Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2018

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, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), TheSoccerBoy (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next in the list of national top scorers. Looking forward to receiving and dealing with any and all review comments. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work TRM! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He made his debut, coming on as a substitute for Ruud van Nistelrooy in a 2–0 victory over Romania in June 2005" - that comma looks a bit odd. I'd move everything after van Nistelrooy's name before the comma.

• Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the qualification campaign for the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Helsinki" - could be read as if the World Cup was in Helsinki.........

• Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"he scored four goals in a 11–0 victory" => an 11-0 victory

• Added "n".

"a 11–0 victory UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying match against San Marino" - think there's a word missing here somewhere

• Indeed, but worse, we both failed to spot the repeat of "September 2011"...! Reworded.

"Twenty of his goals were scored in his home stadium, the Johan Cruyff Arena" - the reference to it being his home stadium reads a bit oddly. He's never played for Ajax, whose stadium it is, and it isn't the sole stadium used by the Dutch team, so it isn't really their "home stadium". I'd be inclined to remove those words altogether.

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude thanks, I think I've got 'em all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Lirim | T 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:36, 25 June 2018 (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, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the successful promotion of the Best Male Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award, here is the category's equivalent for those disabled sportswomen who have excelled. As ever, I will endeavour to address your concerns in a timely manner. Thank you in advance. MWright96 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job MWright96, keep them coming. If you get a chance, I would appreciated if you could please review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of England Test cricket records/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although it's probably worth linking disability sports in the lead..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. As a note- the ESPY list series seems to be inconsistent in whether it titles the column "Nation", "Nationality", or "Nation of Origin", so that should probably get standardized. No issue for this FLC, though, so promoting. --PresN 15:36, 25 June 2018 (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, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a good and comprehensive list for a while. I have improved the lead and layout, made copyedits and added a number of references; now I believe it meets the criteria. BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: I have made a change replacing each Chancellors's government coalition with their Vice Chancellors. Feel free to give feedback about which option is better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. I'm not familiar necessarily with Chancellors, but I've done a lot of work on U.S. governors so that informs some of how I see this:
  • Is having the date be smaller than the year a style used elsewhere?
    • I adopted it from List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Can be removed if that's preferred. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Eh, I just wanted to see if it was used elsewhere. I don't care strongly enough.
  • Is the numbering of reichstags/elections official, or artificial based on just that "this was the 11th election" or what not? I would err away from putting a number there unless it's official (like how in the U.S. we refer to the "112th congress") I see that the Bundestags appear to be officially numbered, but are the Reichstags?
    • I'm not sure whether the numbering was contemporary or applied later by historians, but it is widely used. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.
  • I don't understand why Cabinet has two columns in the Revolutionary Period table.
    • Changed to be more consistent with the other tables. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we get a translation of Ebert's position?
    • It's translated in the section lead (Chairman of the Council of the People's Deputies), highlighted it. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What changed in 1919 that the position was renamed? from Reichsministerpräsident to Reichskanzler?
    • The Weimar Constitution formally (re)introduced the title Reichskanzler. Explained it in a footnote. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the large inline notes about the person, rather than about the office, and the fact that they only appear after 1933. My feeling on these lists is they should be purely about: What is the office; how do you get into the office; who was in the office; and if it changed out-of-schedule, why. So I don't like Kiesinger's or Schröder's notes, it has nothing to do with any of those, and especially not Erhard's, but Scheel's makes sense because it's about a change in the office.
    • Removed these inline comments from the FRG table, and put Scheel's into a footnote. Edited the ones from the Nazi period to focus more on the office rather than general historical context. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of the less relevant notes, and moving the necessary ones to footnotes, would also allow those tables to be sortable.
    • Done for FRG. The Nazi table is too small to benefit from sorting, I feel. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fair; it's not like there was much to that period other than Hitler for 12 years, and then three weeks post-Hitler.
  • Some note about the period between 1945 and 1949 needs to be included - no mention of the fact that the office appears to not have existed for four years is made.
    • Addressed it in article lead. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks!
  • Why is the first election under Kohl "9 (....)" instead of, "9 (1980)"? Same for the others. I understand if you're saying it's the same, but why not just ... put the same? You're keeping the number, why not the year? (Getting rid of the notes and rowspanning the elections could help with this)
    • Fixed. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now to some less important things that are probably peeves to me alone, and won't be counted against you:
    • I don't like the lifespan. It's extraneous info.
      • I don't have a strong opinion on that. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Instead of having 5 rows for Kohl's time in office, for example, you only need one. Put small dates in the cabinet cells, maybe? I dunno. Parliamentary systems are arcane to my American sensibilities.
      • I believe the reason is that the Chancellor is newly elected and sworn in for each term. Can be shifted to the cabinet cells if there's enough space. 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Nah, that explanation makes sense. Again, I'm generally unfamiliar with parliamentary systems.
    • Short vacancies in the Vice Chancellor office could probably be noted; for example, between von Bethmann-Hollweg and von Delbruck.
      • I don't think it's noteworthy if it's just a few days. In that particular case for example it wasn't intentionally left vacant, it just took a week for Bethman-Hollweg to succeed as Chancellor and form his own cabinet. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
• --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed some of your concerns. I'll deal with the rest later, specifically the ones about the Federal Republic table. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them all. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I was going to say "i'm not a fan of the duration column" but then remembered - oh right, parliamentary. German elections aren't exactly on the strict four-year schedule we have in the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks! BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmnts

• 2nd and 3rd table have cabinet and vice exchanged
  • I don't understand what you mean. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • nvm I got confused
• intro does not mention GDR
  • It's not immediately relevant to the office of Chancellor, so I'd rather keep the lead from getting unnecessarily long. It's mentioned in the FRG section relevant to the time period. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think at the end there should be a stats table, with something like longest-serving
  • That's covered by separate lists: List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office, List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why can't you list either the top10 longest, or the ones who were for more than either 4 or 5 years in office. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tables are sortable for a quick overview and the dedicated lists give a detailed view. I don't think a partial list would add much value and the selection for inclusion would be bound to be somewhat arbitrary. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, the GDR list should be given as a seealso in that section
          • Added brief GDR mention in lead. BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• why start with Reichstag 13?
  • Good point, it doesn't fit. Took it out. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to take it out. I would have preferred to have 1-12 plugged in (since they apparently did exist)
      • I did consider adding them, but I felt that it may unnecessarily clutter the table. The Chancellor wasn't responsible to parliament during that period so it's not immediately relevant to the office. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Nergaal. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazi section is a bit weird. It lacks a note for the - when the Reichstag was suspended, and the two subnotes can probably used as a footnote to the table instead of being the only two rows in the entire list with a note added right there.
  • Added footnotes. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I might be wrong, but I think each section can/should have a short sentence explaining what changed from the previous section (i.e. constitution of X came into effect establishing Y). Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had that in but I removed it again because I felt like it didn't fit. @Nergaal: See this version, if preferred I can add them back. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think having a sentence saying why the government scheme change would be appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brought back the brief paragraphs of historical context (in slightly modified form). BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I just realized that both List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office and List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office are likely wp:cforks of this list. There is no obvious reason why they would need to be in separate places as they add nothing other than being sortable. Nergaal (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As someone who knows german politics very well, i can say that the list is complete and gives all the right information. The lead gives an great instruction to the topic and the following tables look good. They have a good width are not to packed with informations. Great work!--Lirim.Z (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• Haven't reviewed this in detail, but I did notice that the See also section came after the references. Normally it would appear before the refs, so you might want to consider moving it.
• Also, the publishers of refs 15 and 16 are print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both fixed, thanks. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the longest-serving Chancellor to this date". "to this date" means nothing without knowing the date. I would delete - if Merkel hangs on long enough to overtake him it can easily be changed.
  • Took out the sentence because I agree it's not all that relevant.
• "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution the Chancellors were to be appointed by the President" Why "were to be? I suggest "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution Chancellors were appointed by the directly elected President" (adding that the president is directly ellected).
  • Good point, changed.
• A paragraph briefly summarizing the the powers of the Chancellor in different periods would be useful to the reader.
  • The lead is already a bit full, some more detail in the short paragraphs of each section may be possible. I'll look into it later again, if I remember.

• You could move the last paragraph of the lead to a note as it is not of general interest, unlike the powers of the chancellor. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This extra paragraph might make room for moving up the Germany template, which is very inconveniently placed so that it is not possible to see the whole timeline.
  • Yeah, the template placement is awkward. I had it there because it didn't cause problems for me, but of course that's different on smaller screens. At the top of the page it would mess with the first section's table, so I have decided to move it to the See also section.
• A good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any other concerns or comments that haven't been addressed yet? BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; @Dudley Miles: it appears that your outstanding comments are the only thing left. So a month late: are you good with this list? It appears there was one point left, BegbertBiggs, regarding a paragraph summarizing the powers of the Chancellor. --PresN 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right, I totally failed to follow up on that last point. I'm still unsure about putting that in the lead but I'll see what I can do. BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2018 (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, 24 June 2018 (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, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2017 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I have followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were written. Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After so many FLs you guys still can't have intros that spell out the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited that and reconstructs the section. Looking forward for more suggestions. Nauriya (talk) 20:32, April 1, 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys can probably expand the highlights part of the infobox to mention the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead section already detailed all of the Big Five and it would be repetitive to include in the infobox and they have never been included before. But its not about what previous FLCs have done it or not, the reason perhaps is that it will look overcrowded. I would like to take more comments on that, and if everybody supports this, will include. Nauriya (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: As you have resolved your comments please give your consensus. Nauriya - Let's talk, 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, Support. --PresN 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Its been two months now, please review further or proceed to closing this. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  Nauriya I could close it as not promoted if that's what you prefer, or you could find some more people to review it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  PresN What's the point of all of this then? I want this to be promoted to FLC. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  It has one support. That's never been enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have invited editors to review. Nauriya - Let's talk 23:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Support Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• All of the references are reliable enough, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work.

Yes checking myself also.

• Spot-checks of refs 4, 24, and 32 revealed one issue: ref 24 says that Taurog was 32 when he won his Best Director award, not 33 as the article states, and his bio article here seems to confirm it. That sentence will need to be reworked when correcting the problem.

 Done I am surprised no one noticed tht before, however Chazelle is still the youngest winner, just changed the sentence structure and added one more references.

• The article is saying that Taurog was 260 days older than Chazelle at the time of his win. This is incorrect according to the sources, which say that Taurog was 32 years, 260 days old when he won. The time period (222 days) will need to be fixed. Also, the new ref's access date is in a different format than the others, so it should be converted to the style used in the rest of the cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates format is corrected, and the the age difference has also been updated. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• The only formatting issue I see is that the hyphens in the titles of refs 45 and 47 should be converted into en dashes instead. Otherwise things look good on the source front.

 Done

• This isn't strictly a review of sources presently being used, but I happened to notice on a quick glance that the second paragraph of Box office performance of nominated films and the first paragraph of Best Picture announcement error don't have any sources at all. I'd expect to see this addressed before this list is promoted. The lack of sources for the error paragraph really puzzles me, as this is what the ceremony in question is best remembered for.

 Done for error paragraphs.

 Done for box office first paragraph, for second its general actually, only reference that can be given is from Box office Mojo, if you have better reference then please suggest. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't cite that paragraph reliably, then it should probably be removed altogether. I wouldn't want to see totally unsourced content creeping into FLs. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I have cited it where it was necessary, and this is how in each previous FLC. Because it is not something trivial or fact that needs reference or proof to be included in the article. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Giants2008 - Nauriya - Let's talk 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the titular churches assigned to Roman Catholic cardinals, past and present. I have attempted to incorporate advice from my previous nomination (List of living cardinals) into this one to improve it greatly, now meeting the FLC criteria. While there are several redlinks in the article, all of them have been duly interlanguage-linked to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as a non-involved reader I do not understand what is the list supposed to cover, since the current introduction does a terrible job of explaining. It is full of jargon not easily understandable to a non-expert, and as such does not pass wp:FL?. It is possible that this is a case of wp:fork since it is unclear to me how much of the subject can be understood outside of reading the entire titular church article. Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: In the mutual interest of bringing this article up to FL status, what exactly are the main sections or parts that you would like elaborated in this article? Perhaps we may come to a consensus about how best to improve it, an outcome that does not sound too technical nor too repetitive of other articles. If I was a bit rash above, I apologise. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly tried to point out where the list falls short on the jargon aspect, and I tried to rewrite the intro from a 3rd-person perspective. Feel free to rewrite what I left behind into a form that is both technically accurate and digestible to a non-expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I have now incorporated some improvements and clarifications into the article; hopefully you can find it more palatable. Further comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nergaal, has Ravenpuff satisfied your comments? Ravenpuff, I think it's a real shame that you haven't incorporated images of each of these churches in the article, seems like that would greatly enrich the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: That could be something that I could add, though I'm not sure by how much it would inflate an already expansive table. There's already a Commons link at the bottom of the page. Also, I'm fairly sure that some churches don't have pictures existing on Wikimedia, especially the demolished suppressed ones. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, the introduction is far more readable to a non-expert right now than it was before. Still feels a bit clunky to read (probably because it's written as a ESL writer), but it is probably passable. I don't have any strong pro or against opinion for this FLC. I personally prefer some kind of stats and/or map, but that is outside of FL? requirements. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: There is a box to the right in the "Key to locations" section that can launch an interactive map to view or that can allow one to download the coordinates in the article. As for statistics, there is a paragraph in the lead on the current numbers. Are there any other statistics that you feel would be suitable for inclusion here? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map is nice, but shows how difficult would be to get a meaningful pic of the map. Side-question: why are oldest titles only from 1983? Is there something preventing getting a title before an age? And why is Santa Maria in Cosmedin still vacant? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The patriarchates of Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinals are considered to be their titles" is unclear. How do they get to be cardinals, and the other 5 aren't? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: To be honest, many Roman churches are titular churches anyway; there are probably too many of them to properly display on a static map of the city. 1. I presume that you're looking at the "Since" column for the 1983 figure; the column shows when the cardinal was appointed to that title (the "Established" column shows when the title was first used as a titular church). Since there are no living cardinal priests who were created cardinals before then, the column only shows dates from 1983. 2. I have no idea of why Santa Maria in Cosmedin is still vacant. It is still officially listed as a titular church, though. 3. Eastern patriarchs are created cardinals in the same process as any other bishop or archbishop: the Pope decides. Currently, only three patriarchs of two patriarchates enjoy the privileges of a cardinal. If/when others are created cardinals, they will be added to the table like any other cardinal. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3) needs some kind of explanation in the list - unless I am missing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: The phrase in question is now reworded to make it clearer. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If some other reviewer is fine with the potential forking issue, and with the copyediting in the list, I would be fine supporting this - looks quite a lot better than a the start. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments, Nice list, but there are a few aspects that are not used in featured lists. For example " this list includes 230 titular churches," should be "there are 230 titular churches", and "The status of certain churches as basilicas are also indicated." is confusing, and I'm not sure what it means, and if it refers to information in the list it should be as a note or in the table itself. Also the Key to Locations section should be incorporated into the list or legend itself, instead of an explanatory section prior to the list itself. A good table does not require the reader to constantly refer to a previous section explaining the table. Is there a way to incorporate this information into the list itself? Either by making the abbreviations more clear or by adding a note instead? Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: 1. Fixed "This list includes…" as suggested. 2. The statement on basilicas refers to the fact that certain entries in the table have "(basilica)" next to them; should it be replaced with something else to indicate this? 3. The "Key to locations" section is effectively a legend; it forms its own section because the list itself is split over multiple sections ("Suburbicarian dioceses" to "Suppressed deaconries"), to all of which the key applies. Adding {{Abbr}} tooltips to the tables could help, I suppose. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, and I can think of how to better incorporate the text of the "key" section into the list itself. Even though a lot of work has been put into this article, it still has more to go for an outsider. For example, what is "suppressed" mean? Is there a wikilink or a definition? Maybe some sections could use a one sentence description of what the table contains? There are also other instances of "in this table", "This section shows" which are all tautological and have been out of fashion for all featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I have added a brief explanation of suppression in the lead and have removed tautologies as suggested. The descriptions of each table are also probably generally self-evident and don't require further explanation for clarification. How would you go about incorporating the key into the list sections, seamlessly? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to have stalled out, after 3 months with no supports, and unless there's some movement soon will be closed. @Mattximus: Have you seen Ravenpuff's question above? @Jmnbqb: you closed your comments some time back; are you willing to support? --PresN 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself is technically sound. It just seems to use jargon from an ESL perspective, so if anybody is willing to copyedit that aspect it should be a fine FL. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to support as this time. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support important topic that you have covered adequately and have resolved my concerns about verifiability and scope. Having looked over this again this morning, I'm prepared to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinal bishops are not assigned titles of suburbicarian dioceses." You should say whether Eastern Catholic priests can be second and third order cardinals and whether they are appointed to titular churches.
• "On occasion, a titular church may be held in commendam ("in trust") to a cardinal who has been transferred to a different one." This is not referenced and not covered in the linked article in commendam.
• " and the seven suburbicarian dioceses, as well as the three Eastern Catholic patriarch cardinals" I would delete as ungrammatical and repeating what is said above, apart from the numbers, which could be added to the text above.
• " All locations in this article are situated in the Italian region of Lazio; those outside the city of Rome incorporate abbreviations in the second table." You say in the lead that they are all in Rome.
• The sub-divisions are confusing. Do they refer to how close the church is to the centre of Rome? If so, you need to explain. What does "incorporate abbreviations in the second table" mean? in the fourth table on Suburbicarian dioceses?
• Some abbreviations such as M. XV and XV are not explained.
• This could be a good FL, but it is still some way off, especially on the locations. I would suggest deleting all references to subdivisions unless you can make them clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: The subdivisions were added in response to an FLC comment above, that I should provide localities/coords for the entries in the article. I thus decided to include, for locations within the city of Rome (the municipality), the general name for the neighbourhood and its type of subdivision ("R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z.") and also the municipio ("M.") in which it is located, which spans all of those. They have been briefly outlined in the Key to locations section, the links in which users can use to find out more about the administrative system of Rome. In this article, however, they are only used for the purpose of locations.

• The localities and coords are helpful, but the abbreviations for sub-division type and technical details such as the difference between Rome and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are irrelevant to this article and mean nothing to English speaking readers. They are merely confusing and should be deleted. If you wish to add additional information, a separate column for the municipio together with the map in Administrative subdivision of Rome would be useful to visitors to Rome. However, this is only a suggestion as it would be a lot of work and is mostly covered in 'Map all coordinates'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: I think that some sort of differentiation is required to show that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are located outside of Rome; this could be done in the prose, while doing away with the "RM"/"RI" in the locations. Furthermore, the subdivision type can convey some information about its location within the city: "R." locations are in the city centre, followed by "Q." locations, etc. We could clarify this in the Key section above. An added benefit is that this identifies the locations as being situated in Rome. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Showing that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are outside Rome in prose would be better, and a symbol for city centre churches would be helpful. I do not see the point of the other symbols as they do not tell you what direction out of the centre they are in. I have also had second thoughts about the district names. Very few have articles in English Wikipedia, so unless there is a map you can add, they will not help readers. If you cannot find a map of districts, you might consider replacing the districts with the municipios, and you can then use the map in the Administrative subdivision article, and this will indicate to the reader who is visiting say, Aurelia, which churches are in the area. Of course, they are large areas, so the districts (if they are smaller) with a map would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: I've now removed all references to municipi, as well as other distinguishing abbreviations in the Suburbicarian dioceses section, with clarification in the prose. The Key section now also includes a short description of the "R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z." abbreviations, now with a map to show things better. I kept the abbreviations for communicating some basic locational information and because they seem more complete with them. Also, I'm quite certain that we can presume that readers utilising this article to sight-see in Rome would have a sort of digital map to search up these locations in the table (which seem to be better found with the abbreviations). Do bear in mind that this article does not aim to list all churches in Rome; that's better a separate article of its own. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've included the phrase "Other Eastern Catholic cardinals are assigned titular churches, as standard." to clarify in this regard.
2. Reference included.
3. I've removed the phrase on patriarchates (something I forgot to remove earlier). The numbers seem to fit in with the statistics of that paragraph.
4. In the second paragraph: "…suburbicarian diocese, in the vicinity of Rome". Some of the suburbicarians are located just outside the city boundaries but still within the same Italian region.
5. As above, they are merely reflective of the local Roman administrative system that is used to locate churches. The suburbicarian dioceses table uses the abbreviations in the second table to indicate that they are outside of the city of Rome (see 4.). I suppose that I could explain the system used above, although such information would be merely supplementary in regards to the actual content of the article at hand.
6. As above, these refer to a form of Roman administrative subdivision, explained and linked to in the Key to locations section, which are numbered using Roman numerals (I to XV).

Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is a lot clearer with the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stalled out again, so taking a look: we have two supports, one conditional support, and 2 closed comments. I'm not finding anything objectionable, and the source review passed, so I'm going to promote. --PresN 17:03, 22 June 2018 (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, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure about this one; it feels like it's missing something but I can't put my finger on what. It has everything the other governor FLs have, it just seems bare, I guess because there's much fewer transitions that need footnotes/references, and despite being an old state, the rules have remained pretty steady. So since it seems to meet the criteria, here we go. Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles is travelling (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I will echo the statement above, the lead is far too short for a featured list. Maybe you can discuss the roles and responsibilities of the governors, if those changed over time, etc... give some context to the list as well as a summary. An example can be found here: List of Governors of Arkansas. Also note the useful infobox. Mattximus (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we already have an article on the office; I didn't want to needlessly duplicate info. I feel like Arkansas' should be trimmed, but only when it has an article. However, I've reverted myself to put it back. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not needless duplication, what if a reader only clicks on the list page and doesn't refer to the main page? It will be hard to pass without adding this info, and I do like the inclusion of the infobox like in the Arkansas list. Mattximus (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been added. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, for me this is a quick fail on the lead - two lines (on my screen) is nowhere near long enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've readded the information on the office; @ChrisTheDude:, please review. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead still seems a bit on the short side. Also, is there a reason why this list doesn't use the infobox that the Arkansas one does? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was on the Governor of Illinois page, but I've added it here. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only remaining thing I've got is that there's a sentence in the lead which starts with a numeral. Could you re-word it to avoid this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I rewrote the sentence a little bit. --Golbez (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates for the comments on Thompson and Blagojevich in the second paragraph would be helpful.
• The third paragraph needs references.
• "Illinois Territory was formed on March 1, 1809, from Indiana Territory. It had only one governor appointed by the President of the United States before it became a state. From March to June 1809, Territorial Secretary Nathaniel Pope served as acting governor; Edwards' arrival in Illinois ended Pope's brief administration." This paragraph has a number of issues. The first sentence could do with clarification and you refer to Edwards as if he has already been mentioned. Presumably, as you date Edwards' administration from March, he was appointed at the same time as the territory was created, but you do not make this clear. I am not sure of the best way to word it. Perhaps "Illinois was part of Indiana Territory from 1800 to March 1, 1809, when Illinois was separated off and Ninian Edwards was appointed governor of Illinois Territory. Territorial Secretary Nathaniel Pope served as acting governor until Edwards' arrival in June."
• "If the governor determines that they are seriously impeded, they can inform the secretary of state and the next in the line of succession" What does this mean? "They" appears to mean the governor and the lieutenant governor, but how impeded and who is the next in line of succession? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added dates to Thompson and Blajo; removed third graf; cleaned up territory sentence; and ... that's just how the constitution is worded: "Whenever the Governor determines that he may be seriously impeded in the exercise of his powers, he shall so notify the Secretary of State and the officer next in line of succession." "They" refers to the governor. The next in line is [usually] the lieutenant governor: "the order of succession to the office of Governor or to the position of Acting Governor shall be the Lieutenant Governor, the elected Attorney General, the elected Secretary of State, and then as provided by law." Since it's never gone beyond Lt Gov, and since it could be lengthy ("as provided by law"), I didn't go into excess detail about the line of succession. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still unclear as "they" appears to refer to the two people mentioned in the previous sentence, the governor and lieutenant governor. How about "If the governor determines that he or she may be seriously impeded in the exercise of their powers, they shall so notify the secretary of state and the lieutenant governor, who becomes acting governor until the governor can resume office." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer to avoid "he or she", I've rewritten that part of the sentence. --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Albertville Olympics hold a special place in my memories, likely because they are the first Olympics I can actually remember watching. (A little clue to my age might be in there somewhere) This list has lots to cover, new sports, new nations, and the first medalist from the Southern Hemisphere. I've tried to pack it all in, and look forward to your comments. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the only thing I have picked up so far is this sentence: "The newly independent republics of Croatia and Slovenia made their Olympic debuts, being newly independent from Yugoslavia". Can you find a way to re-word it so that you aren't saying "newly independent" twice in the same sentence? Also, and this is very minor, but the sentence does not currently have a full stop/period at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, ChrisTheDude, both issues resolved. Courcelles (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repinging ChrisTheDude, any more comments?. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - happy to support. Apologies for forgetting to check back sooner.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Brilliant job Courcelles. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are of appropriate reliability, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work. Spot-checks of refs 30, 47, 69, and 83 revealed one oddity worth looking into: ref 30 lists the bronze medal winner as Yelena Belova, while this article (and her bio here) gives her first name as Elena. The only other item worth commenting on is that reference 2 needs an access date. Other than those two things, everything else looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008:, Ref 2 taken care of, not sure what to tell you about Yelena/Elena, it's just one of those where situations where both are valid translations, I originally had it as Yelena, and was told to change it by someone above to match our article. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (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) 22:04, 17 June 2018 (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) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the critera as it is complete and well-sourced. The lead was recently copy-edited. Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 10 days. Anyone wanna give this a look or...? Pancake (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll kick off with this and check back in with more later:

• "had moderate impact on charts in Belgium, Scotland, and the United Kingdom in 2009" - Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so this really doesn't make sense as it's written. It would be like saying "had impact on charts in Texas and the USA". Upon further investigation it seems that there is a record chart for sales specifically in Scotland, but it's so minor that I really wonder if it's worth mentioning. If it is, then the sentence needs re-wording in some way to avoid the awkward "Scotland and the UK" thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Scotland on two occasions in the lead :) Pancake (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments......

• "Miike Snow is a Swedish indie pop band. Their discography consists" - is the group singular or plural? Worth checking the whole lead for consistency on this question.
• "While describing their debut record [....], Happy to You was" - the album is the subject of the main part of the sentence, so the first clause isn't grammatically correct as it stands. I would suggest changing the first bit to "While the band described....."
• "In addition to their studio efforts, Miike Snow has" - see above
• You have a section described as "List of guest appearances with other performing artists" but one is not with any other artist. Either find another section to put that in or change the description of the section.

Think that's all I've got........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Let me know what you think :) Pancake (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Didn't spot any concerns when I read through the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 2018 (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) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This valuable list contains information about the Turkish football championships which are not covered appropriately the way they should and provides useful information and data, especially about the former championships (before 1957). What makes this list article especially interesting and engaging is the fact that the Turkish Football Federation negates and ignores the era before 1957, even though both former championships were the official competitions of the very same federation!

Given their unique situation and the general quality of the article, I think that this article deserves to be a Featured List. I have tried my best to meet all the criteria and I believe that the article is in an appropriate state. It is a personal concern for me that this list gains FL status, and I will genuinely try my best to improve it even further if necessary. I offer my thanks to all who have the time to comment on the list, and I promise that I'll get to each comment as soon as I can. Kind regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query - what is sourcing the top goalscorers? I can't see any references either against individual rows or against the column headings as you have done with the champions............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Good point, I totally forgot about them. Thank you for reminding, they are in the article now. I didn't really understand what you mean by the individual rows and column headings though. Could you specify? If you mean the championship titles, there are sources such as RSSSF and the Turkish FA's own magazine (TamSaha), for instance. Akocsg (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant was that the goalscorers could have been sourced either individually against each row or (if there was one source that listed them all) against the column header (as you did with the champions). When I commented, neither was present. Now you have put a source against the column header so all is good......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Oh, now I see. Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - issues addressed, no further concerns. Kosack (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good and informative article. I didn't notice anything else apart from the points addressed above. Baki.d (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – With all of my comments (and those below) resolved, I think this meets FL standards now. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for not checking back. Here's some other comments from me:
  • "After some time, many other regional and local leagues followed in other major cities, such as Ankara (1923), Eskişehir (1920), or İzmir (1923), to name a few." => "Other regional and local leagues followed in other major cities, including Ankara (1923), Eskişehir (1920), and İzmir (1923)."
  • "At the end of the 1924 season, Harp Okulu were the first club to be crowned champions after completing their fixtures unbeaten.[2] They are also the only club who have ever changed their name after winning a championship title having been known as Harbiye for the first of their three titles" => "At the end of the 1924 season, Harbiye were the first club to be crowned champions after completing their fixtures unbeaten.[2] They are also the only club who have ever changed their name after winning a championship title, changing their name to Harp Okulu after the first of their three titles"
  • "the three lowest-placed teams are relegated to the 1. Lig and replaced by the top three teams in that division" - not relevant to a list of champions and definitely doesn't belong in the lead
  • "No clubs were promoted or relegated during the first season" - not relevant
  • "Before the creation of a second tier league, the bottom three clubs competed with regional league winners in a competition called the Baraj Games. The top three teams of the seven team group were promoted to the Millî Lig." - not relevant
  • "(not counted and denied by TFF)" => "(not recognised by TFF)"
  • Where there really two national championships in the same year in the 1940s? With (some of) the same teams competing in both?
  • You have a section heading of "Super League", but everywhere else it is referred to by its Turkish name of Süper Lig - I see no reason why this name should not be used in the section heading too.
  • "In the table below all national championship titles since 1924 are included, comprising the Turkish Football Championship and National Division" => "In the table below all national championship titles since 1924 are included, including the Turkish Football Championship and National Division"
  • "which are denied and not counted by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships by the TFF itself." => "which are not recognised by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships organised by the TFF itself."
• Think that is all I have.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done. About both competitions existing at the same time in the 1940s, yes it is true. You can look up those seasons. The difference was the competition system and the qualification criteria: the National Division was based on a classical league system (double round robin), with the top placed clubs of the three major regional leagues (Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara; only them) as participants. The Turkish Championship was initially contested by all regional league champions (and them only). After 1941, it was played in a Final Group, consisting of the champions only of the aforementioned three major regional leagues. The fourth club was decided in a qualification play-off, which was contested by the regional league winners who could not play in the National Division. I guess that's why they both were held, so that the clubs who could not play in the National Division also had a chance to win a national championship. It's a bit complicated, and quite interesting. Definitely unique in Europe. It's a shame that they are denied and not recognised by the very same corrupt federation which held them. Hence the importance of this list article. Akocsg (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all of my concerns seem to have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:@Giants2008:@Kosack: I have added the sites of Erdinc Sivritepe now in the respective columns, where the final tables (and as a result the third placed teams) are all listed without exception. I think this should be enough to verify them. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 2018 (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, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of players of Premier League who have received a medal for winning the title. The introduction includes a brief summary of what the Premier League is and its history, the requirements for receiving a medal, and statistics regarding the medals that have been awarded over the years. The list includes what I believe to be the key relevant information for a list of this nature. The entries are cited to the player profiles on the Premier League site, which hold a record as to which players have and have not received medals. The content in the nationality and club tables is taken from the Premier League references used in the main list.

I stumbled across this list only a few weeks ago when using it as a directory for adding the player profiles as a reference for Premier League honours in player biographies. I noticed a couple of players in the list who hadn't actually received medals, which I removed accordingly, before deciding to give the list a more thorough cleanup. This is what the list looked like before my recent updates, in which not a single entry was referenced. I believe the list has now been brought up to the standards set out at the FL criteria. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments by Lemonade51

• Think https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/June_2018&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:Giggs_PL_trophy.jpg would work better as a lead image. For a start he's actually holding the prize in question.
  • Agreed. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The only issue I have at first glance is medals. "484 medals awarded to 243 players", does this take into account that the 92–93 United side never actually got medals but mini trophies? Igors Stepanovs didn't receive anything at the Arsenal's 2001–02 trophy presentation because he didn't play the required number of games then. There is footage on YouTube, I'll try and dig it out. But then the PL website suggests he did. Maybe he got one later on. Think you've done the right thing in renaming the list to reflect this. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does include the players from the first season who received the mini trophies. Do you think this needs clarifying? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing Stepanovs qualified through special dispensation. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 2018 (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, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the 17th century conclaves bringing them up to GA status, and have most of them done, so I've turned to working on the list of electors for them, and this is my first attempt at that. The March 1605 papal conclave was the first of two conclaves in 1605, which was the last Year of Three Popes popes before 1978: Clement VIII had recently died, and left a nearly full college. This list of electors includes several names that are very significant in the history of the Counter-Reformation, and was by far one of the most enjoyable conclaves to research and write about. I'm nominating this as a featured list because it is complete and I feel it either meets the criteria or is very close to doing so. I hope you all enjoy it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my extensive pre-FLC commentary yesterday. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: largely well-written and mostly thorough for its time period. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Add trans-title for titles in foreign languages; indicate the language of the source material.
  • Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Eubel, Konrad (1913a) does not have authors listed even though Worldcat does; I did not check all of them.\
  • Fixed: I also went through and updated the two sources that had previously been attributed to Eubel: archive.org had used the wrong bigliographic information on the second. This is easy to do because all the works are typically referred to as "Eubel", because he was the first author. I've double verified it against Worldcat, Google Books, and the publication information in the scans on archive.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref number order " Leo XI.[8][1]"
  • Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you know who took the photograph of the painting? Is there any way we can know if it is copyrighted or are we going to have to AGF on it?
  • The official stance of the WMF is that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional art are public domain. I checked to see if Getty had a version of this available for license to see if they listed an original creator and they don’t: but they agree it is 17th century. Under our copyright policy we consider it public domain, and the license tag reflects this, so we should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rephrase Pope Sixtus V had mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy in 1586. to In 1586, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy., unless I misunderstand what the sentence is conveying
  • Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change having created to creating, and all those hads seem unnecessary
  • Tried this and ended up not doing either. I think the pluperfect is correct here as it is referring to specific events in the past that were complete before the event we are discussing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Your alt text on the image could be improved
  • I added a bit here. I’m never good at these, so if it needs more, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back from more comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kees08, made these changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kees08: see responses. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed, and an interesting list for me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 2018 (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, 11 June 2018 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully nominated the lists for 2000-2006 inclusive (as well, rather randomly, as 1959), and the list for 2007 now has multiple supports, so why the heck not? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think you have the formula for these down pat. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Basically a copy of the 2007, etc. lists. Did some tweaks to the references, but also Source review passed. --PresN 18:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (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) 00:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My other lists, although long in the nomination tooth, are fully supported with no outstanding issues. This one, about some guy called Ronaldo, may generate a bit more interest, or at least I hope so. All comments are welcome, and I will endeavour to fix any issues raised as soon as is humanly possible. Thanks to you all for your generous time and effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Scoring in a shoot-off is more relevant to a "Goals scored by..." list than saying "Following Portugal's win at UEFA Euro 2016, Ronaldo lifted the trophy as his team's captain". Also 3rd goalscorer worldwide is relevant. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure you're right, but could you clarify what you would like to include, what sources you have, and what you'd like to remove? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT Ronaldo is the 3rd among all-time goalscorers in international games. And, you have repeatedly rejected mentioning shoot-off "goals" in such lists, yet I see you talk in the introduction about how he won a championship as a captain in which he only scored once. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Ronaldo has scored goals [...], hence becoming the first player to score [...], which also makes him second [...]." I can't believe you see nothing wrong with this sentence structure. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I can't see anything wrong with this sentence structure? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]