.e. in a couple of days to make sure I don't miss anything, but great work on the list! NumerounovedantTalk 14:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a minor suggestion, Controversies could go after the list. NumerounovedantTalk 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't really find anything wrong with the article. Good job! NumerounovedantTalk 18:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have offered some more edits to the article, and I do have one further concern-

• Why not mention the number of times when more than one athlete was awarded Khel Ratna in the lead? NumerounovedantTalk 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: I made the necessary changes. Please let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor tweak, and looks good now. NumerounovedantTalk 16:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Arjuna Awards be on the other side with an arrow pointing the opposite side in the infobox (considering the rank)? NumerounovedantTalk 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Thats the correct representation. The template has two parameters; preceded by and followed by. Arjuna Awards is ranked after Khel Ratna. So arrow and position is correctly placed. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. NumerounovedantTalk 06:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: I appreciate your comments. Thanks for your support. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the nomination. Great work. NumerounovedantTalk 07:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Which one is correct? "sportsperson" or "sports-person"? Both are inconsistently being used.
• Mention abbreviations in brackets of all those boards and authorities after their names. Then use those abbreviations. This should make some sentences easy to read. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - Vivvt (Talk) 13:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The recipient(s) is selected" - not correct; "is" => "is/are" as recipients is plural.

  • Done

• I see four instances of "honoured"; not a big deal but try replacing some.

  • Done

• "the award is tennis player Sania Mirza" - "the tennis player" since you are using BrEnglish.

  • Done

• "all government recognized" → "recognised"; also replace the other two.

  • Done

• "sportsperson who is either penalized" → "penalised"

  • Done

• "scrutinize the nominations" - I think you know what I mean.
  • Rephrased a bit. Let me know if you need further changes.

My concern was with "scrutinize" as it is in American English. Anyway, now that the word does not exist in the article, there shouldn't be any issue. FrB.TG (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The medals won in various International championships and events of the disciplines which includes" - use "include" since medals is plural.

  • Done

• Ref 2 - I would remove Press Trust of India (since publisher of publisher cannot be found elsewhere).
  • Done You are right. PTI only provided the photo but the complete content is by IE.
• Same goes for ref 30b, ref 33 (also NDTV Sports => NDTV), ref 35 (The Hindu), and ref 38.
  • Partially done Cleaned ref 33 and 35. For ref 30b and 38, PTI is mentioned as an agency which provided the content but the source link is by another publisher. Per second example provided at Template:Cite news, its okay to mention both at the same time.
• India Today needs italicization as it's a news channel (ref 36). FrB.TG (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done

@FrB.TG: I have addressed most of your comments. Let me know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support FrB.TG (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No problems seen (reliable sources only, formatting is good, spotchecks showed the information was correctly supported and no copyvios seen). - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In January 1649 59 judges signed the execution warrant of Charles I. Those judges, and several others, were the subject of punishment following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. This list (which has been upgraded from its previous parlous and sub-standard state) is now fully fully sourced and several previous errors removed. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Oppose "List of regicides of Charles I" suggests a list of monarchs killed by Charles I. If there's a reason why I'm misunderstanding this, though, or the article name is changed, I'll switch my !vote to "Support" (upon being pinged as I'm not likely to check back here). Aside from that, the list is quite nice. LavaBaron (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• LavaBaron, That would be "List of regicides committed by Charles I, I think, or even List of regicides by Charles I rather than of Chrles I. – SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changed. LavaBaron (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great: thanks very much. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few points, too minor to affect my support:

• Lead
  • I thought the numeral "3" looked a bit odd. A modern convention (not one I follow, but I'm 4,000 years old) is to write out the numbers between one and ten and use numerals for 11 onwards, and that would, perhaps, look smoother here.
• Background
  • "The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England ended with the victors consolidating the established Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland" – this reads as though the second part of the sentence was the consequence of the first, which I don't think you mean. I'm not sure you need the sentence at all for present purposes, though I daresay the Regicides were a glumly Proddy lot.
  • "Following the death of Oliver Cromwell" – as you don't mention Cromwell fils (a sensible omission here, I think) I doubt if you need repeat Oliver's forename here.
  • Dover – you might consider linking the name. It seems unnecessary to me, but the MoS guidance points that way.
• Treatment of the regicides
  • "according to Howard Nenner, writing for the Dictionary of National Biography" – strictly, the ODNB is a different publication from its predecessor the DNB, and I think you should include the "Oxford" in the title here.
  • Last para – I'm sure the difference in capitalisation between the English and Scottish acts in the first sentence is deliberate, but I just mention it.
  • "However most of the Scottish exceptions were pecuniary, only four men were executed" – comma splice. And if you feel you must start the sentence with "however" (which I'd blitz, personally) you need a comma after it.
• Tables
  • A few WP:OVERLINKs: the MoS bids us refrain from linking "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions", and I think that should be read as including Germany (row 39), Switzerland (row 48), Brussels and England (row 57), and the Netherlands (row 59).

This page reads very smoothly, but I can imagine the research that has gone into it. An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey. – Tim riley talk 10:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim. Your eagle eye is as welcome as always, and I've altered in line with all your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:Tim riley you write "An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey." How do you know that this is true? -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Tim riley talk 12:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are many inaccuracies in it, and the list is not stable as there is an ongoing dispute on the talk page. The innacuricies are difficult to fix because all the recent edits to improve the page have been reverted by SchroCat. The major problem is that if this page is given a "Featured list" status I suspect that SchroCat will be even more likely to resist change. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You really are not a very good editor, are you. There are not "many inaccuracies", and your tendentious and disruptive approach is disgusting, and the @FLC director and delegates: delegates will see your petty and vindictive oppose here as little more than it is: a shabby attempt at retaining OWNership of an article that you have kept in a parlous state for too long. I am getting close to dropping you into ANI for your utterly unconstructive approach and sub standard behaviour. – SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Please refrain from comments like "you really are not a very good editor"; I understand that the discussion may be frustrating, but it's not helpful.

What is wrong with having the opinion that someone is "not a very good editor"? And seeing as we are on the subject of being "helpful", it might be helpful if the person who wrote the comment above could actually sign it? Cassianto^Talk 21:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I suggest you have a look at the tendentious and obstructive balls he's been trying to put over on the talk page. This guy is supposed to be a bloody admin, FFS, and I've never come across such an unconstructive editor before. There is a consensus on the talk page that his approach has not been good, and that the one point he's tried to push (about changing citations) is not a point for discussion on this article, but more centrally. PBS is too arrogant to accept this, and wants to be as disruptive as he can on this. There have been massive signs of OWNership throughout the discussion, and it boils down to him being unhappy that the substandard article on which he has been sitting, has been changed. Take a look at the long and tedious talk page thread (and another in the archives) to get a grip of just why I have lost patience and refer to him as 'not very good'. To be honest, I'm being charitable with that description, given just how disgusting his behaviour has been. – SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Speaking as one of the delegates here, your oppose is likely to be discounted as you didn't actually give any examples of what the problems are. "Many inaccuracies" doesn't tell the other reviewers/the nominator/the closers what they are, so it doesn't come across as a valid review. From looking at the talk page, it seems like you don't like the citation style, some of the headings, and one of the images? Mainly the citations? If so, please state clearly what it is you don't like about them. Don't bother "fixing" the problems, just say what they are. --PresN 18:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's my understanding of PBS' objection to the article, yes. He's already been given feedback, by multiple editors, regarding the acceptability of the citation scheme used here, but has refused to drop the stick. I can't wear my delegate hat here, given my own involvement in the talk page discussion, but I do second PresN's view of PBS' comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Note -- PBS has an axe to grind and their oppose should not be counted. If I were to go through their contributions, I doubt I'd find any other involvement at FLC or FAC. Their oppose here is a pathetic show of contempt at not getting their own way. Cassianto^Talk 21:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some involvement at the featured article process. See here and here for comments by the user on an FA criterion, and here for a review at FAC. I'll leave it to others to determine the merits of the commentary. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WoW. A few talk page comments on one thread from 2012 and troublesome appearance the previous year. Hardly a regular, are they? Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with one comment:
  • "Their heads were placed on spikes the end of Westminster Hall" -- missing word? Would it be "at Westminster Hall" or "at the end of Westminster Hall"?

I can see no other issues. This is a great little list and is well worthy of FL status. Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass; I've tweaked the line. – SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your source for end? The image shows them on the side of the Hall. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the source quoted, not from a picture, which would not be reliable. – SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit (a revert) by SchroCat is typical of why this article ought not to be promoted. Before SchroCat edited this article (9 April 2016). The section was titled "Commissioners who did not sign" which is factually accurate. To title the section "Non-regicides" (as SchroCat does) inaccurate. Take for example the first person in the list of "non-regicides",Thomas Andrewes, as is made clear in the comment next to his name he was excepted from the General Pardon, so why is he in a list of non-regicides? SchroCat added links to the ODNB articles, but appears not to have read them in any detail. In the case of Thomas Andrewes the ODNB artilce (37117) starts "Andrewes, Sir Thomas (d. 1659), financier and regicid.." and in that biography article is a link to the ODNB own regicide article (70599) which explains

Nowhere in the act [of Oblivion] did the word ‘regicide’ appear, either to define the crime of killing the king or as a label for those responsible for it. The word itself was unrecognizable in law. Regicide was a sin, but it was not a crime. In English law it never had been. The government therefore eschewed the word, abandoning the debate over its use to the arena of popular discourse, where the allegations of regicide were trumpeted from the pulpit and elaborated in the press.

[snip]
It was left therefore to contemporaries, and later to polemicists and historians, to apply the regicide label as they might choose, and for that reason there has been considerable disagreement about whom to include
[snip]

Later writers have shown less reluctance to number the regicides, but no greater certainty about whom to include. Those taking the most restricted view have been willing to count only those commissioners who signed the warrant for Charles's execution; others have widened the category to add all who sentenced him to death. But because the 1660 act excepted from pardon any who had been ‘instrumental in taking away the [king's] life’ the category of regicide has proved seductively elastic.

Take another example the list before SchroCat edited it included three headings for regicides:

• Commissioners
• Commissioners who did not sign
• Associates
• Others [which was not a table list (like the rest of the list), but the names of a few people who were tried for treason immediately after the Restoration but are not usually labelled regicides but might be confused as being so.]

It now has

• Commissioners
  • Regicides
  • Non-regicides [see my comments above (PBS)]
• Others
  • Officers of the court
  • Associates

This is very confusing for various reasons, Most of those listed as "Officers of the court" are not, they were military men involved in the execution. The new section "Associates" includes men such as the first 4 (James Chaloner, John Dove, Thomas Fairfax, John Fry) all of whom were Commissioners. There are lots of other factual inaccuracies in the lists (many of which have appeared this year) so why is anyone suggesting that this list is anything like suitable as a candidate for featured list status? -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We make very clear the background to the use of the word regicide (particularly its non use in the acts, and the lack of legal definition) in the opening line of the final para of the lead. If the use of the term "regicide" is verboten, can you explain why it has been the article title for so many years? I see no complaints about the title from you on the talk page, or any previous discussion, so I guess it's not been that much of problem until now? – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As to the "incorrect" labels, these broadly follow the terminology used in one of the sources (Jordan, The King's Revenge, rather than anything a Wikipedian has invented. – SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He is in a table on our page titled "The commissioners who did not sign". His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides. – SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Francis Allen is top of a list with a section title "Non-regicides". Not as section called "Commissioners who did not sign", and this is because you changed the title and then reverted my recent change to "Commissioners who did not sign" back to "Non-regicides". Are you stating that Jordan does not explicitly state that Francis Allen was a non-regicide? If so then you are making a SYN, which is reinforced by the fact the the ODNB biography article on the man states in its first sentence, that he was a regicide.[13] Please quote the title of Jordan's list of regicides (is it exclusive of others), and what make you think that Francis Allen was a non-regicide contrary to the ODNB?

The point here is that this list is not in a suitable state for promotion to a featured list, if section headers are questionable and members of different sections have been moved around since the beginning of the year without any discussion on the talk page or agreement among secondary sources to back up the moves. -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The title of the table here reflects the title in Jordan. – SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which title? You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen (has he anything to say about any of the others in that section)?

You state in the artilce "Their heads were placed on spikes at the end of Westminster Hall, facing in the direction of the spot where Charles I had been executed." inline citation to a secondary source please, because the primary source in the article shows the three heads mounted on the side of the building facing what is now Parliament Square. -- PBS (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". Could you provide a diff? I have no recollection of making anysuch statement and I would like to see the context.

I have told you before (probably more than once) that artistic interpretation means the pictures are not reflections of the events. See WP:PRIMARY for further information. – SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of artistic licence which is why I requested "inline citation to a secondary source" (WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the citation at the end of the line, which is where it's supposed to be. – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation at the end of the statement which you reverted (as can be see in the diff) -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is. It's in the column at the end of the row (right next to the statement). I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to me asking "where does Jordan, The King's Revenge explicitly state that Francis Allen was not a regicide (quote please with page number)?" you replied on this page at 16:52, 3 July 2016: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" (diff). -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very different thing from "You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". I had made no such claim (that Jordan had nothing to say about Allen): I had said the opposite in fact. My answer above still stands: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" . – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if not Jordan, what is the reliable source you are using that states (contrary to the ODNB) that Francis Allen belongs in a section of "Non-regicides" instead of a section of "Commissioners who did not sign"? -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had made this clear: Jordan does not list Allen as a regicide. – SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are getting lost in this conversation, Francis Allen is of just the first of many name in that list and is being used as a sample/example. As I wrote above Francis Allen is unequivocally described as a regicide in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB). SchroCat I think you are being evasive. Please quote what Jordan writes about Francis Allen if anything. But whatever Jordan writes about them the fact that at least one reliable source disagrees with your descriptions (while supporting the previous ones) is a good reason for this current"Featured list candidate" request to fail. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think anyone is following this? We've all supported and would be happy to see this as a FA, regardless of the rubbish that you are peddling. Cassianto^Talk 06:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry for Allen in Jordan does not list him as a regicide; hat we have is a reflection of what is there. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Right, to end this tendentious stupidity I have changed the title. Not because the previous one was in any way wrong, but because your tendentious and inflexible approach is too disruptive to have to deal with. You are obviously not going to drop the stick on this, and the delegates will draw their own conclusions from your poor approach to this whole affair. – SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, the above conversation is acrimonious and hard to follow, so I'm going to pull out the one issue that I actually would have a question about, and leave the rest- this isn't a review, and the supporting reviewers seem to be fine with this issue, I just don't want lingering bits when I close this.

• "Officers of the Court" includes both court positions and military officers; "Associates" includes both non-commissioners and commissioners that did not participate in the trial the same way as the regicides/non-signers but did show up at least once or were associated with the regicides anyway.

• Honestly, this is a little confusing without explanation, mainly the second one- I get why you split them up that way, and I agree that those 4 categories make sense, but I think it would help to have a little explanation before the tables the same way you do for regicides/non-signers, just a sentence saying what the table includes (what counts as an "officer of the court", since the term isn't defined in the list; note that non-participatory commissioners count as "associated")

PBS has also on the talk page complained about the citation style; turns out there's an easy way to settle this as far as FLC is concerned: the mandatory source review!

Source review

• Spotchecks: I think we can take this as writ, seeing as there's an intense discussion between multiple editors about what the sources are actually saying. Also, I'm not from the UK, so I can't see the online sources.
• Completeness: No obvious sources appear to be missing, and I'm sure PBS would have mentioned if you were leaving out an important source.
• Formatting: Fun fact, the only requirement for citation formatting at FLC/FAC is that it's consistent and contains all of the pertinent information. Any style that meets those two requirements is allowed, and as a result there's several dozen styles running around even our best articles/lists. PBS has stated that, unlike the prior style, that the current one is not consistent. Did some digging, and the only point of contention seems to be that the online website citations are in "references" and not "sources". (refs 1, 2, etc.) The fact that the ODNB is online, so every article has it's own source + reference makes it a bit odd- I personally only put actual books in "sources", and leave all online references of any type in "references" even if they're kind of an online book– but SchroCat's style here is internally consistent, and not something that would fail a source review. So... pass. --PresN 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks PresN. I'll draft something up to explain the tables shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks PresN, now added for clarity. I hope that should be the end of it, but we will see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that is the end of it. Since there's an outstanding oppose, I'll explain my close.

Despite an awful amount of words used, in the end the only points of opposition seem to be: 1) the "non-regicides" subheading is inaccurate (changed, though since it was based on a source that had people divided into "regicides" and... not in that section, then I don't see the original word as that contentious); 2) the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note); 3) that the citation style is inconsistent (it isn't); and above all and permeating the first 3, that 4) the list was perfectly fine for years before SchroCat started changing it, and no matter how many people disagree with that the list should fail FLC because of it. Which... no, I can look at the history as well as anyone else, it wasn't. It wasn't bad, but it's a lot better now, even if the section headers are a little different. It really smacks of WP:OWN, as others have remarked- when the base of an oppose vote is that "it's been fine for years, there was no need to change it", that's not a vote that really counts for much. Closing as passed. --PresN 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Rehman 14:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the page title says, this is a list of power stations in Sri Lanka. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map, and has comprehensive information that is not found elsewhere on the internet. The issues in the previous nominations are addressed accordingly. Pinging past reviewers: User:Dudley Miles, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man, User:PresN, User:SchroCat, User:Calvin999. Thank you, Rehman 14:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• My queries have been dealt with in the previous review but a couple of minor points.
• There is excessive white space. This could be reduced by making the map smaller and putting the photos of dams next to the list instead of above it.
• What are "privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? This needs clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dudley. I am working on reducing the whitespace by adding a vertical scrollbar for the map; reducing its height by 50%. This should clear the whitespace for resolutions as low as 1280×800. I will ping you again once that's done. Thanks, Rehman 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Reducing map size overlaps the links on the pogs (i.e. breaks them). The whitespace in the dam image area is fixed. And I have linked the "first-come first-served" term. Rehman 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the scroll bar works. Now you cannot see the whole map at once, and some readers may not notice the scroll bar. How about going back to full size but cropping the sea at the top and bottom of the map? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley: Unfortunately, cropping is not an option as it uses the Location Map resources/files. Do you think it is better in the full form? Rehman 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be better full form. Maybe there is another way round the problem - e.g. put the map at the top of the page and move the bar chart to be under the lead on the left. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That creates a larger whitespace :( You can test screen resolutions on this nice site... Rehman 15:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only issue is the map. I do not think the scrollbar is a good idea, but I will leave it to you how to deal with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry

• Both the images (barchart and map) bloat the corresponding sections. Consider swapping them or at least try to reduce the size.

Consider it fixed. See section above by Dudley. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace problem has been fixed. Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Thermal power station ', 'Small hydro', and 'Solar power' are over-linked in the lead

Fixed. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a 10–20 year power purchase agreement." - replace the dash with 'to'

Done. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #1 points out to the publications tab; you need to be more specific for each and every claim covered in the lead.

Fixed. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify the page nos. —Vensatry _(talk)

Done. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2015, 1,464 megawatts of the total thermal installed capacity was from state-owned fossil fuel power stations; 900MW from Lakvijaya, 380MW from the state-owned portion of Kelanitissa, 160MW from Sapugaskanda, and 24MW from Uthuru Janani." You need to crosscheck the figures with the source.

Seems ok to me. Please let me know if you had spot an error. Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the value for Uthuru Janani according to this source is: 26.7 (8.9*3) —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The net outputs if the unit is 8MW, the remainder is for running the plant itself. This is the case with many power stations worldwide. The official output capacity rating of the plant is 24, (see also). Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables look good. I'll continue with the review once these comments are addressed. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review, Vensatry. Best regards, Rehman 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry. Are there any further corrections to done? Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• As suggested by others, you need to reduce the size of the map; the readers can click the map and view it for a detailed view.
  • The map itself is not clickable, as each pog is a link. Either way, there is no more whitespace issue, right? Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Add WP:ALT for all images.
  • Done. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not done for File:Lakvijaya-December2012-3.JPG and the barchart. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Space needed between the numeral and unit. (For eg., 2,115MW)
  • Done. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be consistent with either MW or megawatt. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Image captions are unsourced
  • Added. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The second para of 'Hydroelectric' section is wholly unsourced. You should expand the refs. for large paras.
  • Added. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2015, only two grid-connected solar farms were operational ..." -> As of 2016 ...
  • Fixed. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Reverted. While it is the same for 2016 as well, the remainder of the article has facts dated for 2015, mainly because the CEB posts a particular year's stats only late the following year. So 2015 details will be published later this year. To be consistent, I have put it back to 2015. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Either reduce the size of the images or find better placement. They make the table look clumsy.
  • Done. It now works well in lower resolutions. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What is 'comm.'? (in the Hydroelectric table) —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commissioned date. There is a tooltip loaded for that text. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better expand it. Also, what does '00' in 1984-10-00 and 2011-00-00 signify? —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 0000-00-00 format was used so that the sorting works property. But I have just found {{Sort}}, so this is now Fixed. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it not there for other tables? —Vensatry _(talk) 07:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Rehman: This is still unanswered. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Vensatry:, please see my reply to PresN at the bottom of this page. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vensatry, replied to each point above. Rehman 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vensatry. Is everything now in order? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide inline citations for most claims. Currently the refs. are placed at the end of the paras. It's an issue with large paras. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vensatry, replied to each comment above. Please let me know if there is anything else. Rehman 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman:Nice fixes thus far. You might want to clarify 'Mixed' in the 'Owner' column. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry:, I've added "ownership", would that help? Basically, since there is two types of ownership (private/gov), "mixed" means that the power station complex is party owned by the private sector, and partly by the government. Rehman 11:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean PPP? —Vensatry _(talk) 11:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Private=PPP. Rehman 11:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Was the problem relating to the use of the word "Mixed", or is it because the definition of "Private" is not included in the article? Rehman 09:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'mixed' it sounds a bit vague. Perhaps, clarify the same in a footnote. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I get it. I've added a footnote, is it better? Thanks, Rehman 07:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chris Woodrich

• Rehman, when four or five different editors are telling you there's an issue with the images, you should probably think of alternatives. If the bar chart is illegible at smaller sizes, then a) reduce the years covered and b) increase the size of the text. People on mobile devices may have 600 or 800 pixels width to work with; a 650 px image will not work for them, at all. Remember, what works for your monitor might not work for others. The map is also an issue: I'm still getting whitespace issues between the end of the paragraph and the start of the first table. For the other images, I just need to shrink my window size by 150px (from 1366px wide) for them to force the table down and use to end up with a whole bunch of white space; in other words, anyone using a device with a display less than 1200px wide is going to get white space. You could probably address this by having the table a fixed percentage of the width of the screen: 74% works well for "Upright". For a forced 300px? Might need some experimentation.
• Oppose until image issues are addressed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris Woodrich. Maybe the chart doesn't belong here in the first place, since this is a list of power stations. I removed it, and it seems to have solved the majority of the whitespace issue. Is it better now? Rehman 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Woodrich. Is it better now? Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering you're still getting negative comments about the map, and you appear to have missed part of my comment ("having the table a fixed percentage of the width of the screen: 74% works well for "Upright") as all you've done with the lower images is set them at 275px instead of 300px. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris: Negative comments? Maybe you're looking at older comments? Removing the bar chart helps remove the majority of the whitespace, so it was removed. Reducing the image width removes the remaining whitespace, so it was done. As per the link I provided above, the page now works well on nearly all display resolutions. Considering that the map no longer causes any noticeable whitespacing, is simply having the map a point against FL? Is there any other issues that warrants an oppose vote for this FL candidate? Please clarify, and I will do the necessary. Rehman 15:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map is "overbearing", at the very bottom of this page, with no reply from you. A number of other comments of a similar vein throughout the page. I haven't seen anyone express satisfaction with the images. Your choice of works well 1366*768 as a small resolution (as requested by Vensatry) indicates that you don't quite understand the comments about the images. Mobile users don't have 1366*768 to work with. Tablet users don't. Hybrid users don't. Some netbooks don't even go that high (my old Acer One was something like 1024*600). Anyone using one of these devices will get massive amounts of whitespace. Even without the graph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked on my phone: the pogs are barely visible, and certainly not tappable (screenshot on request). The map definitely needs work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, Chris. I have removed the map (there seems to be no other choice), and added the chart with some tweaks to how it behaves in smaller resolutions. Can you recheck and see if it is better? I've added the chart because it summarizes the capacities and production nicely, and makes the lead look less empty. Anything else you feel should be done? Thanks, Rehman 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris. Is everything now in order? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. Oppose stricken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979
Image comments—as with another nomination where I've commented, I'm getting large blocks of white space connected to the usage of the photo thumbnails above the tables. As I commented there, I think it would be better to convert those groupings of photos into galleries that appear either above or below the tables. That way they won't create a gap of white space below the end of the text and above the tables when readers have smaller screens or those who don't set their browsers to use the full width of a widescreen display. Imzadi 1979 → 08:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree: either a gallery across the page, or have the size parameter set to "upright". People don't need to,see the image in complete clarity on the page, but can click on the link for a closer look. – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review—since I'm here from my current renomination, I might as well turn to reviewing the sources used in the article:
  • FN1: Ceylon Electricity Board is a publisher, not a publication, so the name should be in |publisher= not |work=, which is how it is in FN2
    • Done. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5, etc, has Lanka Business Online as a publisher, when it's the name of a website, so it should be in italics. Ditto Lanka Daily News in FN8.
    • Done. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally, when the name of a newspaper lacks the city of publication in its name, that is given afterwards. For example, The New York Times contains "New York" in its title, but Daily News does not, so we'd have to additionally specify |location=New York with the latter to produce: "Daily News (New York)". Since several of the cited newspapers (or newspapers' websites) share publication names with other prominent papers, you should provide the missing locations for clarity.
    • Fixed. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is currently inconsistent in whether or not full first names are listed or truncated to initials. Either method is acceptable, however mixing them looks sloppy and unprofessional.
    • FN 18 has "P, Krishnaswamy" when the cited source gives the first initial as P and "Krishnaswamy" as the last name. In the inverted format in use in the article, this should appear as "Krishnaswamy, P.". FN 21 also has the first initials and last names reversed. (Since the cited sources don't actually give the full first name, unfortunately you can't spell them out for consistency with all of the other citations that do.)
  • FN 21, again a publisher appears to listed as a publication title in italics.
    • Are you able to provide more detail please? I can't find any. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears you fixed this one, but the atlas title should be in italics, citing it as a book (which is essentially is) rather than a webpage. Also, you might want to link directly to the atlas at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/34518.pdf instead of the index. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Rehman 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll reiterate that it isn't necessary to repeat links to publisher or publication names in multiple footnotes. In fact, it violates the spirit of WP:OVERLINK to repeat the links in every footnote. Also, if items are unlikely to get articles, the redlinks should probably be removed.
    • The 6th I have retained the links per PresN's advise above; anything in particular that you think should be removed? Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment, but the capitalization isn't consistent in source titles, probably because you've directly copied how each one was individually formatted. This means you have some, like FN1–3 that use Title Case, and then FN4 uses Sentence case. If you were publishing an article or paper in APA style, you'd be told to harmonize them all into a specific case style. Our MOS allows either, but like another of my comments above, we're supposed to do things consistently.
    • I thought it was a requirement to state it exactly as per source, and hence didn't pay much attention to consistency. I will recheck and update here again. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No such requirement. Editors have always been able to quietly alter and harmonize formatting to achieve a polished appearance in their writing. The key is not to alter meaning, just formatting. Our MOS tells us, for instance, to replace « and » with quotation marks when copying quotations from other languages. We can even silently correct spelling errors, unless there's a reason to retain them with a " [sic]". Harmonizing the case of a title is no different, and as I noted, the APA style would require editors using it to change source titles to a specific case style when crafting citations regardless of the original publication's formatting. In short, you can and should harmonize citations for the polished look expected in feature-level material. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @User:Imzadi1979. Fixed. Rehman 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another related item, is the punctuation used to separate a title from a subtitle. FN31 uses the more standard colon, while FN32 uses the non-standard spaced hyphen.
    • Fixed. Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope these comments help. The sources meet the reliability and quality tests required for featured-level work, so it's just a matter of polishing their presentation. Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Imzadi1979 and SchroCat. The whitespace issue has already been fixed. Do you still get whitespace? I will look at the refs and update again. Thanks, Rehman 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied to each point above. Thanks again, Rehman 02:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the whitespace issue is still there. Also, with the chart as the lead image now instead of the map, the text is very squished. On my screen, I have my web browser windows set to approximate the width of a printed letter sheet of paper. Accounting for the menu on the left, the display area on a Wikipedia page is about 6+1⁄2 inches (17 cm) wide, which is about what would appear printed on letter paper (8+1⁄2 by 11 inches or 22 by 28 centimetres) with the standard 1-inch-wide (2.5 cm) margins. With the size of the bar chart, it takes up 5 inches (13 cm), leaving only 1+1⁄2 inches (3.8 cm) for text. I took a peek at the coding, and it's set to 650px, yet our MOS says that lead images should normally be only 300px. In short, I think you need to move this down someplace else and center it so that you aren't trying to display text next to it.
      As for the other sections, I still have a bunch of white space. In the "Hydroelectric" section, I have a block 4+1⁄2 inches (11 cm) side by 4 inches (10 cm) tall. The blank block in the "Wind power" section is better at 1+1⁄2 inches (3.8 cm) tall. Imzadi 1979 → 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the detailed reply User:Imzadi1979. I have done some changes to the way the images behave. Is it better? Rehman 13:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979, @SchroCat: Is everything in order now? Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman: much better with the galleries. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The images and map are overbearing. The first thing readers see when visiting this article is a map which takes up a large chunk of the screen. The map needs to reduced in size and re-positioned; or got rid off entirely. If the images are to be positioned next to the text they should be reduced in numbers and size. As it stands some browsers/screens are showing large amounts of white space. Ideally the images should be positioned inside the tables (e.g. List of national parks of the United States, List of London Underground stations) or next to the tables. Is this a list of modern or all power stations in Sri Lanka? If it's the latter it is incomplete as it excludes older, decommissioned power stations.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Above issues are fixed as discussed in the previous sections. This is a list of modern power stations as well as notable decommissioned ones from the recent past. Thanks, Rehman 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Before I start: @Vensatry: are you willing to support/oppose this nomination now?

As promised, as this has hit the bottom of the stack I'm reviewing so it doesn't fall through again.

• "with a smaller share from small hydro facilities, and other renewables such as solar" - no comma needed
  • Done. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "12,357GWh" - isn't a space needed between the number and GWh, for all such instances in this sentence, just like you do with MW?
  • Done. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "from state-owned fossil fuel power stations;" - should be a colon, since the following is a list of said power stations (and their generation)
  • Done. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hydroelectricity had played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was introduced in the 1950s–1990s," - since it's still a major source of power, "has" is more correct than "had", and the date range does not make sense- something can't be introduced in a time span of 50 years that ended <20 years ago. Should be "since it was introduced in the 1950s."
  • Fixed. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "The following table lists all the state-run hydroelectric power stations." - sentence should be cut; not only is this followed by another paragraph and not a table, the end of that paragraph says the same thing but more explicitly about what is not included.
  • Removed sentence. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The solar power table gives one plant as "state-owned", but the thermal table uses "government" to mean the same thing; should be consistent.
  • Done. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If "P L" in "Ulagalla Walawwa Resort P L" and the names in the Wind Farm table is an incorporation mark like "Co.", "Inc.", etc., then it should not be included in the name
  • Removed all the incorporation marks. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noticed that the Hydro table has the start dates in it, but none of the other tables do. Why is Commission date important there but not elsewhere?
  • This concern was raised in a previous nomination as well. Reason is because the dates of most of the other plants are not readily available. I wanted to remove the dates for hydro, just to be constent, but I am not in favour in removing information for the sake of style... But that's just my opinion. Do you think there is the better way to handle this? Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The hydro table has the headers "Name of Power Station" and "Geo-location of power station", but all the others just say "Station" and "Location"
  • Fixed. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it, as I see you got a source review up above. --PresN 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PresN:, @Vensatry:. Thanks for the review. I'm currently at Wikimania pre-conference, but I cannot find stable internet. I will definitely look into this as soon as possible. Please give me a bit of time. Thanks, Rehman 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:, replied above. Rehman 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part of me that likes consistent style is frowning, but I agree that it's probably better to not remove information just because you only have it for one plant type. now Support. --PresN 16:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: - it looks like all of your review concerns have been addressed; are you willing to return and support or oppose? --PresN 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The main stumbling block I had with this list was the use of images, which has subsequently been cleared up - and the article now works visually on PCs and smaller tablet and mobile screens. Nice work on the tables too, and the prose is well-written and covers enough information that I wasn't left with any questions on the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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