Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2017

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) 00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as the Herts and Middlesex and Essex Trusts, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "action for wildlife": what action, to preserve wildlife?

• The source does not specify. It would include volunteering at sites, and probably other things such as making people's own gardens more wildlife friendly, but I do not think I can go into detail as the source does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• By 1964 wildlife: comma missing?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each is independent and a member of the Society, which changed its name to the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004" This is two different concepts in one sentence. Suggest a full stop after society. Maybe "The Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves changed it's name to Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004 and operates as The Wildlife Trusts.[4] Each member of The Wildlife Trusts is independent... and then explain what independent means?

• Looking at this again the wording was not quite right, so I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments for the lead, otherwise it looks very good! Mattximus (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a redlink for the Common pipistrelle, I think it is a typo for Pipistrellus pipistrellus.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and winter visitors" I think you mean "and in winter" to match "in summer"

• I think the variation in wording reads better. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• washings from sugar beet, do you mean sugar beets?

• Done. The source had beet and it looks right to me, but I see that the plural is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• snipe, redshanks and sandpipers,... any info on which bird specifically?

• Changed. The Trust is a bit random on which birds it supplies details on, so I have changed to ones for which the species is specified.

• Graptodytes bilineatus, Dryops similaris, Gyrinus distinctus and Myopites inulaedyssentericae, might as well red-link these for now, like you have others

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Might as well link Limekiln Close to Limekiln Close and East Pit

• I am doubtful. The Trust name for the site, Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, pipes to Limekiln Close and East Pit, and the description covers each part. It does not seem logical to link Limekiln Close and not East Pit. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. Excellent work as always!. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good to me Support. Mattximus (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good.

• "3,945 hectares" – conversion needed (I see there are some elsewhere in the article)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why you've converted it to square miles (everywhere else in the article, you've converted hectares to acres)? N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think square miles works better for large areas and acres for small ones. The same argument might apply to hectares and square kilometres, but I do not have a feel for what is best for a reader who thinks in metric. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• United Kingdom should probably be delinked per MOS:OVERLINK.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "an income of £5.1 million" – "had" is missing. Also, "the year to 31 March 2016" seems a bit awkward to me; how about "preceding" instead of "to"?

• "had" added. "year to" is the standard term, and "preceding" would be unusual and confusing.

• I would personally link Peterborough (probably at the start of the last sentence of the third paragraph instead of in the name).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In that sentence, I think that "but" would sound a bit better than "although".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should link wildfowl and waders.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The table looks excellent, but I have spotted a few things:
• Coppicing should be linked in the first entry.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the fourth entry, "it has nationally rare plant" is missing "a".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the redlinked scientific name in that entry start with a capital letter?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to have an update for note c? It's been four months now.

• I think it is better left. The site is probably still closed, but I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work; I will be happy to support after these comments have been dealt with. N Oneemuss (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I still have one question (with regards to my first comment) but it's very minor, so I'll support. N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are all reliable and well-formatted. I consider this source review a pass, and will be promoting the list in a moment. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2017 (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) 01:10, 31 July 2017 (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) 00:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2015 Indian Tamil action thriller film, Thani Oruvan starring Jayam Ravi and Nayanthara. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially Ravi and Arvind Swamy, several awards and nominations. It is my seventh attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• It seems odd to credit Mohan Raja as the sole writer in the first sentence, when the article on the film points to Raja working with Subha for the writing of the screenplay and dialogues. I would address this in the lead to prevent misintepretations as the information on Subha comes much later in the first paragraph.
• Replace “and and” in the lead’s first paragraph with “and”.
• I do not believe you need “a” in front of the descriptive phrase for Siddharth Abhimanyu.
• The “Cat” in “cat and mouse” should not be capitalized.

Wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written list, nothing really to complain about as per my assessment. Good luck! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 and Pavanjandhyala: Thanks guys. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The film featured Jayam Ravi and Nayanthara in the lead roles" - the film still exists. I would use present tense.
• "the film's soundtrack and score were composed by Hiphop Tamizha" - I would end this sentence here, as it is a little long.
• Do we have the budget figure for the film? If it is available, it will help the reader understand how successful the film was.

@FrB.TG: Its there at the start of the second paragraph. Didn't you notice?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I must have read over it.

• "including Best Performance in a Lead Role (Female) (Nayanthara) and Best Performance in a Comic Role (Ramaiah)" -again the sentence is too long so I would just end it here.
• The Times of India should have a wiki-link in fn 1.
• The newspaper's link should be removed in fn 5.
• FN 11- I believe you know what to do here. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: The rest of your above comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref formatting and reliability are now fine. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you very much, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:07, 30 July 2017 (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) 01:40, 31 July 2017 (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) 00:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the 2011 crime movie Drive. It's a real shame that no one even bothered to work on this list before. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have met the comprehensiveness criteria by gathering all the awards there is to this movie, as well as summarizing to the readers significant details of the accolades through the prose. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Bluesphere 05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job on this list! I also currently have an FLC nomination going here and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary to say "adapted screenplay"? Couldn't you say instead "Refn and written by Hossein Amini".

•  Done

• Wouldn't it be better to replace "United States' theaters" with "American theaters"?

•  Done

• "Brooks won [...] at the Florida Film Critics Awards and was nominated in the same category at the 69th Golden Globe Awards".

•  While I changed the wording of the Golden Globe clause, I would leave the current wording of the Florida Film Critics clause as is, since it would have been the appropriate one for the link I provide; there's no article about the organization's 2011 awarding ceremony I could apply the wording you requested.

• Again, "Mulligan won at the Hollywood Film Awards".

•  Done

Those are the only problems I found with the lead section. The awards all seem to be in order and placed alphabetically. Unfortunately I currently lack the mental stamina to perform a source review. However, if they check out and my above comments are adressed I believe I could support the nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, I believe I've addressed the concerns you raised. Bluesphere 03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesphere: Alrighty then. The lead section is very informative, thorough and on the point. The mistakes have been fixed, the list is in alphabetical order, are dated and referenced. As stated, the references need to be checked by someone but besides that, I definately support this nomination.

P.S.: Regarding the Florida Film Critics Circle, I think I made a mistake and wrote Critics Awards instead of Circle up there. So don't worry about it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For the following sentence (Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, and Albert Brooks feature in supporting roles), I would say "are featured" rather than "feature".

Great work with this list. I honestly could not find much to comment on for this list as it is already very good and has appeared to received pretty extensive commentary from the users above me. Once my rather minor note is addressed, I will support this. Hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Likewise, Aoba47! :)

• Thank you for addressing my comment. I support this. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The comma in "as an unnamed, Hollywood stunt driver moonlighting as a getaway driver" should probably be removed.
• The table shows three wins from the Austin Film Critics Association, while the infobox shows four. Are you counting the second place finish as a win? Maybe that's why I'm counting 30 wins and 79 noms, not the 31 wins and 78 noms from the infobox. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008, I have addressed these concerns. Slightlymad (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Now the infobox has the 30 wins, but still has 78 noms and doesn't seem to be counting the second place finish at all. Was this the intention? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Not exactly. I thought you didn't want it placed either as a win or nom. Alright, the total noms are now at 79 now that I counted the second place as a nom. Slightlymad (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: Only some small points. --PresN 18:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the publisher's name is basically the same as the work, it shouldn't be included- {{Cite web}}'s canonical example is The New York Times (Company), which you do in ref 1, and for other newspapers elsewhere
• You skipped the link to the LA Times in ref 24
• You're inconsistent in how you handle the official websites of awards organizations- e.g. in ref 43 you make "worldsoundtrackacademy.com" the work and World Soundtrack Academy the publisher, which not only violates the work-similar-to-publisher rule, but is also inconsistent with e.g. ref 36, where the San Diego Film Critics Society's page isn't called out as "work=sdfcs.org". The standard and consistent way to do it is not to set a "work" field for the website name.

• PresN, these are tentatively resolved. Can you take a look at it now? Slightlymad (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Souce review passed, promoting. --PresN 12:00, 27 July 2017 (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, 27 July 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was lurking around looking for a mini-project and stumbled on this little number. Some interesting stories, and a fascinating glimpse of how the world powers in cricket have swung since the 1980s. As always, thanks in advance to anyone prepared to take the time to review this, I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as practicable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #8 "The Guradian", was that irony? (I'll post a full review later.) Harrias ^talk 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankfully it didn't say "The Grauniad" but it was close... I've developed a kind of switch-character-typing-dyslexia as I've got older. That's a good example.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• Could you put a "[sic]" after the word 'every' in "Greatest Game every played with a ball".

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that the table isn't sortable?

  Didn't see much utility in that, but sortable now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #5 is missing the date of publication (the BBC list it as "last updated" at the top).

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #8 is missing the date of publication.

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Given you linked Ashley Mallett in ref #17 and Peter Toohey in ref #20, might as well link Mike Selvey in ref #24.

  Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #26 is missing the date of publication.

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 07:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, I've addressed your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support cheers, great work. Harrias ^talk 20:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nothing more to address; great list! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if we can actually get rid of the awful 'sic' re "ever" / "every"...

1. MOS:PMC says we can simply fix the typo "...trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment..."

2. Or, change the ref to one without the typo?

This in Trinidad Express is (nearly) the same piece by Tony Cozier. It uses "ever".

This ESPN one, which quotes Wellings in Wisden, also uses "ever".

NB The Trinidad Express Cozier article also verifies the other use of the ref, i.e., that it was the first ever Test tie but the ESPN alternative does not. JennyOz (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny, thanks (and thanks for your tweaks), I've replaced the [sic] with a reference to the ESPN article. Ref 5 (in the lead) already cites the first Test tie so that's not necessary again. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns! Thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for agreeing to the change, (and Wellings would have been happier too, esp as it wasn't his error originally:).

I'll have a last look through v soon. JennyOz (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, some of these are only suggestions. Some bits confused me so I may have got my wires crossed.

• Refs

• Ref 14 Rowland Ryder - author link?

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 15 Alan (Keith) Davidson - author link? - hmmm though it is "as told to" Brydon Coverdale

• Made it Coverdale and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 27 Croft, Colin (6 January 2001). "Australia deserve 50– success" - should be 5-0

• Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox

• Currently includes most runs and most wickets but not most catches - is that because the 'most catches' parameter does not render? (I can see it appears not to for Suresh Raina in the template example Template:Infobox cricket tournament main.)

• Yes, I added it but it doesn't render. Perhaps I'll take a look at the template later, but that's not really part of this FLC... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Photos

• Add photo for Courtney Walsh?

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables

• Main table List of results

Series 5 1975-76 - on ref 17 LHS of page says results Aust 5-1 (6) but RHS doesn't include the first Test i.e., it only lists 5 of the 6 results

- perhaps swap ref in table to this one? (ie change from url: ...content/series/60457.html, to: ...engine/series/60457.html)

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary of results table

First row "Tests", "Drawn" column tally includes the tied Test - should it have a double dagger?

• Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose

• whitewash - wlink first mention to Whitewash (sport)?

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 64-65 "Despite losing the first Test of the 1964–65 series by ten wickets, the West Indies recovered to win the third and fifth Tests to take the trophy back to the Caribbean." Is it me or is something wrong here? Seems upside down. WI won first Test by 179 runs, 2nd drawn, 3rd to WI, 4th drawn, 5th to Aust by 10 wickets. (And series was played in West Indies so WI "take the trophy back to Caribbean" is iffy. Should be more like: took trophy for the Caribbean for the first time?)

• Gah, what a mess, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The West Indies sole Test victory, at the WACA Ground in Perth..." - isn't clear it's talking specifically about 75-76 series, as previous sentence mentions 3 series.

• Clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 77-78 5th Test "The final Test saw the West Indies eight wickets down with more than 100 runs needed when the Jamaican crowds began to riot." - Ref 21 Peter Toohey Rumble in Jamaica says 8 needing 100, but goes on to say Holder caught behind before crowd started rioting. And this confirms 9 wickets lost. Still needing 111?

• I've expanded on that a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "For the 1994–95 series, Australia brought in a new coach and a new manager." - can't see a ref. This says ..."Bobby Simpson, now the Australian coach, ..." but he'd been coach since 1986?

• The ref is in the table, I've reused it inline here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ahhh... that's Jimmy Adams talking to Scott Oliver - it was WI (not Aust) who "brought in a new coach and a new manager". JennyOz (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 94-95 - Reiffel's quote "make or break for both teams" - needs ref This?

• Yes, thanks. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Other

• Besides the first tied Test, there are a few FWT records at List of Test cricket records eg 1992-93 - Narrowest win margin by runs. Not sure if any worth mentioning - too prone to change?

• Well I suppose I could add another section based on records, but I'm not entirely convinced that's needed, if they're really significant they're already covered, as you noted, in that existing FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could consider though, inserting in prose that in the deciding final Test of 1992-93 series, Curtly Ambrose took seven wickets for a single run per here.

• Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz very much appreciate your review, thanks. I've responded to your comments inline and addressed them as appropriate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you were able to decipher my notes! I fixed a few new minor typos rather than add them here. Please check. Last to do is per my new comment above re the "new coach" info. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz, thanks again, I think I got that last one. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Thrilled to see this tournament and its players so well recognised and represented. Great job! JennyOz (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (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) 21:13, 23 July 2017 (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) 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Cate Blanchett is one of the best actresses of all time and probably the best of her generation. Her list deserves to be celebrated, much like her films and achievements. I feel it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• The first two sources [1] and [2] don't really mention Paradise Road being her debut. Find another one that does.
• "The following year, she garnered worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth, which garnered" — Two instances of the word "garnered" in the same sentence. Please find another alternative. Also, find a source that says Elizabeth is acclaimed (even though I know it is) for those who may not have heard about the film. I would also consider splitting the sentence into two as it is quite long.
• Write something about her role as Kate Hepburn in The Aviator such as Blanchett's is the only portrayal of an Academy-Award winning actress to have won an Oscar. Something like it."
• "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Oscar nominations for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat." — Writing "Oscar" would seem informal even though the awards are known that way. so, rephrase it as "In 2007, she received Academy Award nominations for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress for her roles in Elizabeth: The Golden Age and I'm Not There, becoming one of the few actors to achieve the feat."
• It should be "[5][6][8]" instead of "[6][5][8]".
• Do explain a bit about some of her stage work, particularly those that received recognition.
• Source for Parklands is not there.

That's about it from me. I do recommend a thorough source review for the list. Krish, good job on taking an initiative to get Cate Balnchett's filmography and stage work list this far.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Done. Additionally, I have changed the lead significantly. Let me know if there is any problem with the new version.Krish | Talk 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with me. I will provide a support now.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• In the sentence about Electra, I would link the play in the phrase “the same name” part.
• I would frame the phrase “opposite Geoffrey Rush” with commas as looking at it quickly makes it look like Rush won something.
• Instead of “made her feature film debut with a supporting role”, I would say “made her feature film debut in a supporting role”. I think “in” is more appropriate in this context than “with”.
• In the phrase “garnered her another Academy Award nomination”, I would specify what the nomination was for (it may be repetitive, but it is important to clarify that this is for best supporting actress).
• This is minor, but I would say “this feat” instead “the feat”. The use of “the” just sounds a little weird to me in this context.
• I am not sure where there is a “<” sign separating the references in the sentence on her 2015 roles.
• I am not sure you would use the phrase “the former” following a list of three items; I have only seen that in lists of two items. I would just say the name of the film instead.

• Wonderful job with this list. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I will support this nomination, and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Hmm...

• The following year, her performances in Timothy Daly's Kafka Dances and the notable Sydney Theatre Company stage production of Oleana (1993) opposite Geoffrey Rush, won her the Sydney Theatre Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress, respectively, making her the first first person to win both awards at once. -- This is an interesting case with three points to note.

• This is a long sentence which can be broken into two comfortably.
• Is it really important to mention Rush here? If yes, can you please explain why?

• Because he once was her frequent collaborator.Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Those critics awards were given by Sydney Theatre Company. Lovely. Now, instead of writing "...won her the Sydney Theatre Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." can't we say something like "...won her the Sydney Theatre's Critics Award for Best Newcomer and Best Actress,..." to ensure simplicity?

• There's an article for it, so why bother squeezing?Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanchett received worldwide attention for playing Queen Elizabeth I of England in the acclaimed drama Elizabeth (1998), which garnered her a Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best Actress and her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. -- Another long one which can be broken comfortably.

More to follow... ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• However, her other 1999 releases — the widely praised An Ideal Husband and the largely panned Pushing Tin — were unsuccessful. Two things.

• When using em-dashes, please do not provide spaces before and after them.
• The term "widely praised" is sounding vague. Please be clear here.

• Really? But "largely panned" is not? Jokes aside, I have used this to showcase that a praised film sometimes also fails.Krish | Talk 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Galadriel or Gladriel? Read this line: " She briefly reprised her role of Gladriel in the The Hobbit trilogy (2012-14)."
• A better alt comment would do.

Let me know once they are done. I will return after three days. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave three days and usually wait until they are done. But, given that the nominator has some RL issues and that the comments are already resolved, i declare my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• I think the "notable" is really unnecessary in the Oleana entry.
• Make sure that the use of "a"s and "the"s is consistent.

• Please point out where exactly this problem is?Krish | Talk 07:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The awards, for instance: "won a Golden Globe and BAFTA", they should both have an article.

• @Numerounovedant: Done.Krish | Talk 09:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A comma after "During this period"?
• "In 2007, she received both Best Actress and Best Supporting Academy Award" - Best Supporting Academy?
• This paragraph uses the "Academy Award", a lot, really a lot. While I won't push it, but if you can find a way to minimise the use, that would simplify and elevate the prose.

Fine work Krish, this is one of best written introductions that I've read here. The first two paragraphs sure are. Good job. NumerounovedantTalk 17:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: Done.Krish | Talk 07:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Year ranges now need centuries at both ends of the range, per MOS:DATERANGE.

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Use en-dash for numerical ranges, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "was a notable box office success" what made it more "notable" than other "box office successes"?

• That is how media describes its success.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Television and music videos not even mentioned in the lead.

• Where else one music video has been mentioned intge lead? Well, this is because she mostly known for her film and stage roles. Her television roles didn't have same amount of impact.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs to summarise all major aspects of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• She never had an extensive career in TV. I have modelled this after other featured lists. It's your POV.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." not really my POV. If you have a whole section of this list dedicated to TV, you should at least note it in passing in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:Done.Krish | Talk 14:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to link Documentary, but if you insist, do it every time, the table is sortable.

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Sewell is a dab link.

• This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As is Jonathan Kent.

• This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harvey Theatre, NYC" comma needed after NYC, and it really should be New York, rather than NYC.

• This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "From playwright Timothy Daly. Production was remounted at the Sydney Theatre Company the following year" full stop required after second sentence. Check other notes.

• This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkov has two h's.

• This was removed.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Spoils should be (song), not (single), to avoid the piped redirect.

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tri-City Herald is a work.

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:Done. As for last few lines, well, it that director section was added by an IP. So I removed it as this list follows pattern of other filmography articles.Krish | Talk 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "done". Please mark off each comment individually as you have missed some. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:Done. Krish | Talk 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• Ref 13 has all caps in the title that need to be fixed.
• Ref 83 is a bare link and requires further formatting.
• All of the references appear reliable enough and, aside from the couple of comments above, are well-formatted.
• The link-checker tool doesn't show any dead links.
• I don't see Blanchett's name mentioned in ref 60, (unless I'm missing it here) which is being used to confirm her role in the second Hobbit movie. Assuming I didn't miss the relevant part, you'll need to find another ref to fully support her role.
• Ref 41 (Entertainment Weekly) doesn't appear to support the last name of Blanchett's character in Little Fish.

Of the 3 citations I spot-checked, I found issues with 2 of them (ref 65 checked out fine), which is somewhat concerning. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Done.Krish | Talk 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – After seeing a few issues in my initial source review, I checked three more references: numbers 44, 50, and 67. Refs 44 and 50 don't give the last names of the respective characters, while ref 67 doesn't give the name of the director, or say that she was an executive producer. Sorry, but since I'm finding this much content unsupported by the citations, I don't feel comfortable promoting this list until all of the references are checked against the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Re-checked everything and replaced some of the sources. Now everything is sourced.Krish | Talk 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked several other sources—numbers 32, 40, 42, and 69—and spotted no further problems. The only other issue I saw was that there is a space between refs 4 and 6 in the third sentence of the second paragraph. Fix that and I think we can consider the source review passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Done.Krish | Talk 21:40, 19 July 2017 (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) 21:02, 23 July 2017 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinator: While two people are opposing this nomination, I have attempted to address all of their concerns, have pinged them back here and have even left message on their talk pages, but for unknown reasons neither has replied. Please keep this in mind when deciding whether to promote the article or not, as I do not think it is fair to leave an oppose comment but not follow it up once the reasons for opposing have been fixed. Freikorp (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. Bencherlite^Talk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. Bencherlite^Talk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:

I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?

Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.

I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – at the moment, this list falls well short of our ??Featured list criteria in my opinion. Particularly with regards to the thoroughness of the referencing, and the sortability of the table. Ialso think that on a list of this size, the lead could be more substantial; specifically with regards to providing more global statistics, and simply a bit more background – is there anything about why this is such a common cause of death? Harrias ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "deaths from drug overdoses raised 137% in the United States" – Surely this should be "deaths from drug overdoses rose 137% in the United States"?  Done
• Are there any, more global, stats? The lead, and indeed the list, have a very US-centric feel.

Acknowledged about the lead. I'll work on this once I've addressed your other concerns. As far as the list itself being US-centric, I can assure you I have not deliberately given any preference to US deaths. I went through Category:Drug-related deaths and added every single person in that category that met the criteria (and that I was able to find a reliable source for) to the list. If you go through the sub-categories you will see there is a much higher rate of US people added to the category. I presume this is due to a combination of the English Wikipedia being mainly US-centric in itself, but also due to the fact that the US has higher rates of drug abuse than other developed nations.

@Harrias: I've added some new sources and expanded the lead to address this. Have a look. I've now made an attempt to address all of your concerns. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Name column should sort by surname.

Ok, I've never played with a sortable table before until Bencherlite asked me to turn this list into one so I'm struggling with anythign table related. Is there a particular way to make it sortable by surname?

• Per MOS:DTT, the table needs row and column scopes to be accessible.

Can you give me an example of this at another article? I don't understand.

• For both of these, take a look at List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut for example.
• {{sortname}} is used to sort by surname (for example, {{sortname|Charles|Bannerman}} and {{sortname|Harry|Graham|Harry Graham (cricketer)}}
•  ! scope="row" | is used in the table to define the row scope, while  ! scope="col" | does the same for the column headers. Harrias ^talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. I tested the changes to the first 3 people in the list, see here: [7]. Is this done correctly? I can't figure out why the text went bold, so I think I've done something wrong. If I have, would you be able to do the first one properly so I know how to format all the rest? Feel free to revert it once your done if you want. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was fine; I've added "plainrowheaders" into the table code, which stops it make them bold. Harrias ^talk 09:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) I'll work on your lead concerns tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Make the Ref column unsortable.  Done
• Similarly, some work should be done so that the unknown, or estimated dates sort roughly right.  Done
• Some of the details for Fran Papasedero are in the wrong columns.  Done
• Some are listed as being poisoned: where is the line drawn? Why is Socrates included, but not all the people in Category:People executed by lethal injection?

Socrates is one of the few deaths I didn't add, but as per my introduction I've tried to be as inclusive as possible until I get some feedback from others. Before I began my recent overhaul of this article the lead actually had the disclaimer for several years that deaths from lethal injection are not included, see here [8] . I've re-added a similar disclaimer to the current lead and have removed Socrates as he was the only person sentenced to execution via a drug on the list. I've actually been considering making a 'List of deaths from lethal injection', once I'm finished here and with another project I'm working on.

• References: make sure all date formats match. Most are MMM DD, YYYY, but some are DD MMM YYYY.  Done
• A number of the references are missing author details. (167, 170, 173 (AP), 174 (United Press), 181 just to list a few I glanced at; I assume there are lots more.) Harrias ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ones you mentioned, minus the AP and UP ones. I've never previously been told to give author credit to AP or UP, even at FAC level. Are you absolutely certain this is a requirement? Personally I don't see much point but I'll do it if I have to. I'll start going through each source one by one and making sure they have author credit once you reply.

Not so bothered on the agency ones; you can use the |agency= parameter of the citation template, but as I say, you're right that it is less important than when there is a named author. Harrias ^talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added all named authors. Will work on the table stuff later. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. Thanks so much for your comments. I've addressed some concerns and made replies to others. I need some clarification on a couple things before I put serious effort into overhauling this. In particular I'm at a bit of a loss for most of the sortable table stuff, so if you could even point me in the direction of another editor who might be willing to help I would appreciate it. I've always had trouble with tables themselves. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. Just a reminder I've attempted to address all of your concerns now. Any further feedback is appreciated, Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Just pinging you one last time as per my above comment. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I know I said I wouldn't ping you again, but I'm finding it incredible frustrating that the only people who aren't supporting this nomination are the ones who haven't replied after I made attempts to address all of their concerns. If you could take a look at this article again, and let me know whether I've adequately addressed your concerns or not, I would really appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The biggest problem is defining the scope.

• Time period - the list has few entries from other than the 20th - 21st centuries. This is inevitable, since the concept of "drug overdose" is modern, and few would have applied it before the 20th century. The ancient items seem very speculative. Perhaps the few from history could be removed/split, and the scope specified further.

As I've written this almost entirely by myself, I've been largely waiting for feedback regarding scope. I have absolutely no problems with narrowing it to modern times, and adding information to the lead regarding this, if that will help obtain support. If you tell me exactly what you'd like to see here in order to address this concern I'll happily implement the changes. In the meantime I've removed the only ancient candidate, which means deaths run entirely from the 18th to 21st centuries.

• "Cause of Death" is not the precise criterion implied by its medical/legal status, given the reluctance to apply "drug overdose" to those with high social status. How many heart attacks were ODs? How many accidents reported without referring to intoxication? This is shown in the use of "suspected" in many entries. I do not think this problem is fixable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be nicer if we could have the 'legal' cause of death as per everybody's death certificate, but as you point out this is not possible. We're making do with information that is publicly accessible. As the lead indicates, this is a list of people who can be "reliably sourced" to either meet the criteria or be suspected to. My intention is to build a list that is an accurate and comprehensive reflection of its lead. Obviously there are some people who did die from overdoses that would have had this information covered up, but I don't think that should prohibit this article from being promoted. I'm quite sure many celebrities would have concealed/be concealing their HIV status, but we still have a featured list of HIV-positive people. I can see many other examples of lists that may technically be incomplete, but still represent the best we can do with sources that meet WP:RS.

I don't mean that this list is not a worthy enterprise, only that the nature of the topic does not lend itself to achieving Featured status. The problem is that even limiting the scope to people with WP articles who died in the 20th century or later; I would not be surprised if for each drug-related death for which there is a WP:RS there was another not so reported, but covered up by a "sympathetic" doctor. Perception that cover-ups are infrequent is biased by recent history, now that tabloid/online journalism makes such discretion difficult to maintain. Perhaps this bias is already evident in the current list, which is skewed towards entertainers and sports celebrities. (I also agree, as stated above, Sigmund Freud's assisted suicide cannot remain on the list without opening up another can of worms.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. I'll wait to see what consensus forms regarding completeness. Personally I don't see this as a major problem, as the article has the dynamic list disclaimer and advertises itself only as a list of reliably sources overdoses, rather than all potential overdoses. Anyway I was anticipating euthanasia deaths complicating things, so I've just removed Sigmund Freud and all the other euthanasia deaths. Freikorp (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WriterArtistDC: I've added a paragraph to the lead explaining some facts regarding why overdoses are a more recent phenomenon. Have a look and let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. There have been several improvements to the article since you last commented. Freikorp (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite strongly. While there are always nitpicks and each of us has preferences, this list is quite important. Very simply, there is no other list like it anywhere on the Internet. This is Wikipedia at its finest. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think age would be much more interesting than birth year and death year. Perhaps include all three. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Ages have now been added. Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I agree that age at time of death is interesting and should be in a column. My feeling is that Featured does not equal "perfect", and so that it is possible for this article to be as complete as possible to the knowledge and consensus of all reviewing it...and then it can be added to. I think it looks promising with some queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug overdose and intoxication are a significant cause of accidental death, - "causes" as they are not the same...?  Done

For example, the chance of death from opiate overdose is greatly increased when they are consumed in conjunction with alcohol - technically correct but looks weird with singular "opiate" and plural "they"  Done

drug chemical names like diazepam and tramadol are lower case.  Done

the result of drug overdoses or acute drug intoxication - plural/singular - align them  Done

deaths will be specified as 'suicide', 'accidental', 'undetermined', or otherwise. - "are specified"  Done

Thanks for your comments Casliber. I've addressed the lead concerns. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Now that two people have provided feedback that an age column is wanted, I'll make it happen sometime soon. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other reviewer above, I did wonder about the recentism of the page. Then I looked and was unable to find more ancient suicides (I presume you've looked). I think this can't just sit there unaddressed. Either we have some medieval/ancient deaths or we have some sourced reason for lack of same. This has me curious now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I looked for ancient overdose sources. The only two I found were the two I have since removed from the article (Promachus of Macedon and Socrates, who probably shouldn't be counted anyway since it was an execution). Perhaps if I spent a lot more time searching I could find a handful of ancient 'poisoning' deaths that meet the criteria, but nevertheless I think deaths from overdoses are inherently linked to two recent developments in addition to tabloid/online journalism - the rise of the Pharmaceutical industry, and fallout from the ridiculously counter-productive War on drugs. I think this issue would be best addressed with some kind of source commenting on overdoses as the relatively recent phenomenon that they are as caused by these or other causes, but I've yet to find such a source. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you look off Socrates (as hemlock is primarily a poison), but why did you remove the other one? Also drugs such as opium/laudanum/morphine and alcohol have been around since antiquity. I will try to look into this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked too out of place. A single ancient alcohol poisoning and then the next chronological death being over 2000 years later.

Oh yeah I understand, there would have been plenty of alcohol and opium poisoning deaths between then and the 19th century (when this list effectively begins), but as the other editor pointed out such deaths would have either been covered up, and/or simply forgotten about without an effective media. I'll have a further look into a solution for this myself in the coming days. Thanks for your interest and willingness to help. I am very keen to implement any improvements to this article. Freikorp (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have removed it just because it looked out of place. Good luck finding things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I think I've made a pretty solid paragraph addressing the recentism. Have a look and tell me what you think. Freikorp (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks a lot better. One outstanding problem is the note on tramadol, which comes from the opinion of one pathologist. There must be some stats somewhere we can use instead. I'd dispute the fact as well (about tramadol) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Found a few new stats and sources. Freikorp (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great/thanks for that. Just realized one last thing - the coffee quote - maybe add "extremely" rare. I mean, we'd say deaths from bee stings and shark attacks are rare but are a hell of a lot commoner than deaths from caffeine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...in which case, tentative support (an ambitious and interesting list to put together. Good luck) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Syntax looks fine to me but I would get rid of the "Ref" column and instead put the reference on the cause of death. I would also recommend using Template:sfn for citing books or journals for the convenience of the reader looking for data to cite. Vami IV (talk) 06:42, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. I'll wait to hear more opinions regarding the ref column; I'm inclined to leave it how it is. Template:Sfn is a good idea in general, but as I cite several hundred books and journals I'm not sure if using it is just going to make the reference section more complicated than it has to be. I'd like to hear more opinions on this also before making a decision. Freikorp (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This was an ambitious list to improve, and I'm sure that, when it's promoted, it will set the standard for similar lists.

• My main issue is with the layout of the table, which I don't think is set out in a way that would most benefit the reader. For example, it seems to me that a reader would be more likely to, say, sort all the suicides together, or sort all the heroin overdoses together, rather than sort all the American football players together. I propose splitting the "Cause of death" column into new columns, e.g. "Drug(s)", "Accidental/Suicide" and "Notes", which would give our readers more freedom with how they choose to view the list. I recognise that this would be a major change to the list and a lot of work – I am happy to help if you need it.

• Thanks for your comments A Thousand Doors, and for your offer of help, which I will gladly accept if this suggestion ends up being implemented. While that is a good suggestion in theory, I'm not sure how helpful it will be in practice.

Firstly regarding the "Drug(s)" column: I don't think that will be a major improvement on what we have now. The 'Cause of death' column already largely sorts people by the drug responsible for their death because of the consistent way I have tried to word every listing. I.e it's always "Heroin overdose" as opposed to, say "overdose of heroin". Secondly many deaths involve multiple drugs - which drug do we list first? A "Drug(s)" column is going to have the same problem that the current 'Cause of death' column has - when multiple drugs are involved only the one that happens to be listed first will be sorted.

Secondly regarding the "Accidental/Suicide" column: most candidates don't have any such intent listed, so if we have an "Accidental/Suicide" column most of them will be empty, and I think that would make the table/article look incomplete when in reality often there's no reliable sources that gives an indication of whether it was accidental or not. Granted a large portion of these, based on their context, would be safely assumed to be accidents but I'm hesitant to put that in the table without a source that explicitly states that is the case. Also "Accidental/Suicide" wouldn't be a good title as there are other options, I.e "undetermined", "murder", "involuntary manslaughter" etc etc. Let me know what you think about my concerns. Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would be a shame not to have that information in a separate column – "Accidental" is listed in the table over 80 times, while "Suicide" is listed over 160 times. I continue to believe that being able to sort these deaths together would be more useful to a reader than being able to sort by profession. For deaths where we don't know the "reason" behind them, perhaps just "Unknown" would work. But I would have thought that, in most cases, the cause of an overdose would be either an accident, purposeful (i.e. suicide), or murder. I am willing to accept that I might be in the minority on this issue. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea. I've already literally spend weeks redesigning the table to address other people's concerns. Someone else suggested a 'Nationality' column, which also isn't a bad idea, but I declined to take that on as with the other new columns I created I think having a column with completely new additional information would make the table appear too bunched up on smaller screens. Considering the information you'd like to have put into this new column is already in the table I'm more willing to take it on. Would you be willing to help? If not, I'd rather wait for a third opinion before taking on that much work myself. Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your problem is that, since nobody has ever nominated a list like this before, there's no precedent yet for what it should look like and what information it should contain. Still, that's all the more reason to nominate it. My "vision" for how the table could look would be something like this. Let me know what your thoughts are. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks decent. I'd like to get a third opinion. Casliber, what do you think of this proposed table format? (See here) Freikorp (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like that alternate table quite a lot actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber. Ok A Thousand Doors, how do you want to do this? Shall we just keep building it letter by letter in your sandbox then copy paste it over? Also if we're going to go through and rebuild this table person by person I'd like to consider implementing an idea from another reviewer who suggested switching to Template:sfn for the book sources. Or at least for the ones with page numbers specified separately in the ref column (see Erik Brødreskift's entry if you don't understand what I mean). If nothing else it will make the ref column narrower, which is important now that there are going to be additional columns. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Bs, Cs and Ds now done. Haven't tacked the Sfn suggestin just yet. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Like others have said, I'm a little concerned that the use of a gallery may violate WP:IG – how does such a gallery of so many images help the reader's understanding of deaths by drug overdose and intoxication? I have an alternate suggestion, but it'll have to wait 'til I'm back at home (which will be in a few hours).

• This is what the article looked like at the time of nomination: [9]. I originally had that image and an editor above questioned the relevance of a picture of someone shooting heroin and instead requested a gallery like the one we now have. Personally I don't care very much which images the article has, or if it has no images at all. I'm pretty much going to go with whatever I need to do to get support for the nomination. I will gladly remove this gallery if that's what you'd like, though I am looking forward to hearing your alternate suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that images of individuals in the list makes more sense than one of someone injecting heroin. But, rather than having a gallery, what do you think to having a lead image like this?:

• Wow I never considered doing something like that. I think it's a great idea, certainly better than the other two options at least. I'll implement the changes now. Thanks for the suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments coming.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors your final comment here was more than ten days ago, is it true? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Freikorp and I have been completely redoing the table format over the last couple of weeks (see here). We've made some progress, but I'll leave it to you to decide whether this nomination should remain open until we're done, or whether it should be closed and reopened at a later date. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, since we've finished the new table format and it's live now, can you please make your final comments on the nomination? Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is the best an article like this will get. Well done, this should be shown off. Meets FL criteria. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:. Right, so I have 4 votes of support. A Thousand Doors pretty much said he'd support the nomination once the table reformat was complete, which it now is, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia since July 1 so he appears to be unaware his concerns are addressed. I've got two people opposing, however, as previously stated, I have addressed all of their concerns, pinged them back here, and left messages on their talk pages, but for unknown reasons, neither of them appears interested in following up their initial comments. They are opposing a very much outdated version of this page and refusing to rejoin the discussion. How am I doing in terms of having this article promoted? Should I go and solicit more comments or considering the circumstances can this be passed as is? Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A prodigious level of work from Freikorp, this article is now worthy of the bronze star. My issue surrounding which drugs should be wikilinked can be addressed later, and isn't something that I'd oppose over. Nice working with you! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, Harrias, the list has been substantially improved since your comments, would you please re-visit your oppositions and either confirm you still oppose or strike/support please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, please double-check your concerns have been addressed and respond here if at all possible. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (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, 17 July 2017 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a much-needed overhaul to Wikipedia's Pokémon listing, the main page for these eight articles (this list plus the seven sub-lists) now covers the basics of what these creatures are. Given the sheer number of Pokémon (802 as of the release of Sun and Moon in 2016), all of them could not be reasonably contained within a single list. This article covers the names of each Pokémon as well as some background behind their creation and design. It is primarily designed as a hub-list to redirect users to the seven more detailed sub-lists that are divided by generation. The table used for the Pokémon is a bit atypical and uses seven columns to divide the names rather than one obnoxiously long list with over 800 rows. It forgoes sorbability for the sake of accessibility and ease of reading. I believe this list to cover all that is necessary for it as more in-depth information is better handed in either the dedicated lists by generation and/or articles on the Pokémon themselves. Thank you in advance for your comments, criticism, and time! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "is divided into articles by generation." – Link is broken.
• Per MOS:ACCESS the colour coding needs to be accompanied by a symbol to make the table accessible.

Otherwise it all looks reasonably good. I like the format you've used with the subpages. Harrias ^talk 07:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Corrected the link and added symbols to the chart per request. Glad you like the new format of the articles! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The specific claim that Generation VI Pokemon are influenced by species in France has no in-line citation and is not supported later in the article, only a general claim that "a variety of animals and culture across the world provide the basis for countless ideas to be incorporated into the franchise." This should be reversed: the specific claim should be in the body while the general claim should be in the lead.
• "a variant of normal evolution" -> this sentence was written with the assumption that every reader knows what "normal evolution" is. However, the lead only explains that Pokemon have alternate forms. Including this piece of information but neglecting to introduce the concept of evolution is an oversight.
• On a similar note, the section about alternate forms in the lead -- namely, Mega Evolution and Primal Reversion -- is missing from the body of the article and should be explained and sourced there, while the existing details in the lead should be cut and generalized. Something along the lines of, "Multiple Pokémon feature alternate forms that change their appearance, stats, and viable attacks without becoming a new species if certain criteria are met", would do. Then, in the body, briefly explain some of these criteria (ie. weather for Castform) and the concept of Mega Evolution. A good location for this information would be the end of the second paragraph of the "Conception" section.

Overall, this list is very well written. My major gripes can be taken care of by taking the following steps: introduce and explain the idea of evolution, and of alternate forms (including Mega Evolution etc) in the second paragraph of "Conception". Then, in the first paragraph of "Design" use Generation VI's French influence as an example of regional influences in the creatures' design. Lastly, rewrite the second paragraph of the lead to be a general summary of the two body sections.

Excellent work on this list! You have come up with a creative solution to the unique problem of listing all Pokemon, and I like the result. This is quality work, and I am excited to see that it has been nominated at FLC! --haha169 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2017‎

@Haha169: I'm thrilled you enjoy the new style and many thanks for the review! I've done a bunch of reworking and additions based on your comments. Trying to keep the lede pretty simple but I think it covers the necessary aspects presented in the body now. I've greatly expanded on evolution to make it more clear. I don't believe the new paragraph requires direct sourcing since it's extrapolated from the games themselves. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Your corrections satisfy all my concerns. Really excellent work! --haha169 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Review by PresN

• Link handheld platform to Handheld game console
• I'd actually swap paragraphs 1 and 2- you launch into the generations before you actually talk about what Pokemon are in the first place. So, sentence one plus paragraph 2, then the rest of paragraph 1.
• "with each division encompassing new main series titles" -> "with each division encompassing new titles in the main video game series"
• "who enjoy battling and want to go more in depth." -> period outside of the quote unless you're quoting a full sentence, which you aren't here.
• "help to make each Pokemon in the game individual," - same
• "as of the release of Sun and Moon" - you link this and give the full name in the next paragraph instead of here, which should be swapped
• "Throughout development of Red and Green" - these games have not been mentioned as the first or linked since the lead
• "Each iteration of the series has brought about praise" - the series itself doesn't make the praise, so just "brought", not "brought about"
• "Yoshida goes further and calls them 'the face of that generation' and that 'they're'" - and says that
• Not doing a source review, but I will point out that you're mixing date styles in the references (mm-dd-yyyy and dd-mm-yyyy)

Good work on the list! I hope to see the generations lists here as well at some point, I love the new colors. --PresN 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the review! I believe I've covered everything. I've added a brief sentence mentioning the release of Red, Green, and Blue in the Concept section to cover it earlier. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --PresN 21:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look over this list last week and could not see anything major wrong with it, as a result im happy to Support its promotion to FL.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2017 (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) 21:10, 16 July 2017 (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) 00:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been significantly reworked from its original state, and now I am convinced it is perfectly FL-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Please expand the alt text for the image. “age:34” is not exactly helpful for illustrating the image.
• I clarify (music video "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye") to (music video for "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye") to make it clear that the music video is for a song and the music video is not named that.

Done: I wrote, the music video of Falguni Pathak's song "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that you could combine the last two sentence of the lead’s first paragraph in a more succinct way rather than having two relatively short sentences that disrupt the paragraph’s flow.

Done: I wrote, The following year, she appeared in Manasellam as a terminally ill woman, which was a commercial failure. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When was Saamy released? Please add a year. Same goes for Lesa Lesa.

Both were released in 2003. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Something about this phrase (landed Trisha new offers) sounds too colloquial and informal to me. I would revise it with stronger language.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When was Aaytha Ezhuthu released? Please add a year? Same goes for Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana.

Done: AE was in 2004, and NN was in 2005. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You use the verb “appeared” a lot. I would recommend you use variation, specifically in the third paragraph.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead does not include any information on her 2016 films. Please expand to add this.

@Kailash29792: I leave this to you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Please review. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Names of websites (ie. movies.fullhyderabad.com should not be in italics in references.)

Done: de-italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have received this note in previous FACs and FLCs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use. Also, there are works/publishers in the references that are never linked (i.e. The Times of India) that should be linked to the appropriate page.

Done: Wikilinked every work and publisher in references. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderful work with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything looks good to me. I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• Link Syrian Christian

Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For Abhiyum Naanum and Krishna Filmfare info use respectively.

Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this filmography. --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Skr15081997. Any further comments? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad to Support this nomination. Good job on this list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

• "she appeared in Manasellam as a terminally ill woman, which was a commercial failure." Since the film was a commercial failure, not the woman, a better sentence order would be "she appeared as a terminally ill woman in Manasellam, which was a commercial failure."

Done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Kabaddi being capitalized in the third paragraph? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Kabaddi is the name of a sport, hence a proper noun. Shouldn't a proper noun be capitalised?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, we don't capitalise Baseball or Association Football or similar do we? Our own article on [[kabaddi] doesn't capitalise it in general usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with TRM: I wouldn't think that a sport's name would be a proper name. A league or event name, yes, but not a sport itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008 and The Rambling Man: Well, if that's the case, then done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 14:58, 10 July 2017 (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, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We probably know American recording artist Madonna as an entertainer, musician, provocative artist who has pushed the boundaries of popular music. However, she has ventured into the world of books and as an author even wrote children's books (surprise!). This list has all the books she has written (or given foreword) and is an exhaustive collection. With the consensus of my fellow editors I would like this one to become a featured bibliography list, the first of its kind for a musician. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Chrishonduras:

I think that there is other book, named Madonna: Live! (1987).

Madonna Live! is by author Susan Black and nowhere it says that Madonna had any contribution in it. No foreword also is present. So it should be in Bibliography of works about Madonna rather than this page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there is not too much information about this book.

What do you think about the compilation "5 Books for Children" and "5 Audiobooks for Children"? are relevant to add?.

They are mentioned under The English Roses and Other Stories, maybe we can give the particular name? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but during her career Madonna wrote some publications, like "If I Were President" in George magazine and/or she wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth and the article is named "How My Life Changed". For this, I don't know if is relevant to add.

Thanks for pointing this out, yes her magazine entries can definitely be included. I will include them. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is usual that every activity that Madonna is involved, attracts the attention and later become in part of her legacy. So, this article from The Guardian said that "Madonna's success has lured a host of other celebrities and publishers into the market. So lucrative has the celebrity children's book business become that the children's sections of book shops are awash with actors, pop singers and politicians, even an alleged mobster, all trying to grab their market share". I think that we can add part of this in the article. Is a suggestion. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishonduras: I have added and addressed all the comments. What do you think about the new addition now? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, IndianBio. I will continue with the review of the article :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I think that is an overdetail to mention the background about Maverick company after is already mentioned in the main article and we have a link to know about this company. But what do you think?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishonduras:, I agree now that you brought up this point. The text about Maverick seemed unnecessary and I have removed and amended the section accordingly. Can you check now if everything is looking fine? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added again just the company name and removed the background of the foundation. After that, everything looks fine. Congratulations, is a brilliant work!. So, I support this nomination. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• The phrase (as an author and also foreword) sounds a little odd to me as in the first part you are saying Madonna is an author, but if you follow that same logic for the second part, then you are saying Madonna is a forward. I would put in something in front of foreword to improve this part.
• According to WP:NUMBERS, "[i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" so numbers such as 3 and 7 should be written out.
• For the phrase "She also wrote foreword", I am assuming you meant to say "forewords" plural.
• For the phrase "inaugural issue of George magazine", I would put "the" in front of "inaugural".
• I find the following phrase a little odd in the context of a book (Talking about five friends,), specifically the verb "[t]alking". Something like "revolving around" or a similar phrasing would be more suitable in my opinion.
• There are a few additional books from the "Children's books" section that are absent from the lead (such as Lotsa de Casha and The Adventures of Abdi).

Wonderful work with this list. These are the primary notes that I saw while reading through it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: hi, I have responded and rectified all the points raised. Yes the part about the foreword also kinda irked me so removed it altogether since the table indicates which ones are just foreword. Corrected the numeric versus words issue, as well as listed the other children's books. Also copy edited the last para about the Kabbalah teachings and expanded a bit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses; this was a very interesting read. I will have look through some of these books and articles in the future. I will support this, and good luck with getting this promoted. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Either way, it was a pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Aoba, and yes I will go around to the FAC sometime this week if thats fine? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Take as much time as you need as I only recently put it up for FAC and it will be up there for a while. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• Support: Just these questions: Why are some books (without articles) linked, while others are not? Also, do not forget to archive the last few refs. I also hope someone will conduct a thorough proof-read, since I don't usually have time for all that except the weekends. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Kailash29792. The reason Mr. Peabody's Apples and Yakov and the Seven Thieves are currently redlinked is because they are the only two books other than the blue linked ones, which have the most probability of having an article created here in Wikpedia, passing independent notability. As per my research the others do not stack up. I have archived the remaining links. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

A few problems, should be easy:

• Cite 17 is a cite web, but with just a title and an isbn. So... a book? I'm not sure what this cite is supposed to be, but it's not a website.
• Cite 50 has a couple issues- you use cite journal instead of cite magazine, and you have a "format" which is only meant for website formats, not edition appends. Of course it's the inaugural edition, it's vol1 iss1.
• You appear to be only linking the first use of a publisher in the refs, so you should only link powerHouse Books in cite 25, not 29. --PresN 01:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @PresN: thanks for your comments. These are my changes, however I don't know if {{cite magazine}} really improved it? The issue comes with a Vol. 1 no. 1. p. 48 formatting which I'm not sure is the correct format. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If I may interject, it appears that cite 17 still is using cite web when it doesn't have a web page linked. Let's try to address this in some way before promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008:, in situations like this what is the appropriate template to be used? Will just a template {{ASIN}} be enough? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @FLC director and delegates: I did this change here. Does this look fine to you guys since this would not use the cite web template? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant in my original comment was that it's a book, so use cite book. Like so. And as for ref 50, the main problem was that "|format=" is only for cite web, it's meant just for websites that aren't standard html. (like a pdf). The "Vol. 1 no. 1. p. 48" is fine- it's the first issue of the first volume, page 48. If that's not how they numbered their issues, then drop the vol=1 and just have issue=1 pg=48. But either way, now fixed. Source review passed. --PresN 14:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• I would add when Sex was released in the lead since it was her first publication
• In the description of The English Roses, you state that it's about "four friends" but I would suggest revising to "five girls" since there are five main characters

Nothing major here. Well written and comprehensive. Carbrera (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions and have implemented them. Let me know if the list looks ready for featured status to you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio – I will now support this list. If you are not busy, would you mind taking a look at my FLC? Thanks and regards. Carbrera (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Closing as promoted. --PresN 14:52, 10 July 2017 (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, 10 July 2017 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight is a 2016 American drama about a young African-American gay man struggling with his sexuality. It won numerous awards including the Academy Award for Best Picture. This list covers these, as always look forward to all the helpful and constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I reviewed any of your FLCs.

Comments from Skr15081997

• Since Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, and Adele Romanski were recipients for the Academy Award for Best Picture, they might be added to the lede.
• Something could be added to the publisher parameter in the OFCS citation.
• I have gone through this film's awards page at IMDb and the following awards could be added to the list–2017 Gold Derby Awards, IndieWire Critics' Poll and Village Voice Film Poll.
• All the recipients and nominees are sorted by their last name.

This one needed lots of work and you have tackled it brilliantly. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Thanks for the review. I have fixed most of these points. I don't think Gold Derby or Indiewire are notable awards so haven't included them as they don't have independent coverage apart from a simple listing of award wins. I'll nominate Gold Derby for AFD later. Cowlibob (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My concerns have been resolved. Do bring Gold Derby and IndieWire awards to AfD. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have my support. Great job! Mymis (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work on prose and organization.--Earthh (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]