Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2014

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 03:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The poorer cousin of the list of current Indian chief ministers. In India, governors, unlike their namesakes in the United States and elsewhere, are not the popularly elected heads of state governments. Rather, they are appointed by the central government, and usually play only a titular and ceremonial role. However, when the state and central governments belong to opposing parties, governors have been known to wreak havoc on behalf of the centre, destabilising the popularly elected chief minister's state govt. None of this, however, is within the scope of the present article, a simple list of the current governors of Indian states. It is well written and impeccably sourced; any concerns will be taken care of quickly.

Note: I have another list at FLC but I believe it "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed."—indopug (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick questions If they are appointed to serve 5 years, why is one of them a minister for almost 6? Are lieutenant governors also appointed to serve 5 years? Mattximus (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. The Constitution says that after the five-year term is completed, the incumbent Governor continues to hold office until he is replaced and his successor takes charge. (So, yeah, "five-year term" is basically meaningless, but it's there in the Constitution).

No terms exist for the lt governors.—indopug (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• I suggest linking the places in the second paragraph.
• The name column should sort on the surname rather than the forename. (See Help:Sorting).
• You need to check the refs. A quick check of a few of them shows ref 1 is a wikilink and ref 7 is a dead link.

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, thanks, all done. Ref #1 is to a book, whose author is wikilinked.—indopug (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - only minor points
• "and the central governments–appointed governor." - central government-appointed? Only one government is doing the appointing.
• Link Union territory in para 2; I had no idea what that was.
• Portraits of all the governors a la List of current Indian chief ministers would be nice, but not required.

Yes, I'll make a portrait column when we have enough images. But I'm not optimistic of that happening; governors are obscure.

• You have a bunch of redirecting links; not essential to fix, but it'd be nice.
• I'm presuming that the missing access dates on all The Hindu/The Hindustan Times/The Times of India references are intentional.

Yes. I recently realised that Wikipedia:CITATION#Webpages recommends "the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage" mainly when "the publication date is unknown".

• Checked all images/sources; no concerns.
• Consider archiving your online references via archive.org/web or webcitation.org- it's not as crucial in a constantly-updated list like this, but it ensures that changes/removals of online content do not invalidate your citations. --PresN 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. But I'll hold off for a bit because there will be several changes in the coming weeks/months with the new central govt appointing their boys as governors.

I've addressed all your comments except where I've left a note. Thanks for your feedback and your support!—indopug (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one note, appoint or dismiss a ministry can you link "ministry"? Otherwise, I support for featured status. Seattle (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the support!—indopug (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please update the UP Governor. Old one resigned this week. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's resigned, doesn't mean the office immediately becomes vacant ([2], [3]). Usually the officeholder nominally holds charge until his successor is sworn in. (Best example: good ol' Manmohan)—indopug (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. [4] Qureshi will be UP governor on 23rd. Also, Chattisgarh governor resigned yesterday. We will have to update that when a new appointment is made.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll make the changes as soon as they're sworn in (and a newspaper report is out). To do it before that is premature. I suspect there'll be many such changes in the coming months.—indopug (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is about ready for promotion. However, why must the text be gendered? You used the words "he" and "his" several times, when several governors are women. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, done. I reverted your edit, because I thought just 'India' could be too vague—the British colony was also called India, and it had several similarly-named offices. I wanted to clarify that this article is not about them.—indopug (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I was going to promote this, but looked to check the most recent changes and saw "are taken in the his or her name." We can't be promoting this with such a glaring prose issue present. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed!—indopug (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, looks fixed to me.

• Delegate's comment: This list has been promoted, but there may be a delay in closure owing to issues with the bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 03:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC) [5].

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This separate list for the sixth season of The Real Housewives of Atlanta allows for greater detail than could originally be included in the main article. This season in particular has generated significant media attention for several brawls among cast members, which has been detailed in this article. Furthermore, a fully-comprehensive list of episodes includes summaries that are directly sourced from official documents from Bravo, and features viewer statistics for every episode that has aired. With the inclusion of a brief background of the housewives and a section devoted to critical reception, I believe that this list is ready for FL. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: All in all, this is a meticulously sourced list (not sure whether it should be a full article and not just a list, but many seasons have been formatted this way) with information to boot (all credible as well); the tables are well formatted as well; the main image is of non-free nature however fair use applies. I have only one concern with this: if the media attention some of the controversies got was "widespread", why do you need to use the non-RS Wetpaint? Please substitute it with something more reputable. Good work! prism^△ 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The piece about Brandon dropping charges doesn't appear to have been covered by any reputable news outlets, so I have removed it altogether. Thanks so much for your feedback! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No major issues. Looks great overall. Simon (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments

• "Its executive producers are Lauren Eskelin" - were, the season's over

• Done

• Why do the last three episodes not have summaries?

• Done

• Consider archiving your online sources with a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content at those sites don't destroy your references.

• Thanks for the suggestion, I will certainly get to that!

• --PresN 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Thank you for your support! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - This list has been promoted. Owing to issues with the bot, there may be a delay in closure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2014 (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 02:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cassianto^talk & SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portraying the little man who wins through against all the odds, the Everyman, 'the urban "little man" defeated—but refusing to admit it' (Sunday Times, 13 Jan 1963), George Formby may have looked like an unlikely film star, but this little Lancastrian was one of the biggest screen draws in Britain in the 1930s and 40s, and the highest-paid entertainer of his day. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main GF page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC) & Cassianto^talk 07:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Filmography
  • Off the Dole – "A work-shy skiver" – tautology?
    • Indeed, now fixed. Cassianto^talk 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Stage credits
  • The note at the top, "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" gives one pause. You make it clear in the next line that it can never be complete as no full record exists, but even so, ought readers to see such a note in a Featured List?
    • I do agree on this. We run the risk of well-meaning editors adding questionable numbers with no references if we add this current wording. I would vote to delete this and go with the "no full record exists". Cassianto^talk 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted it is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Recording history – an odd subheading. One might expect just "Records" or "Recordings"
  • Went with the latter. Cassianto^talk 11:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column 5
    • is this really just the composer or the author of the words too?
    • it may be a coincidence, but we have "Cotterell", "Cotterill" and "Cottrell" at various points, and one wonders if they are the same person sometimes misspelled.
    • Dubin and Warren each have an article you can link to
    • not clear why some entries are for e.g. Gifford/Cliffe/Formby and others for Formby/Gifford/Cliffe. Is this how the source does it?
      • It depends on the source as to the order. As they are inconsistent between them, I have picked one and stuck to it throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Willie at the License Office" – was Licence really spelled with an s? Ditto for "You Don't Need a License for That"
  • I suspect "Swimin with the Wimmen" should be "Swimmin…"
  • I doubt that Auntie Maggie's Remedy lacks its possessive apostrophe, in either the 1941 issue or the 1950 remake
  • "I'm the Husband of the Wife of Mr Wu" – recordings with the same date are listed twice, though with different catalogue numbers. It seems unlikely that they are different takes, though if they are I suppose it's sensible to list them separately, and a footnote would be helpful to make clear why they get two mentions. On the other hand, if, as seems probable, they are the same recording differently coupled on two different 78 releases, I don't think it helpful to list the reissue.
  • "Dan the Dairy Man" – ditto
  • "Delivering the Morning Milk" – ditto
  • "Got To Get Your Photo in the Press" – ditto
  • "Hill Billy Willie" – ditto
  • "Our Sergeant Major" – listed twice with identical date and catalogue numbers
  • "Low Down Lazy Turk" – no details of label, catalogue number and composer
  • "The Pleasure Cruise" 1951 remake – something's gone awry with the date
  • "Zip Goes a Million" – another mangled date
• Radio
  • Desert Island Discs – last choice: can't be George Sr singing it, as he died more than a decade before it was first performed, according to the article on the song.
    • An error on the DiD microsite—not for the first time, as we've all seen before! I've changed it to one of his father's standards, "Standing on the Corner of the Street", accordingly sourced.

Hope these comments are useful. Tim riley talk 10:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely useful, thank you very much indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My few comments are now satisfactorily addressed, and I have much pleasure in supporting the promotion of this page. It is clear, thorough, and well sourced, with a good introductory section. Hard to imagine it could be better done. Tim riley talk 15:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the review and support Tim, cheers! Cassianto^talk 00:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent list!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks great: many thanks Doc, for your time and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It might be my flu, but I can't find anything to nitpick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review: much appreciated indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto to both. Get well soon Crisco! -- Cassianto^talk 08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 23 June 2014 (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 02:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this article looks quite good to me. Also some other articles like this have been a featured list. So I think it can be passed. It is well sourced, there are notes, moreover it is very informative. That's why I'm nominating this for FL. (I'm the creator of this thing) --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The quality of English in the lead is very poor. Some examples:
  • "The term captain in cricket means who leads the team and does some additional works and has some responsibilities" => "In cricket, a captain is a player who leads the team and has additional roles and responsibilities"
  • "Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) is a professional Twenty20 format tournament organized by Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) in Bangladesh" => "The Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) is a professional Twenty20 format tournament organized by the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB)". No need to state "in Bangladesh" given that it's in the name of the competition and the organising body as well!
  • "The first season of BPL was held in 2012,[4] since then another season of BPL was played in 2013." => "The first season of BPL was held in 2012,[4] and the second in 2013."
  • "In this 2 season 22 players have captained their team in at least one match" = > "In these two seasons, twenty-two players have captained their team in at least one match"
  • "Mushfiqur Rahim the captain of Bangladesh played for two different franchisees in two BPL season." => "Mushfiqur Rahim, the captain of Bangladesh, played for two different franchises in two BPL seasons."
• That's every one of the first five sentences, I'm going to stop there. I think the lead needs a severe copy-edit by a native English speaker. Also, tiny one- or two-sentence paragraphs need to be merged togather. And why are some team names randomly in bold in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ChrisTheDude: for your kind review to the article. Actually I didn't start the article in a jiffy. I worked over BPL's history for two days. Then I made a rough note and get them checked by an English teacher of us. After his correction I made another note. I created the article with that note. Anyway still I'll request an native English speaker to make a copy-edit. The explanation of And why are some team names randomly in bold in the lead? is Actually I have a plan to remove the duplicate links and bolds. Now I have a question, other than these problems is there any problems you see?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the English of the lead fixed, I'll then look to see what other problems may exist...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll be slightly busy in next two days. But I'll try my best to complete the work in next two days. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit  Done @ChrisTheDude: --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In this second season 22 players have captained their team in at least one match" - do you really mean this? The list refers to the second season only?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant In this 2 season 22 players have captained their team in at least one match The copy editor thought it differently that's why he changed the two to second. Anyway I've fixed that. @ChrisTheDude: --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In this two season" is completely grammatically incorrect in English, the correct form is "in these two seasons" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that one. Anyway fixed. Let me know if there's other grammatical errors or any problem. @ChrisTheDude: --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm not a native English speaker but I've done a copyedit/reword of the lead on behalf of the nominator. Hope it's helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Now what to do? Is it okay or still it contain flaws?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

"The Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) is a professional Twenty20 format tournament organized by the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) in Bangladesh." - three uses of the word Bangladesh is too many. "In Bangladesh" at the end is not needed - where else would the BCB organise a tournament?

"Of the two seasons played, 22 players have captained their team in at least one match" => "In the two seasons played, 22 players have captained their team in at least one match"

"having lead in all 24 matches" => "having led in all 24 matches" (spelling mistake)

"Nafees and Mahmudullah Riyad of the Chittagong Kings have lost the most number of matches" => "Nafees and Mahmudullah Riyad of the Chittagong Kings have lost the highest number of matches"

"Kapali has captained the Barisal Burners and Sylhet Royals. Nafees has captained the Barisal Burners as well but has also led the Khulna Royal Bengals. Rahim has captained the Duronto Rajshahi as well as the Sylhet Royals. Vincent has also captained the Sylhet Royals as well as the Barisal Burners" => "Kapali and Vincent have each captained the Barisal Burners and Sylhet Royals, Nafees has captained the Barisal Burners and the Khulna Royal Bengals, and Rahim has captained the Duronto Rajshahi and the Sylhet Royals."

"Six players have captained the Sylhet Royals. Five players have captained the Duronto Rajshahi. Four players have captained the Barisal Burners; three players have captained the Chittagong Kings, Dhaka Gladiators, Khulna Royal Bengals and two players have captained the Rangpur Riders" => "Six players have captained the Sylhet Royals, five players have captained the Duronto Rajshahi, four players have captained the Barisal Burners, three players have captained the Chittagong Kings, Dhaka Gladiators, Khulna Royal Bengals, and two players have captained the Rangpur Riders."

Ref 4 needs properly formatting using {{cite web}}. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All changes to the lead are done. I think tigercricket is the Bangladesh Cricket Board's official site. Cowlibob (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - with all that taken care of, all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Cowlibob for helping me here. But @ChrisTheDude: I've an objection with a comment of yours. where else would the BCB organise a tournament? Indian Premier League is a league like BPL which is organized by the BCCI. See 2014 Indian Premier League and 2009 Indian Premier League. In 2014 BCCI organized some of the matches in UAE and in 2009 they organized all the matches in South Africa. So BCB can also organize a tournament outside Bangladesh. Anyway thanks for supporting. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list looks really good. (One red link in this article, please fix it)--Aftab1995 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that Aftab1995 and thank you for supporting.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine to me although I doubt the necessity of the NR and Tied columns when none of them happened yet. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 04:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But who can say that there'll never be a tied or NR game? So keep the those sections.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Firstly, I'm very sorry Pratyya that I couldn't join earlier as you said as I was busy with my class exams and haven't accessed internet since last week. Secondly, even if this is closed (as mentioned), but I'll do my job and I joined it. Thirdly, I took a overlook in the article, it is Ok, but you need to focus more on the captains rather than focusing on the in formations regarding the BCBs, other leagues etc.

Finally, Congrats.  HPD   ^talk  13:11, 23 June 2014 (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 02:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First comment The table is ordered by RBI, but all entries are 10, 11, and 12. I think it would make more sense to order the table chronologically (my preference), or alphabetically (also acceptable). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the current order of reverse chronological fine? I used it because List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game FL also orders its table that way. Then again, it's not set in stone and chronological is fine by me as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more entries in the 18 Ks page than the 10 RBIs page, and I think the difference between 18 and 20 Ks is bigger than the difference between 10 and 12 RBIs, so in this case I would prefer to see the tables sorted differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Sorted chronologically now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a very nice list, meeting all the criteria as I see them, and a pleasant editor to work with too. All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Couple comments Overall very nice list. Three questions:

• (1) Was there a discussion of the phrasing used (in the title and prose) "List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs"? I've been a severely absentee WP:BASEBALL member for a while, so I may have missed it. But that seems like a very awkward way of saying "List of Major League Baseball hitters with 10 runs batted in in one game"? The stat is, after all, runs batted in. Rephrasing it to "who have batted in . . . runs" seems like an unnatural phrasing. As a result I'm fearful that this article will be difficult for people to naturally come across through natural language searches (not that baseball lists get high viewership to begin with). I get that my construction puts "in" twice in a row "runs batted in in a game", but that seems correct to me. If others disagree, I'll happily relent.

• Staxringold – It was discussed here a few weeks ago, although only one user proposed it. The consecutive "in" is problematic, which is why I decided to consult with WT:BASEBALL. Y2Kcrazyjoker4's suggestion sounded fine to me, so I decided to go ahead and use it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I bow to the wisdom of WP:BASEBALL. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (2) Should it be "List of MLB hitters" or "List of MLB players"? I've just realized there is a split, even amongst FLs that I myself have worked on (compare hitters with 4 HR in one game vs. players with career .400 OBP). Players seems like the better choice, IMO (and we should shift one of the two lists I just described once we set a consensus). Players are generally referred to simply as "players", not the task they are performing in setting that record (except maybe "pitchers"). I.e., Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the NBA player with the most career points, not the NBA shooter with the most career points.

• For FL on single-game records, it's clearly towards dividing between pitchers and hitters (four home runs and two grand slams vs. 18 strikeouts, striking out three batters on nine pitches and four strikeouts in one inning. For the two grand slam list, one of those listed (Tony Cloninger) was actually a pitcher. In my opinion, "player" is too generic, and there shouldn't be an exception for pitchers. As far-fetched as it may sound, a position player might some day achieve one of those milestones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno, this really bugs me. Why are you a hitter/pitcher for single game records but a PLAYER for career/season-long records? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Staxringold – Ask Babe Ruth (jk). Honestly, the whole title wording arrangement is actually very random. Some single-game records don't even use pitcher or hitter if the event itself supersedes the person who achieved it (unassisted triple plays – well, if a separate MLB list is ever created for it) or if it is a team effort (i.e. perfect games and no-hitters). But I can see why a list covering career/single-season records would use "player", as there are other (but less well-known) cases like the Bambino who can both hit and pitch proficiently. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno, I'd be interested in what others think because it seems silly to me. You're right, both pitchers and hitters can do things in their career. But they can also do things in a single game. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked WT:BASEBALL. No consensus was established. Looks like the status quo stands. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All of two people responded. I still think it's just wrong, I'll remain Neutral. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (3) Much smaller note. "Every team which had a player hit 10 runs batted in won their milestone games." Should be something like "won those milestone games." I know this is mimicking the sentence in the 4-HR-in-a-game list, but the subjects of the sentence in that article are the actual players (so it is correct to say THEIR milestone games). Here the subject is "every team" but we're talking about the milestones of the individual players, so I believe it's wrong to say "their milestone games". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See above my resolved comment with TRM. I used this wording in the two grand slams list – the "their" actually refers to the team, and it would be milestone for them as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise likely to garner my support! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I can't see any issues here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets the criteria, as near as I can tell not being an expert on them, and is interesting, an added benefit :-). I did make a few minor copyedits, any of which you are free to revert. Go Phightins! 00:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reviewed, can't find any issues. Seattle (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 23 June 2014 (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/not promoted by SchroCat 08:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrukh Khan is one of the most successful and popular actors of Hindi cinema, who has had a remarkable career spanning over two decades. This listing of his screen appearances is well-sourced and thoroughly researched. Look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agreed, looks well-sourced and thoroughly researched. Considering his career it's not too bloated a summary and is clearly comprehensive. Nicely done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list provides adequate detail about the subject with a good prose. It also passes the ref links, alt text, and redirect tests. Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list. Cowlibob (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another comprehensive, well-researched filmography article by Krimuk! One comment though- I think it would be better to write the exact worldwide total of Chennai Express instead of saying it was over Rs. 3 billion; i.e. "In 2013, Khan co-starred with Padukone in the Rs. 3.95 billion-grossing action comedy..." (using this source). It sounds better that way AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 06:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AB. :) Changed to actual gross. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and Cowlibob are nominating this for featured list because it meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a description of American Hustle, the venues in which it was shown, the nominations and awards which it has received, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that American Hustle received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Jennifer Lawrence on the red carpet at the 70th Golden Globe Awards is freely licensed and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Betty Logan I think I can broadly support this, but here a few observations:

1. The film has grossed a worldwide total of over $251 million on a budget of $40 million, making it a box-office success. – Per MOS:FILM#Box office editors should refrain from making subjective claims about whether the film was a financial success. Box Office Mojo doesn't draw any conclusions about profitability etc.
2. Upon release, it was met with widespread critical acclaim and has a 93 percent rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on a sample of 243 reviews – Per WP:AGG aggregators don't determine whether a film was acclaimed or not; they just tot up the number of positive/negative reviews. Instead of saying the film "met with widespread critical acclaim", you should simply state that "Upon release, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 243 reviews and judged 93 percent to be positive". Also, I believe that critics submit their reviews to Rotten Tomatoes which makes it a survey as opposed to a sample.
3. The blue writing on the blue background in the infobox fails the WCAG AAA contrast text. You can check color combinations at: http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/. I suggest changing it to a non-blue background.
4. In the Broadcast Film Critics Association entry, Christian Bale is unnecessarily linked again.
5. There are several entries such as with the Central Ohio Film Critics Association entry where you have "Amy Adams (also for Man of Steel and Her)" and "Jennifer Lawrence (also for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)". This is slightly ambiguous: do you mean that the actresses received further nominations in the same category or that it was a single nomination shared across several films? This re-occurs for Chritsian Bale and the London Film Critics Circle Awards. If it was a single nomination for several films this should be made clear. If you wish to see an example of the confusion this can cause see [11] and [12].

Overall this is a comprehenisve and well-sourced list. If the above issues are resolved it has my unreserved support. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Thank you for your comments! Everything but the colour change has been done. I'm having an issue figure out the actual colour of the blue links in order to fix it. It seems like nothing short of black will pass the test. And I also don't think the colour change needs to be done; virtually every film accolades page, and all but one (Up) of the Featured List pages with an info box (An Education, Atonement, Avatar, Black Swan, Frida, Gosford Park, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, The Lords of the Rings series, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Mr. Nobody, My Week with Marilyn, Precious, Ratatouille, Sense and Sensibility, the Spider-Man series, True Grit, Up in the Air, WALL-E, Winter's Bone, and The Young Victoria) use the colour scheme currently on this page. It seems like it's been okay for a really long time to have that formatting, and appears to be more or less a standard at this point. I'm a little reluctant to change it, truthfully, and I don't think it's particularly necessary unless we also want to change the colours for every article I listed. If that's what is decided, then that's fine, but it seems a bit excessive. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just suggestions, not demands. I am pleased you have adopted most of them and just so there is no confusion I support the list's promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: I apologize, Betty. I didn't mean to imply that you were being demanding. It was a bit of overkill to list all of those, I admit. Again, I apologize. Thank you very much for your support and your help! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness of the list due to my limited knowledge on the topic. Rest all looks good to me. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A great list on a wonderful film! Well done. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Cowlibob (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): NortyNort (Holla) 00:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets FL requirements and it is most appropriate with China as the world's premiere dam builder. I previously nominated List of dams and reservoirs in China but it was not promoted due to a lack of scope. With this new list I worked on, the scope is tallest dams over 100 m (330 ft) in height. I have researched extensively and the tallest dams in existence or under construction are listed.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review it shortly.--Tomcat (7) 09:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

In Under construction, choose between plural or singular (Yunnan/Sichuan Province(s))

In the same section, delink city

I made dmy date format as standard, if you don't mind

Some broken links (such as [15]). Please check all links.

For Ref 33 "Zipingpu Reservoir and the Wenchuan Earthquake". ECEE. Retrieved 23 August 2011. please add |registration=yes in the footnote. Check other references where registration is required, and note it subsequently

Would be good if you add |format= in references for special formats (like .doc)

Please note the language in references like 70

Otherwise looks pretty good. I am willing to support it after reference cleanup.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomcat, thank you very much for the review. I have cleaned up the references and repaired/replaced broken links. For "special formats", should that be done with .PDFs as well? I used it for the one Word Document. The Adobe icon shows for the PDFs so it should suffice. I also have a side-bar question, do you know what happened to the old citation gadget? It seems ProveIt is the only one available now.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I use Checklinks for such tasks. Not sure what gadget you mean, as I hardly use any.--Tomcat (7) 09:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments

• You say you have checked the links, but 37 is still dead.
• When a column is sortable, the items should be wikilinked each time, not just the first instance of an item.

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks added and reference fixed. Thanks for having a look.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I fixed a couple links in the article. It now looks ready to go. Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for those catches and the review.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose from Crisco 1492
  • Per WP:BOLD, we shouldn't be bolding the lede here
  • I can't believe you've gotten three supports when you have an obvious typo causing a redlink in the table
  • File:Shuangjiangkou Dam rendition.jpg does not meet NFCC#8, and should not be in this article
  • The lede doesn't give us any discussion of trends in Chinese dams, such as which province has the most (Yunnan), which type of damn is most often used in tall Chinese dams, or which river is impounded by the most tall dams
  • We should probably not have redirects in the Region, province or city field
  • Captions: if it's not a full sentence, it doesn't need a period
• Just a few to start here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. The typo wasn't apparent until I linked the text halfway-ish through the review. Thanks for catching it, I obviously didn't. I addressed everything above with the exception of the redirects. Are you saying, for example, that I should link 'Sichuan' instead of 'Sichuan Province'? I added 'Province' just to denote that it is a province and not city or region.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, basically. There's little point in having 15 redirects when we can simply pipe something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, links piped. Concerns addressed.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks reasonable now. I'd have added a bit about the functions (i.e. irrigation, power, etc.), but this already meets the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I had a big concern about the source, some of them are from "Hudong baike" (like this one), mean's "Hudong encyclopedia", is basically another online free wikipedia, everybody could edit. And the difference between Hudong and Wikipedia is: Hudong don't require any reliable source, so you can just add whatever you want. Because you can't using articles from wikipedia to source another article, so I think using Hudong baike as a source are totally inappropriate.

Some other source has the same kind problem, like this one, is a personal blog, so I'm a little bit surprise nobody mention it at peer review & FLC, mostly I'm only active at zh.wikipedia.org, few days ago seem this list has been promoted, so I translate to Chinese, and found those problem, I have already replace all source that inappropriate to something else, journals, books, or online source at another article, but I'm not sure what's kind standard English wikipedia consider a reliable source, so I didn't change it here.

And one more thing, I seem that every source's title has translate to English, but for my opinion, the title, author should remain as the same as original source, consider some reader maybe don't understand Chinese, editor could translate the title, but still should keep the original title with (XXXXXX), this is something like, how to put it... like a global standard for papers, I think articles here should respect that also.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns addressed.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. I present to you: the awards and nominations for Psych, the poster child for a truly under-appreciated show. I really wish this list could be longer, but here it is. All 31 awards and nominations. Psych officially ends tomorrow (I suggest that everyone watch the finale), and I have been working hard to get this list improved before the end. I have sourced everything, and have information about each award, as it appears is standard among other featured lists of this type. I appreciate any comments you give. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite high level quality improvement effort by Awardgive. Most interesting that both List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit! and List of awards and nominations received by Psych include IIG Awards. Seems like both shows have helped educate viewers about science. :) Great job overall, — Cirt (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the infobox "Awards & Nominations", no need for capital N.

• Changed.

• If the "NAMIC Vision Awards" aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why are they notable enough to be included in this list?

• Actually, I think that both the NAMIC awards and the organization itself are both notable enough for their own articles. Both have received more than decent media and literary coverage (example: This Business of Broadcasting).

• Don't think you need wikilinks in table captions.

• Removed links.

• "for favorite TV actor in a leading role" doesn't appear to have been, all four awards appear to be slightly different from one another.

• Reworded.

• "American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers" no comma after Authors.

• Removed comma.

• In image captions, I tend to see (pictured) as (pictured).

• Italicized.

• Imagen Awards and Imagen Foundation link to the same article, little point in linking them both in the same sentence.

• Unlinked Imagen Foundation.

• No real need for the Awkward screen grab. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed image.

I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the review. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list that should satisfy FLC after you've made Crisco's amendments. Cowlibob (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments from Crisco 1492
  • The show has been most recognized in terms of awards for its first episode, "Pilot"; its musical team; the series itself; and actor James Roday. - Well, if it's only received five awards, and you're naming four categories, that kind of makes "most recognized" pretty much useless, right?

• Removed "most".

• • Try to curb the number of sentences starting with "the awards"

• It's down to at most one occurrence per section. Is this good enough?

• • Double check to be sure that the series' title is in italics throughout the article

• I believe I have finished this.

• • Double check to be sure that episode titles are in quotes throughout the article

• Same with above.

• • Avoid using the present perfect if the show is not likely to get anymore awards ("has never...")

• I believe I have removed all instances of this.

• • You don't really need "list of" in the table headers; it adds nothing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have begun the fixes. I'll try to get the rest done in a day or so. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I have addressed all of your remaining concerns, Crisco 1492. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that looks to be it. Support. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 09:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [17].

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was hived off from the Eurasian Nuthatch FA to reduce the level of detail in an already lengthy article. It has only two sources, but it's difficult to see what else could be needed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this specialized article it might be appropriate to cite the authorities for the different subspecies. Some of them will be available online and the interested (multilingual) reader can read the original descriptions. The references are given in the Check list of Birds of the World here I tried finding the articles but is very tedious. One has to first work out the abbreviated journal title.

Here is Wolf, 1810:

• Meyer, Bernhard; Wolf, Johann, eds. (1810). Taschenbuch der deutschen Vögelkunde, oder, Kurze Beschreibung aller Vögel Deutschlands, Erster Theil (in German). Frankfurt: Verlegt von Friedrich Wilmans. p. 128.

Witherby, 1913 is:

• Bulletin of the British Ornithologist's Club vol 31 page 78 - issue missing on BHL here

Sachtleben, 1919. is Anz. Orn. Ges. Bayer 1 7.

• Sachtleben, H. (1919). "Sitta europaea cisalpina subsp. n." Anzeiger der Ornithologischen Gesellschaft in Bayern (in German). 1: 7–8.

I'm giving up. I notice that a French version of the subspecies list has been created.

Aa77zz (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. Zoonomen is good for journal titles, I'll add over the next couple of days. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three more.

S. e. levantina, Hartert, 1905

• Hartert, Ernst (1903). Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommenden Vögel, Heft 1 (in German). Berlin: R. Friedländer & Sohn. p. 333. Date doesn't agree. Perhaps published in sections and now bound together.

That appears to be the case, volume 3 is the required one, I'll add data, fix link later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. e. persica, Witherby, 1903

• Witherby, Harry Forbes (1903). "Journey in Fars, S.W. Persia". Ibis. Series 8. 3: 531.

S. e. caucasica, Reichenow, 1901

• Reichenow, Anton (1901). "Sitta caesia caucasica Rchw. n. sp". Ornithologische Monatsberichte. 9: 53.

Aa77zz (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking more closely at the text:

• The formatting in the Description column is confused. I'm aware that one doesn't use full stops in figure legends that aren't sentences but to my eyes it looks slightly odd not ending with full stops when one uses full stops as delimiters within the text such as in europaea, takatsukasai and sakhalinensis. Perhaps only use commas as delimiters - or end with full stops.

Ended with full stops now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • arctica ends with a full stop

as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • arctica has a cite. Why only this description?
  • arctica and baicalensis start with a lower case character
  • bedfordi has a semicolon
  • bedfordi mentions seorsa - is this a mistake?
  • bedfordi has asiatica not in italics rather than S. e. asiatica
  • takatsukasai has an unpaired right bracket
  • amurensis missing a comma
  • asiatica has an full stop followed by a lowercase letter
  • hondoensis ends in a semicolon

All the typos and infelicities above fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why in the citations do you sometimes link the page number and at other times link the title (using url=)?

With some sources, it's possible to link to the exact page that contains the text, and I have done so where I can since that seems more helpful than, in some cases, linking an entire book. Where it is not possible, I've linked to the article or journal as appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead has "the precise number is disputed." I think you should say more about this. How have you selected which to list? Which are the subspecies which are contentious? Who lists more subspecies and who lists less?

Rephrased, it's not really disputed, since the print version of HBW on which the on-line resource is substantially based was written by Harrup, so the change in taxonomy largely represents his up-dated view. The differences between the 2013 and 1996 treatment are already in the footnotes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that, I'll work through them tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets the criteria. I've a couple of outstanding points:

• I still don't understand the choice of linking methods: compare 4 Witherby with 20 Ogilvie-Grant.
• FN 11 Gould 1837. S. e. asiatica. It might be useful to link to the page, especially as the pages do not appear to be numbered. The link is:

https://archive.org/stream/birdsEuropeIIIGoul#page/236/mode/2up

• bedfordi - belly is mentioned twice. Check source to see whether descriptions of different subspecies have been concatenated.

Sorry I've been slow. Half-term. Small grandchildren now passed to other set of grandparents. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for help and support, I've moved all links to url, added Gould page and fixed bedfordi. We have just acquired baby grandaughter for a few days, so I know what it's like! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian titles should be in original cyrillic script, not latinised and transcribed, as it produces unneeded problems. Imperatorskago petrogradskago obshchestva estestvoispytatelei does not make sense since it is in genitive case and additionally has punctuation errors; literally it would be "of the Imperial Naturalist Community of Petrograd". Both in contemporary and pre-reformational Russian it would be Императорское Петроградское общества естествоиспытателей (Imperial Naturalist Community of Petrograd). "Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR" means "Works of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of USSR", but it would be better "Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of USSR". Do you agree that a journal title should be in original Russian and the translated title in brackets? --Tomcat (7) 15:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but my knowledge of Russian is near zero, and basically I put in what I could find, which was itself less than straightforward. Although the article was referenced adequately by the first couple of refs, I was trying to provide links too the original descriptions where possible as Aa77zz suggested above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deserves featured status. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments. I apologize for my ignorance of ornithology:

• These may have been geographically isolated from each other until relatively recently. What happened?

It's probably due to the retreat of the ice sheets allowing separated populations to expand, but the sources don't actually say that, so it's just my OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The two photos could use alternate text, I wouldn't call them purely decorative.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Subspecies" and "Authority" section should be sortable.

I'm not keen on that. I've tweaked the captions to make it clear that the ssp are arranged in geographical order, as in the sources (and it's normal for such lists, since it makes it easier to see the differences between neighbours). Sorting only gives the trivial alphabetical arrangement, which loses useful information Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Add ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" tags where appropriate, see MOS:DTAB for more information. Seattle (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please check that I've got it right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. No apology needed; an article should be accessible to non-specialists, and if it only makes sense to experts there is probably something wrong Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets featured standards. Seattle (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jim, this looks about ready to pass, but before I promote there's a few minor issues

• If it's not a sentence, it should not end with a period (check your tables)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The female is usually slightly duller with a brown tint to the eyestripe and paler underparts - If there are certain subspecies in which this is not true, you may want to note that. Otherwise I'd nix the "usually"

Added an exception Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a little discussion of alternative differentiations (you talk about Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers a little, but are there any other mainstream identifications of subspecies)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAIK, most sources more or less follow Harrap, who also wrote the earlier version of HBW. I've added a bit on an earlier treament which differentiated many mnore form Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for delay, my broadband has been down for two days, but is playing nicely at present (everything crossed!) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - This nomination has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:02, 1 June 2014 [18].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Richardson was a prodigious actor whose career ran from 1920 to 1983. He appeared in a huge number of films, stage shows, television dramas and radio plays. As one of the foremost actors of the 20th century awards and honours were heaped upon him. This list was originally set up by Tim riley during his revamp of the Richardson article to well-deserved FA status: I've just done some minor tweaking round the edges to bring it to FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent list. Some minor things though

• Radio plays -no characters?

• Sadly not: the sources only show the titles and years, not the channels or roles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does British Film Institute really need to be linked several dozen times in sourcing?

• It's a bit like the linking in the table, which can alter depending on which criteria is selected: the sources also change position, so it could be any one of a number that are the first link to be selected. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead I think you should probably mention his most notable Oscar/BAFTA wins/noms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I agree. I'll add some shortly. Many thanks for looking through, and I'll tweak the lead accordingly. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As noted above I had substantial input to the article earlier on and so I am ineligible to offer support here as I would otherwise have enthusiastically done. But I think I can, without impropriety, thank SchroCat for turning my workaday efforts into something first class. On a first read through of the current page I have found nothing to query; I’ll re-read and comment below if I find anything. The page as I left it was in no danger of getting anywhere near FL, but I shall be surprised if the much enhanced version now before us is not promoted. – Tim riley (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another great list which compliments the equally great main article. Few things...

• "After touring and appearing in rep, he made his London debut..." – I think the noun form would help differentiate between Richardson and Benson here, both of whom are mentioned in the previous sentence together. I note we do use the pronoun for RR in the previous sentence which is fine, but as it is a new sentence, the distinction should, IMO, once again be made.
• "After service during the Second World War with Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve..." – The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?
• "A radio career ran in parallel to the stage Richardson was first broadcast in The City in 1929." – May need re-writing.
• "Richardson's film career began in 1931 as an uncredited extra in Dreyfus; he did not take film seriously as a medium, but undertook the work for money." – possibly – "Richardson's film career began in 1931 as an uncredited extra in Dreyfus; as a medium, he disliked film, and only undertook the lucrative work for financial gain." (Not fussed on this one though)
  • Riley oar being put in: that's going much too far. He did the films for the money, it's true, but he said he learned a lot from acting for the camera. He said, "I've never been one of those chaps who scoff at films. I think they're a marvellous medium, and are to the stage what engravings are to painting. The theatre may give you big chances, but the cinema teaches you the details of craftsmanship." Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "McFarlane considered that in Richardson's performances, "every so often he would..." – the run up to the quote doesn't quite fit. For the current run up to be used "every so often he would" would need to be omitted, which would then blend in nicely with the rest of the quote: "McFarlane considered that Richardson's performances, "would remind one that he had few peers and no superiors in his particular line".
• I would slightly rework the ending so that the death is chronological. At the moment, he dies then makes an appearance in Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes. -- Cassianto^talk 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! I've addressed most, and just need to think a bit more about the tweaking at the end (to some extent he did make an appearance in Greystone after for death, as the film was released posthumously). I'll mull over some suitable change and get back to you! Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The title is a little non-standard. Generally those would be two articles since they deal with two topics, broken into List of awards and nominations received by Ralph Richardson and Ralph Richardson filmography. Since the awards section is quite short, I'd recommend 'Awards and honours' be reincorporated directly into Ralph Richardson, and the remaining material moved to an article at Ralph Richardson filmography. That title implies only works in TV and film, however, so perhaps List of the roles of Ralph Richardson or something similar might work. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not overly "non-standard", as others in the same format exist. There is, however, a related discussion on the matter, which may affect the title here.
2. There is no logical basis for two articles at all: one is sufficient as they deal with one subject: the career history of Raph Richardson (or, if you prefer, Richardson's roles, and the awards he recieved for such roles). Again we have a number of other articles that adopt a similar structure. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This latest suggestion is not attractive. The notion of dumping a list back into a text article is regressive, and the present arrangement of having all the career lists on one page and the biography article on another is logical and sensible. Incidentally, with the babel of voices on the Gielgud cognate page, might it be worthwhile contemplating replacing the comma in the title with a colon? That would do no real damage and might head off some of the more bloodthirsty members of the lynch-mob. Then again it might not. – Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it until the the new conversation comes up with further thoughts. If there is no consensus on how to deal with these titles, then a colon may be the best way to go. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks good, overall. These are my edits – please revert if you don't like the changes.

• I was going to say something about the title as well, but I'll save it for the centralised discussion. I don't think a colon would be the way to go.
• Might be worth linking "rep" – I wasn't entirely sure what it meant at first.
• Could be a good idea to mention in the image caption of the first image whether Richardson is on the right or the left. What with them being in costume, it's not immediately obvious if you're not familiar with the actors
• The Alchemist and The Rivals need to sort under A and R respectively.
• Similarly, The Morecambe and Wise Christmas Show and The Wednesday Special: Comets Among the Stars need to sort under M and W.
• MOS:TABLE suggests that only the first word in a table caption should be capitalised, i.e. "Film or production" rather than "Film or Production".
• It might be worth putting something in the "Film or production" column for the Laurence Olivier Award, rather than just having an empty cell. {{n/a}} is quite good for this, but I'll leave that up to you.
• Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album doesn't list Richardson anywhere – is this an error on their part?

• Looks like it - there are a couple of good sources that confirm this. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done - many thanks for your thoughts! - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Review from Crisco 1492
  • David Ayliff - well, for a general overview like this it is odd to have such a powerful quote attributed to a person who has no article about him... *hint hint*
    • I'll have a dig round to see if there is enough for a stand alone article; I'll replace if not. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trimmed a little fat; please verify
    • Looks good to me, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Oliver Twist to the novel? (as a side note: our article essentially has no overview of anything in Template:Oliver Twist. This is disgusting). Couple other possibilities too, like Moby-Dick
    • Done all. (I';m very surprised by that: there should be an adaptations section in there at least! - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oedipus Rex is a redirect; pipe Oedipus Rex?
  • Several plays seem to be unlinked even though we have articles. Home at Seven (play) and The White Carnation, for instance
  • In Memoriam - Perchance could this be Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H.?
    • I'll need to check on this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost certainly, I should think. The papers listed readings from Tennyson's poem for BBC broadcast on 1 October 1936, but the name of those reading the lines are not mentioned. Without checking The Radio Times for more detail one can't be certain, and I think it's probably best not to assume. Tim riley talk 17:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if we can confirm, it should be linked. Not something that would hold back my support, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise not much to nitpick over. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose. Good work, everyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks indeed for looking this over: much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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