Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Koirala is a Nepalese actress who has received four Filmfare awards for her performances in Indian films. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• Would be nice to know what her role was in 1942: A Love Story since it marked a turnaround in her career.
• Her role in Company would be useful.
• Khela was quite a critically acclaimed production. Some details on it will be good.
• Would be good to have an overview of how her roles were in significantly less notable films in the late-2000s.
• Her role in Ek Choti Si Love Story was one of her most controversial, and a court case dragged on for months. Would be good to mention that.
• A brief mention of her roles in Elektra and Bhoot Returns will be nice.
• I would suggest mentioning I Am in the lead, as the film was one of her most acclaimed, as well as controversial.
• Isn't this image much better than the one being used? Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the comments. I've tried to resolve them, added roles, replace image. Wasn't sure how to phrase that Koirala started to appear to less prominent films in the 2000s but gave it a go. Cowlibob (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• "Koirala's career had a turnaround when she starred as the daughter of a revolutionary..." It's unclear what revolutionary? I see the source says revolutionary terrorist. Simply saying daughter of a terrorist should suffice here IMO.
• "She made her television debut in 2000 as the co-host of game show..." ==> "...co-host of the game show..."
• "The show did not perform well in terms of ratings and both Kher and Koirala were fired." ==> "The show's poor ratings led to both Kher and Koirala being fired"
• "During the early to mid 2000s, Koirala's career continued to decline, and she appeared in less mainstream cinema" ==> "Koirala's career continued to decline during the early to mid 2000s, as she appeared in less mainstream films"
• There's a slight mismatch in the notes column

1) Not sure why "Remake of Telugu film Matru Devo Bhava" is important to mention here.

2) The notes column for Indian does not say that it was simultaneously filmed in Tamil and Hindi, which makes it inconsistent with the other entries.

3) The "Remade in Hindi as Nayak" part of Mudhalvan seems redundant, as Koirala was not a part of the film.

4) The "tied with Rani Mukherji for Saathiya" is better as a footnote.

5) The note for Paisa Vasool should say "also producer" and not just "producer".

• The caption for the image can be better. Say that it was an event for Bhoot Returns. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I think I've resolved these comments. Cowlibob (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good now in terms of prose. Some comments on sourcing:

• What makes Filmibeat a reliable source?
• The source for Pheri Bhetaula does not mention the film's director. Also for the same film, the role field is blank. Is it because we don't know her character's name or because it cannot be reliably sourced?
• I am not too keen on the Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd publisher, but I can understand if no alternates are available. I appreciate how difficult it is to source information from the 90s. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Replaced references. Removed Diamond Pocket Book source. I can't find a copy of the film anywhere or any info of character name. Probably the info exists in an offline Nepali source. Cowlibob (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: All good now. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All my comments have been resolved. So this nomination has my Support. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets the standards —Vensatry _(talk) 08:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting: no issues found
• Spotchecks: checked refs 36, 58, 83, 106 - no problems
• Completeness: Nothing obviously missing

Passing source review, and so closing this nomination as passed. --PresN 15:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it majorly seems to fit the criteria and with comments from other editors it can easily pass. The list is based on similar current Featured Lists List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–59) and List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69). Looking forward for constructive comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an excellent list Dharmadhyaksha LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Comprehensive and well-written indeed. I could spot these two minor issues.

• "On 31 July, the newly formed government retracted all civilian awards including..." -- all the civilian.
• "Novelist Khushwant Singh who accepted the award in 1974 in the field of literature and education returned it in 1984 as a notion of protest against the Operation Blue Star." -- comma required after Singh and education. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done with both comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

You may want to add more images from Common. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: Added four more images from Commons. Couldn't find more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – With the fixes made, and a further edit that I made to a new photo's caption, I'm confident that this meets the FL criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Formatting: ref27- the work is Seed Magazine, not Seed Media Group (that's the publisher) (I've fixed it for you). Also note that when you add an archiveurl, if you add "|deadurl=no", the first link will be to the live page, not the archive.
• Spotchecks: refs 1, 10, 20, 28 checked; all clean
• Completeness: No obvious sources missed

Passing source review, and so closing this nomination as passed. --PresN 15:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it several times so it could meet he criteria, and it has improved a lot since the first nomination and I have addressed all the issues regarding the bad references and links, as well as, a new prose has been made. Bruno Mars has received several nominations and awards in a short career so far due to his efforts as a singer, producer and song-writer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All concerns are addressed. Great work! — Simon (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. It is appreciated MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

• Can we have another image of his? There are so many people in the image and it's hard to spot him.

Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The American singer and songwriter Bruno Mars has" - you don't need the definite article.

Issue addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could numbers below ten be in words e.g. 4 Grammys => four Grammys?

Resolved. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mars initially came to prominence as an acknowledged music producer, who wrote lyrics for other artists along with his production team The Smeezingtons" - I am not following you here. You say that he shot to fame as a producer, but later you declare him as a songwriter: "a producer who wrote songs".

Resolved. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was nominated for three Grammy Awards, including Record of the Year at the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards" - repetition of Grammy. Consider rephrasing.

Done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you avoid the zigzag in the infobox: refer to this list for more understanding.

Done. Thanks for the tip. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since runner-ups are considered wins, suggest adding a footnote to clarify.

Done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 54 - get rid of Student-Weekly.com as that is basically the same as Student-Weekly.

Fixed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 157 E! Online. E!. => E!

Done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 158-160, 165 - ditto. FrB.TG (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on every criterion, but I have not checked references and will leave that on other reviewers. All in all it's a sound list. FrB.TG (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and helpful comments. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by 3family6

• "Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination." - Does this mean that the 235 nominations listed includes nominations that went on to win?

Yes. I'm not fully understanding what you don't get here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Record of the Year - "  In 2013, it was axed, signaling the end of the award. Mars was nominated twice." What was axed, the poll or the award? I'm assuming the poll, but I was confused when I read this. Also, "axed" I think is a little to informal. While I firmly believe that Wikipedia prose should be engaging and creative, it also needs to be in a formal style.

Adressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is British spelling used here for an American artist? I don't care a whole lot, but I thought the convention was that if a subject is from a geographic area with a particular variance of English, that variance should be the one used.

It doesn't matter, as long as it is only used one in the all article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a source review, but these are my comments on the prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With Los Premios 40 Principales: "It was created in 2006 to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of its founding." The award was created in 2006 to celebrate the award's 40th anniversary?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review:

• The ASCAP Song of the Year win for "Just the Way You Are" is not supported by the listed citation, which has only the Most Performed Song award listed.
• This source no longer supports the claim "The BET Hip Hop Awards are an annual awards show, airing on BET, since 2006, showcasing hip hop performers, producers and music video directors." Perhaps replace it with this and this, which I've used at the List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae.
• This does not support the statement that "The iHeartRadio Music Awards is an music awards show, founded by iHeartRadio in 2014, to recognize the most popular artists and music over the past year as determined by the network's listeners."

My review is complete. Hopefully you can resolve these issues and I can lend my support to this nomination. I've nominated the List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae as an FLC, and would appreciate any feedback you can provide. Thank you,--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed every comment. If you could explain what do you intend with the first one, I would be appreciated. I'm just getting started here with the FLC, so I'm still learning perhaps in a near feature, I'm sure any other user here is a better fit to add comments and review. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In awards infobox template, the nominations (in pink) are only those that didn't win, with the winning nominations included only in the awards wins (in green). In this article, you've listed all nominations, winning or otherwise, in the box. See Template:Infobox musician awards for details. With that in mind, I'd convert the whole template - I didn't realize until now that a custom template was used instead of the infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing something wrong regarding the table. I don't know what it is. Can you give me a help? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, there were a couple of wikilinks that had only one bracket instead of two (like this [[Soul Train Music Awards]). I've had this mistake before happen to me many times, and it's a real pain to dig through the text to find the broken syntax. The infobox is fixed now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the list currently uses both dmy and mdy date formats. Mdy is American, dmy British. And currently there is a notice to use mdy, even though the article is in British English and uses dmy in the majority. This also needs to be resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't use American English in my writing, I don't know what to amend, however I could ask to GOCE to fix the prose with that intend. I can check the dates. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't push for the article to be converted to American English, but the dates should all follow the dmy (e.g. 30 April 2016) format, both in the prose and list and in the sources. If you want to take the list to GOCE, feel free, but I don't think that is needed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I won't take it to GOCE. I have revised the article and I found two links with wrong date format. I believe that issue is now addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all are the wrong format now. If this article is using British English, than all dates need to be day-month-year, not month-day-year. There is a script that can do the conversion, but I can't get it to work yet, or else I would've made the conversion myself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ping me when you can get it to work or send the script to me, perhaps I could get it to work. On the other hand, is this American English just a couple of words? Example: colour→color; because if it is you could just tell me and I would change them into the american spelling (after a google search, of course). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainly the spelling. I got the script to work, so changing the dates takes only a few seconds, I can change those back if you adjust the spelling.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine by me. Could you now support this nomination? Thank you very much for your help.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll support as all outstanding issues have been addressed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Kind regards. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why are none of the tables sortable? It seems odd not to be able to arrange them for, by example, order of result. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never seen using a sortable in an awards and nominations FL for singers. On the other hand, I have seen it being used in actors and actresses but the tables don't work properly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you point me to an FL for an actor or actree whare the table sort does not work properly? - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, they work properly, I missed to see the sortbale. But once again, most of them don't use sortbale. Instead they use [awards table] MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they do work properly, but awards list for people don't seem to use sortable tables, including many lists of my own (e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Adele). I am not sure why is it sortable for film accolades and not for people's lists, probably because {{awards table}} does not use sortable table? FrB.TG (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - using a table template which was, I think, originally designed for albums, not people. Looking at the template it looks as if it's out of date with all the other uses we make with tables now (no-one's fault on these tables, but I suspect the template may come under scrutiny at some point in the future). The last actor awards list I did (List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier) I used a standard table to allow flexibility - these are far more useful for readers trying to see, for example, which awards were gained for which (film/album/etc) or to compare the number of wins against nominations. Thanks for the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the tables are all so short, I'm fine with them not being sortable in this instance. That's not a blanket approval for all cases though, so I would recomend a broader discussion at whatever wikiproject about what template should be used for awards-by-artist lists vs. awards-by-album. I do also prefer larger tables so that users can sort by award/win/whatever, instead of broken up by section, but it appears that the reviewers above didn't have a problem with it. I also see that there was a source review done, so, passing. Congrats on having the 3000th FL! --PresN 16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because it's the next in the series of lists on Michigan's state highway system. The product of research on and off over the last decade, this is the one page on the Internet that so comprehensively covers the topic of the United States Numbered Highways (US Highways) in the Great Lakes State and would join List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway at this level. It is also the lead article for a featured topic on Michigan's US Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dough4872 and Rschen7754: you two commented on the last nomination, so you may want to comment here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as I did last time. --Rschen7754 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I reviewed this at the previous FLC and still feel this list meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due an interesting lead and an exemplary table, but there are a few issues worth noting:

• In the lead, "Since 1999 there are 13 mainline highways and with the creation of a business route for Constantine a total of 30 special routes in the state" is a bit confusing and lacks punctuation. How about "Since 1999, there have been 13 mainline highways, and with the creation of a business route for Constantine, a total of 30 special routes in the state"?
• In the History section, "Included on the initial discussion report were the various remaining overlaps between Interstate and US Highways" does not flow well. How about "The initial discussion report included the various remaining overlaps between Interstate and US Highways"?
• In the History section, "Additional freeway sections opened in around the turn of the 21st century" should not include the word "in".
• Reference #21 ("Interstate 75 Road Markers Are Unveiled") is dead.
• You need alt text on all of your images. I know it's tedious and annoying, but it's typically a requirement for featured lists and articles.

That being said, however, I want to reiterate my support due to the fact that these minor issues take about 10-20 minutes to rectify and do not have a deleterious effect on the list's overall quality. Zach Vega (talk to me) 04:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zach Vega: thanks for the review. All of the fixes have been applied in some form. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just one comment I forgot, but FAC hasn't required alt text in several years. Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't? Damn. I must've been gone for a long time. Anyways, Strong Support now. Zach Vega (talk to me)

Source review - minor stuff:

• Wikilinking NewsBank should be on footnote 40 and not 45
• Same goes for newspaper title 'Herald-Palladium'; it's wikilinked on fn 43 and not 40
• Footnote 40 requires username and password. It's available for free on t'internet, but if you wish to keep the links you have at present best include 'subscription required' notification. This goes for other NewsBank links.
• Page number for footnote 42?
• I notice that for certain footnotes you have included links to newspaper articles as well as page numbers, when I'm certain the MOS says only one should suffice. What's the reasoning behind this?

Otherwise sources are formatted accordingly and consistently. No dead links; all images appropriate licences as far as I can tell. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonade51: I've updated the wikilinking between footnotes 40, 43 and 45, switching out the URL for FN 40.

As for FN 42, that was accessed online originally at a link that has since gone dead. The URL and access date for that have been commented out for now. If I'm ever in Lansing again, I can attempt to locate a page number for the print edition of that paper, assuming said article was also published in the print edition of the Lansing State Journal. However, I live 400 miles (640 km) from there by car. The paper's online archives through a premium level of Newspapers.com appear to lack the article. For now, a modified version of the cited sentence can be cited to a different source entirely until we can find a replacement copy.

As for the other footnotes, if the page numbers are known, I've provided them as a form of redundancy. If the links go dead in the future, at least readers can fall back to library copies of the print editions. This also gives us a level of redundancy to locate copies through other archive services in the future.Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill's career as a writer may not be the first thing people remember about him, but it was a significant part of his life. It ran from his early years as a soldier to well past his political retirement and paid for his nice pad at Chartwell and his expensive tastes in brandy and cigars. This list has been expanded and brought into line with good standards, and the text now adequately supports and explains the background to those lists. Any and all comments are very welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson

Lead

• ”Winston Churchill, in addition to his careers of soldier and politician, was a prolific writer, under the pen name "Winston S. Churchill".” This sentence could be broken up / made easier to read.

• It's the final comma that caused problems with reading. It should actually read much easier without it, given there is only one sub-clause to deal with now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The transition after the first sentence could be better. We're talking about his writing so maybe start by saying he did war journalism and then relate it to bio.

• We sort of do that already, give or take a few words of introduction to the army first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ”Although Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, his main output was studies of major historical events or figures.” Starting with “Although” sound off. I would start with talking about his “main output”.

• Switched - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing career

• “reported on Siege of Malakand” definite article

• Yep, added - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ”although Arthur Balfour described the work as "Winston's brilliant autobiography, disguised as world history".” I can't tell what this means, and I need to know who Balfour is.

• description to Balfour added. I've added that Balfour "dismissed" the work as quoted, but I think it is probably clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing a lot of “although”s

• Trimmed a couple out - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill, the American novelist

• Section heading sounds like it's about the Prime Minister being an American novelist, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

• I've gone with "American novelist of the same name": does that sound better?

Non-fiction

• Add a see also to Winston Churchill as historian

• Yep - added - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collected speeches

• ”There are around 135 published booklets of Churchill's speeches...” Clarify that this is in addition to the books below and maybe put it below the table. It seems like the booklets might be included in “speeches in a collected form“, so clarify inclusion criteria or that the booklets are single speeches.

• I'd rather keep it above the table if possible (although I am biddable if there is a good reason for it. I've clarified the rest per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the booklets be italicized if they are individual speeches? --JFH (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep - quite right: MOS:QUOTETITLE is the relevant guideline - now changed. - SchroCat (talk)

Overall looks like a good list with the caveat that I know nothing about the subject.--JFH (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks JFH - your thoughts are much appreciated indeed. If you wish to discuss any of the points I haven't undertaken, please let me know - I'm not firmly set on any of them, so happy to hear any alternatives you have in mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, looks good. I added one question above but I'll support regardless, noting that this is my first time participating at FLC. --JFH (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks JFH - you are right on the italicisation of the individual speeches, and I've swapped out with quote marks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with comments:

• "...sent war reports to Daily Graphic." -- The linked article gives the title The Daily Graphic?
• "Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, although his main output was studies of major historical events or figures." → "Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, although his main output 'were acollection of his studies into major historical events or figures."? Slight poetic licence in terms of "collection", if indeed that's what it was.
• "To earn necessary funds..." → "To earn the required funds" sounds better, IMO.
• "In the 1923 general election Churchill lost his parliamentary seat and, moving to the south of France, wrote The World Crisis, a six-volume history of the First World War, published between 1923 and 1931." -- "In the 1923 general election Churchill lost his parliamentary seat and moved to the south of France where he wrote The World Crisis, a six-volume history of the First World War, published between 1923 and 1931" sounds better to me.

Please disregard or adopt at your leisure. Another great list! Cassianto^Talk 02:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Cass: I've either adopted in full, or re-worked in a slightly different way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My knowledge of Churchill is limited to the little I remember from high school and that (mis?)portrayal of his in The King's Speech. Despite my ignorance, I find this list to be quite illuminating with the added distinction of being skillfully arranged. Just one point from me. The lead mentions that he won the Nobel for his numerous published works, especially his six-volume work The Second World War. I don't see the second part of that statement either mentioned or cited in the main body. Are we saying that because these compilations were his most popular? Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Krimuk. I thought I covered the Nobel part with a relevant source, but it appears not; I've trimmed it so the text is now covered by the source. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007

• Link #23 is not available to those who don't have a subscription. Is there any other source you can use, or find some sort of archived version that is accessible to all?

• I'm afraid not. It's acceptable to have subscription only as a reference, even though it may (unfortunately) be problematic to some. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a big fan of the ref's in the headers of the tables. I may be wrong, but it seems like normal convention is to either add a References columns or put the references in the body of the table. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as I haven't reviewed FLs in a long time.

• This is normal practice if not used in a separate column or in-table. If we had separate refs for each published book, I'd have used a separate column, but simply repeating the same 3 or 4 sources on each and every line isn't advantageous. Some of my more recent FLs use this format, including Len Deighton bibliography, Roald Dahl bibliography, Roald Dahl bibliography and List of works by W. E. Johns (and a couple of these use both forms, where applicable). - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "To earn required funds, he gained his colonel's agreement" add "the" after "To earn".

• Added - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...answers to key parliamentary questions; beginning with..." I would make the semi-colon a period and start a new sentence with "Beginning..."

• Done. It leaves two slightly short and stubby sentences, but I suppose I can live with that. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really well done, especially the prose. I would be glad to support after my comments have been responded to. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Gonzo fan2007. Much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – The source links are all working and the references are reliable throughout. There wasn't too much that I could spot-check as most of the references are to print sources, but I looked at numbers 1 and 28 and those turned up fine. There were a few small formatting issues that I found, though:

• Reference 3 could use an access date.
• Refs 7 and 14 should have the page range appear as pp., not p.
• While doing one of the spot-checks, I noticed that there's no space after ref 19. That should probably be fixed before this gets promoted.
• Also, the second note currently does not have a source. You might as well plug ref 3 in there. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Giants2008, all should now be sorted. Much obliged. – SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An interesting list with a few minor quibbles:

• Alt text needed for images. Mention the year (perhaps an approximate one would suffice) for Randolph Churchill's photograph.

• Ive added where the caption isn't helpful enough

• 'southern Africa' or 'South Africa'?

• Both, depending on whether we're talking about the country or the region. – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead says, he continued his war journalism in southern Africa during the Second Boer War, but the body refers to the country. Perhaps, linking the regions (also Sudan) might be helpful for non-specialists. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A brief overview about his parents would be very helpful.

• Im not sure it would: they had nothing to do with the writing side of his career. I think the parents are best kept to the main article, or their own. – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but the bit about his mother (using her influence to secure a contract for him) seems a bit out of context. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is linked twice in the 'Writing career' section.
  

• Now deleted

—Vensatry _(talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Vensatry: much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Ratnam is arguably the greatest mainstream filmmaker in Indian cinema. The 'well-researched' list contains his directorial ventures and co-productions. I believe it meets the FL criteria. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• A small note with the Ramachandran Naman source — The pages are not mentioned properly. Same with the Omar Ahmed reference.

Other than that, I can't spot any major issues with the article. So, you have my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Naman Ramachandran book has page nos. Added one for the other book. Thanks! —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments fron Krish!

• Don't you think Ok Jaanu should be added in his filmography? As the film article says he is the writer of the remake too.Krish | Talk 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of the remake, but I think it's better to wait until the film gets significant indpendent coverage; I'm unable to find references which credit Mani Ratnam as the 'story writer' of the film. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well actually i also searched for the refrences but didn't find any. By the way, the article is flawless like your other works. Hence i Support the list. Well done.Krish | Talk 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose after further tweaks. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• The dispute we earlier had about Ratnam's first hit – Idaya Kovil or Mouna Ragam – repeats here.
  • Back then, you cited a source (from Hindu/NIE) which clearly stated that Idaya Kovil was his first commercial success. What more do you want? —Vensatry _(talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Ratnam contradicts this in Conversations. Or I think it's best that I write (in MR) that Ratnam considered it to be his first success, even if it wasn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kailash, tomorrow he might even say it wasn't his film. If Ilaiyaraaja doesn't accept an award it doesn't mean we shouldn't include it in our articles. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While Roja and Dil Se indeed have terrorism in them, I don't see how Bombay does; yet it is part of the "terrorism trilogy". I think that is more of a "political trilogy". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our opinion doesn't matter. We have to go by what majority of the sources claim. Some might even include Kannathil Muthamittal and call it a 'terrorism tetralogy'. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• For non Indian readers, it would be better if you link Kannada before the mention of Pallavi Anu Pallavi.
• The following year, he made the romantic drama Mouna Ragam -- I suggest you to rephrase the sentence as The following year, he made Mouna Ragam, a romantic drama film. After that, i advise you to tell the readers in brief what the film is about.
  • Done, not exactly the way you suggested though. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In the sentence about Geethanjali, Anjali, and Thalapathi, it would be better if you mention their genres before the film's description. For example: Geethanjali, a tragic romance which marked his Telugu cinema debut.
  • I think it's best to describe the genre before the film. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you provide a source for this statement confirming the latter half -- "In 1997, Ratnam co-produced and directed the political drama film Iruvar, which was loosely based on the relationship between cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu."
• Linking Bollywood would be very beneficial.
• The commercial failure was the most successful film at the 50th National Film Awards, winning six awards including the award for the Best Feature Film in Tamil -- "...including the one/honour for the..."; only an attempt to avoid close repetition of the word "award".
• Yuva was simultaneously filmed into Tamil as Aayutha Ezhuthu with a different cast. I feel that a source confirming this should be a part of the lead. Because, the filmography table isn't mentioning the same fact.
• Weren't Kadal and OK Kanmani his production ventures? If yes, please mention that in the lead.
  • All his directorial ventures since Bombay were produced by himself. Do we need to mention that for each film? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd indeed. Guess he had no trust on outsiders. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rest done. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nice job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spot checks on seven references are OK: the information is supported and no copyvios could be seen;
• There are six books in the references that need the publisher's location to be added to the details;

That's it: all good to go after that one minor tweak. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Schrocat. I believe Ssven2 has addressed the concern. —Vensatry _(talk) 03:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is very close to meeting the criteria. The Six Nations is about to finish, so what better way to celebrate than by getting this list to Featured standard. I currently have a list here, but as it already has three supports and no outstanding comments, this nom should be ok. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (includes source review)

• "At that time a try by itself wasn't worth any points," avoid contraction
• "George Lindsay scored five tries in Scotland's 4–0 win over Wales in 1887. This is most tries scored in a single match," could you find a way to link both sentences?
• Not obligatory, but images could have alt text.
• Sources are fine, no real signs of close paraphrasing. No dead or dab links.
• For consistency purposes, are the general sources 'ESPN Scrum' like Ref 1?
• Ref 5 was published on 8 March 1999 Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thannks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - on style, comprehensiveness and sourcing, can't seem to spot any howlers. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Small point - should the lead mention that rugby union is the sport involved? The link to the Six Nations will lead readers to discover the sport, but it might be worth making it explicit in the article? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point! Added the link, thanks! NapHit (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shudde I have to oppose for now. I have a number of comments, but my oppose is mainly due to the first sentence:

I have struck my oppose, and will offer my weak support. I still have a few points that may be worth considering:

• Still not sure about whether it is the Daily Telegraph or Telegraph -- admittedly I took my information from wikipedia (an unreliable source!), but it does say "Telegraph.co.uk is the online version of the newspaper. It uses banner title The Telegraph and includes articles from the print editions of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, as well as web-only content such as breaking news, features, picture galleries and blogs." which is why I thought Telegraph was more accurate. Something to think about.
• I have played with the second sentence. But the prose in general could do with a careful read by an uninvolved editor.
• Still not happy with the headings "Player hat-tricks by their national team" and "Player's hat-tricks by their national team" as I think they read funny. I can't think of a good alternative however!

I do think that this list needs a careful read by some uninvolved editors, but I thank @NapHit: for their hardwork and wish them good luck! -- Shudde ^talk 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MPJ-DK

Figured I'd drop by with my 2 cents worth of comments on this FLC over the next day or so. Side note: I have a Mexican National Women's Championship FLC going on and would appreciate any and all feedback (Not asking for Quid Pro Quo, my review is independent of participation in my FLC). My comments will be split into three sections as listed below. Side note - I have put both this page and the list article on my watch list, I will try to keep an eye on them.  MPJ-US  00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead/Text

• No where do I see it indicated when the list is accurate "as of"? The general references were accessed on 6 July 2014 and 17 November 2015 respectively, which means they could be out of date since that is quite a long time ago?

Added this above the table. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oxford University, when he was called" I don't believe that needs the comma?

Removed the comma. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "instated" a term used in Rugby? I have not seen that in general?

Ye I've heard that term used in Rugby and Football before. Fairly common I would say. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "points, but allowed" comma needed here?

Removed. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a forward for his country," the "for his country" part is redundant, that's implied already

Removed. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List

• Tries - Sorts okay across the board, the list itself seems to hit the marks.
• Drop Goals - Sorts okay across the board, the list itself seems to hit the marks.
• Multiple Hattricks - Why does this table not sort when the others all sort? Seems inconsistent

Now sortable. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Player hat-tricks by their national team - Sorts okay across the board, the list itself seems to hit the marks.

• Sources

• At least one of the sources should link to "ESPN"

I think linking in sources is more personal taste. I don't like doing it myself, and I don't think it is required by any specific guideline. So, I don't think it's really necessary. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources look like Reliable sources, well formed with all the information that's possible to extract.
• Checking sources as I review they look like they are covering the various statements.
• There is no textual source to support that Wade was the first to score a hat-trick - this is where the use of "general sources" really becomes a challenge as we have to judge the lead to figure out "is it in general source" or does it need a specific source?

That match was actually the first ever in the championship and is referenced as such. So, I think that should cover it. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @MPJ-DK:, I've responded where necessary. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the updates I am happy to lend my Support for this fine list. MPJ-US  04:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My only comment would be to add a sourced sentence at the end of the lede that says "The last hat-tricks was achieved by Jonathan Joseph on 14 February 2016" or something similar mentioning the last person and time it was achieved. Otherwise a very well-rounded list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007:, I've added the sentence and a ref. NapHit (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the theme of Arsenal, this is the third and final section of the completed players list. Again, it's modelled on lists which have been promoted, and illustrated with pictures. Please note that Soccerbase stats cannot be entirely trusted; for instance it states Remi Garde and Luís Boa Morte have made 28 and 14 starts respectively, when in actual fact it's one less for both. For that reason, I've cross-checked all apps with this and the club's database. Would greatly welcome any sort of feedback, ta...Lemonade51 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

• Redirect links:
  • "friendlies" (Exhibition game)
  • "Tom Whittaker" (Tom Whittaker (footballer))
  • "Jack Peart" (Jack Peart (footballer, born 1884))
  • "Sebastien Squillaci" (Sébastien Squillaci)
  • "counties" (Counties of England)
• In the lead: "Two players – Ray Daniel and Roger Ord, fell...". Either use two en-dashes or two commas.
• I think you should include a second (and perhaps a third) list-ordering criterium, such as total appearances and club career years or alphabetical order of names.

• Not sure this would be necessary...Lemonade51 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the list be updated to the most recent match?
• Stuart Taylor is provided with Latvian nationality. Double check for other erroneous instances.
• A whole Notes column for just one note? Might as well place that one note after the player's name.
• Instead of a See also section, perhaps it would be more helpful to put those links in hatnote templates at the top of the lead?

— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look at this @Parutakupiu:, think I've addressed all of your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the most important were taken care of. Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've just had a play around and a read through with the aim of adding some comments, but I can't see any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All good on the sources (I made one minor tweak). The only thing I'd say is that it may be worth while archiving the web sources to stop link rot. That's not a step needed for FLC, but it may avoid problems in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Only one comment: we say "The club's name was shortened to Arsenal in 1914": the preceeding text doesn't make it clear that it was Woolwich A by that time, not Royal A. It's only a minor point, but it may be worth a one-line footnote to clarify? - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing Schro, have made amendments. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My only comments are suggestions and not necessary for my support. It may be helpful to have an inline citation on the last sentence of the lede pointing to Arsenal's current roster. Also, since there are only two notes, it may be better to not set the column width at 50em. In a very wide screen set-up, the 50em will put the notes in two columns, but since there are only two notes it looks kind of funny (creates white space because the first note is so much longer than the second). Again, neither of these are necessary for my support. Good work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments Gonzo, think I've addressed the issues you've raised now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Everything looks good! Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Bajirao Mastani is the most awarded Bollywood film of 2015, winning for its direction, acting, and technical achievements. I think it meets the FL criteria.Krish | Talk 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• "A co-production between Bhansali and Eros International, Bajirao Mastani stars.." Replace Bajirao Mastani with "it" or "the film".
• There is only review to support the "positive reviews from critics" claim.

Not fixed. Instead of those 2-3 reviews, you can use this instead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was already fixed.Krish | Talk 17:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bajirao Mastani garnered many awards and nominations in a variety of categories.." Again replace BM with a "it". Also, "many" is redundant here.
• "..with particular praise for Bhansali's direction and music, cinematography, production design, costumes, and performances of Chopra and Singh." Production design includes "costumes", so you should remove it.

Well, both are different things. That's why they are presented in two separate categories.Krish | Talk 16:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting this source. But, yeah the awards are given to different segment and not as a whole. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the same sentence in several of my FLs. But if you want me to change it I will.Krish | Talk 16:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher I have reworded it. Take a look.Krish | Talk 17:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the 63rd National Film Awards, Bajirao Mastani received a leading seven awards,". Remove "leading", to maintain neutrality.
• "The film" is used twice in the third para.
• Link Filmfare in ref 9.
• Ref 21 is Hotstar, not Star India.

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments Yash.Krish | Talk 16:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My issues were addressed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Provide a correct alt text for the image of Chopra and Singh.
• The sentence "A co-production between Bhansali and Eros International, it stars Ranveer Singh as Bajirao I, Deepika Padukone as Mastani, and Priyanka Chopra as Kashibai, with Tanvi Azmi, Aditya Pancholi, Vaibbhav Tatwawdi and Milind Soman playing supporting roles" is too long. It can be split into two easily. Also, mention Bhansali's production company there.
• Why the screenplay, cinematography, and editing are discussed in the same sentence?
• "The screenplay was written by Prakash R. Kapadia, with the cinematography provided by Sudeep Chatterjee while Rajesh G. Pandey edited the film". Please find a better way to reword the second half of the sentence.
• A comma is required between "art direction" and "and".
• Agreed the film has received the highest number of nominations at the 61st Filmfare Awards and won nine. But, from an encyclopaedic point of view, most and leading mayn't be neutral.

• Well its a fact that the film received most nominations and won maximum awards. This is also present in many FAs and FLs.Krish | Talk 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It received thirteen nominations at the 2015 Producers Guild Film Awards, collecting..."—"...Awards, and earned..." sounds better.
• Break that sentence about Producer Guild Awards after Azmi's nomination. It is too long.
• "Bajirao Mastani received thirteen nominations at the 22nd Screen Awards, winning seven.."—and won seven.

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Pavanjandhyala Thank you for your inputs.Krish | Talk 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns were addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks in a very good shape to me and of FL quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

Overall looks pretty good.

• "It was produced by Bhansali and Eros International". Awkward as it mentions the name of one of the producers and then a different production company. It would be easier to say that it was a co-production between Bhansali's SLB Films and Eros International.
• "The film stars..." This sentence can be split into two. "The film stars Ranveer Singh as Bajirao I, Deepika Padukone as Mastani, and Priyanka Chopra as Kashibai. Tanvi Azmi, Aditya Pancholi, Vaibbhav Tatwawdi, and Milind Soman feature in supporting roles."
• For its budget, I can't see a mention of it in the The Hindu source. Also a different reference is needed for its critical acclaim as the source given is the opinion of one of the reps from one of its production companies.
• "Bajirao Mastani has grossed over ₹3.5 billion (US$52 million)". This statement needs a "as of" as presumably the film is still in cinemas.
• Bajirao won Best Production Design at Filmfare not Art Direction.

Best Production Design redirects to Best Art Direction (and they are same i guess).Krish | Talk 16:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the GIMA awards, Shail-Pritesh were nominated for their work on "Deewani Mastani". Nitin Shankar also won the award with them. Bhansali also won the Best Music Director award.

Cowlibob (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob Done.Krish | Talk 16:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Ref 2 doesn't support the "Based on the Marathi novel Raau by Nagnath S. Inamdar" claim.
• The rest of the lead looks good.
• Filmfare Awards - no mention of Remo D'Souza or Ganesh Acharya for choreography in the source, and the list is missing Best Story win for Vijayendra Prasad
  • Bajirao Mastani was written by Prakash R. Kapadia not Vijayendra Prasad, who won for his film. Why I would add his name to a film he has nothing to do? Krish | Talk 12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I misread something. NumerounovedantTalk 14:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The screen awards really needs a better source. I haven't gone through the video, but the other source supports the acting wins.
• TOIFA- "Album of the Year" to "Best Album"
• Zee Cine Awards- A lot of awards missing from the references including: Best Sound, and most of the "Critics Awards".

Rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 16:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Numerounovedant Krish | Talk 12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! Good job! NumerounovedantTalk 14:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some refs are however unverifiable as that of coverage of Star Awards. NumerounovedantTalk 14:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Screen Awards didn't publish the nominations this year. However, they showed it doing the television specials and the main event televised on 31 January 2016. Hence I had cited that episode and that is fine to use as most of Indian FLs use these kinds of citations. It mainly because the coverage of awards in India is very poor. They don't have their own websites or any kind of links. I hope its clear.Krish | Talk 16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for clarifying. NumerounovedantTalk 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nominator(s): jona^(talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list after editing the article based on similar FLs like it. jona^(talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erick:

Good, now I can give my support. Well done! Erick (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — A job well done. Very well formatted and referenced, plus the concerns raised by Erick are enough for me. — DivaKnockouts 16:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Informative and well organised list. Arguably flawless. Well done! Simon (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• There is no logic to the order of the sources list: it should be in alphabetical order by surname
• You need to sort out the caps in the titles:

• Selena's Secret: The Revealing Story Behind Her Tragic Death is preferred to
• Where were you when... the music played?: 120 unforgettable moments in music history

• You need to add the location of the publishers for most of the printed sources
• Check the date format in the refs; You have many in the 10 April 2016 format and others in the April 10, 2016 format: pick one (probably the US-favoured April 10, 2016, as you use that within the article as well) and run with it throughout
• For some refs with Billboard you include the publisher, for others you don't: pick one and be consistent (as you're not including the other publishing companies of other works, best to remove the publisher name)

Hope these help - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I have fixed everything. Thanks – jona ✉ 15:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AJona1992, Not quite: you need to re-order the sources so they are in alphabetical order, starting with the 1996 World Book, then Arrarás onwards and finishing with Untiedt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Most have missed that one, now it's done. Thanks – jona ✉ 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow reviewers again! Nominating another list for FL, which is of awards received by a fantastic film of 2015. FrB.TG (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• "..co-written by Josh Singer with McCarthy" ==> "written by McCarthy and Josh Singer.."
• "The film's screenplay ... is based on the The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, which uncovers the sexual abuse scandal in Massachusetts" Awkward use of the present tense, and not entirely correct, grammatically speaking.
• What is the Silver Mouse Award? How is it notable enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph?
• " grossing a total box office" How does one gross a box office?
• "..held the third place for the People's Choice Award" Awkward phrasing, again.
• This is an awards list, so isn't it notable to note that Spotlight is the first Best Picture winner to win only one other Oscar since the 1940s?
• "recognized with"?
• "..the film's cast was awarded with Outstanding Performance". ==> "...cast received an Outstanding Performance award"
• "It received the same award... " It's not the same award. It's an award in the same category at a different ceremony.
• "Top Ten Films"; why the caps? Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose after these copy-edits. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Looks quite comprehensive, Frank.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Was it released or premiered at the 72nd Venice International Film Festival?
• "It received the award in the same category at the ..." -- received an award. It also avoids close and unnecessary repetition of "the".
• "In addition, Spotlight was named Best Film by several critics associations, including ..." -- i think, rather saying "named Best Film", it is better to write that Spotlight was "named the best film of the year".
• "The film was also included in American Film Institute's list of the top ten films of the year." -- I think you can end it as "... list of 2015's top ten films". It is also an attempt to avoid repetition of "of the". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted all of your suggestions, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice list. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I couldn't find any outstanding issues and there are no disambiguation or dead links, and the prose is very well-written. Good job! Erick (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No remaining issues as far as I can spot. Nice job. Miyagawa (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spot check of ten references showed the information being supported was all present; no copyvios found in those ten.
• Formatting all good; all sources are reliable, as far as I am aware.

• 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) 08:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list focuses on the discography of South Korean girl group T-ara. Personally speaking, this list is suitable for a FL candidate as it is comprehensive and fully detailed, as well as references are OK and reliable. Simon (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]