- 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) 09:35:35 18 June 2019 (UTC) [1].
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent work as ever Dudley (I made one tiny tweak) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Chris. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
I'll read the notes in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the notes
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed, or not worth quibbling over. Nice work Dudley, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Could you explain the sentence "In 2002 it took over Surrey County Council's large countryside estate"? Does that mean the Council used to manage an unknown number of the the nature reserves but now the trust does? The singular estate isn't clear to me.
- I take it to mean that the Trust took over management of the council's parks and nature reserves, but I am reluctant to change the Trust's wording here in case I get it wrong. Do you have a suggestion?
- I read the source and still don't quite know what they mean. Perhaps it's the difference in American and British English, but I don't read "large countryside estate" as several scattered parks and reserves. Perhaps there's a contemporary source that can clarify. Reywas92Talk 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I missed this comment. I have limited access forthe next two weeks while I am on holiday but I will check when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All the other designations in the second paragraph are common nouns and shouldn't be capitalized, e.g. National nature reserve (United Kingdom) and Local nature reserve
- The same citation doesn't need to be duplicated for both the site name and description
- I think it is better as in some cases such as Chobham Common the description is from a different source. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the SU##### or TQ#### links in the location column are working for me, they need to be updated to whatever they are
- I have raised a query with the editor who maintains grid references, and will update or delete if it is not just a temporary bug. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bay Pond: What makes this educational? And they're all run by the Trust since they're listed here so that's unnecessary to state.
- This is one of the sites which are not open to the public and are run by Trusts to provide educational facilities for schools. SWT does not specifically mention schools, but it does mention an outdoor classroom so I have added this. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bisley: "There are mammals such as roe deer and invertebrates include..." needs a comma between the independent clauses. Barossa, Fir Tree Copse, and a few others need this too
- Brentmoor doesn't need a comma after adders
- I have never been clear about the rules about commas, but I have changed as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good Reywas92Talk 06:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments Reywas92. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Looks great :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 09:35, 18 June 2019 (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) 09:35:37 18 June 2019 (UTC) [2].
- Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Important Indian literary list that I feel meets the criteria's. All the constructive feedback are welcomed. Happy reading. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No reason for a capital on "Literature" in the infobox
- In fact, why not put "Civilian award for contributions to Kannada literature" in the infobox?
- No reason for a capital on "Awardees" in the heading
- "The award was established in 1987 by Government of Karnataka" => "The award was established in 1987 by the government of Karnataka"
- "It is awarded each year for a best literary work, written in the Kannada language (one of the 22 Official languages of India) or for a lifetime contribution to Kannada literature by a citizen of Karnataka." - this sentence makes it sound like the award can currently be given for either of these things, but that doesn't seem to be true. Changing it would risk duplicating sentences in the second paragraph, so maybe just combine it with the previous sentence and say "It is the highest literary honor conferred by the Department of Kannada and Culture, Government of Karnataka State, and recognises works written in the Kannada language (one of the 22 official languages of India)" (no capital on "official")
- "The award comprises a cash prize of ₹1 lakh" - but it doesn't, because later on you say it's been 3 lakh for more than 10 years. So this would need to change to "The award originally comprised a cash prize of ₹1 lakh"
- " the assassination of M. M. Kalburgi" => " the assassination of the scholar M. M. Kalburgi" (gives some context as to who he actually was)
- The lead seems very brief at only 1400 characters (not enough for a DYK). Is there anything more that could be added/expanded on?
- I have added bits in the third para but there is nothing much I could find to add.
- For what was the award given from 2007 to 2010?
- Did nobody win last year?
- No.
- Any idea why not? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude Probably because of the political instability of the state. But there is nothing available online about it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Any idea why not? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the winners seem to have photos on WP, could some of them not be used?
- HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude The rest has been resolved. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from zmbro
- Lead's all good
- Add scope rows and cols to the table
- A. N. Murthy Rao's image is under fair use so pretty sure it can't be used here (should also be a space between A & N)
- Images need alt text
- Got a couple links to fix (some simple, some not so much)
- So is this award done being presented or was it just only in 2018? If there's going to be one for 2019 I'd add a row for 2018 saying no award
Rest looks good. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Zmbro Archived the one blue link which is working fine on my server. Replaced ANM's image. The rest has been fixed as well. Thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Two more things: the ref col would look better centered and add a ref that says there was no award in 2018. – zmbro (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Zmbro I hope it looks fine now. I could not find a single reference for 2018, so I had to remove that bit entirely. I'll re-include it once the award is given again this year. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Two more things: the ref col would look better centered and add a ref that says there was no award in 2018. – zmbro (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – yep looks good to me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 09:35, 18 June 2019 (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) 09:33:58 18 June 2019 (UTC) [3].
- Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done up in the style of the previous Olympic ice hockey featured lists (Poland, Canada, Switzerland, United States). My biggest concern is that there aren't many free images to use for the article, and few that do exist are not really appropriate (either not great quality or not going to add much). Any comments are appreciated, and will address them as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- ", first in 1956 and the last in 1988." => ", the first in 1956 and the last in 1988."
- "In protest of this policy" => "In protest at this policy"
- "Canada withdrew from the 1972 and 1976 Olympics in protest." - you said "in protest" at the start of the sentence, you don't need to say it again at the end
- "When the Soviet Union dissolved it was replaced in subsequent tournaments it was succeeded by the Unified Team (1992), the Russia (since 1994)" - this is really mangled. It should probably be "When the Soviet Union dissolved it was replaced at subsequent tournaments by the Unified Team (1992) and Russia (since 1994)"
- "Goaltender Vladislav Tretiak played in 4 tournaments" => four tournaments
- "across 3 Olympics" => "across three Olympics"
- In note a, Latvia is spelt incorrectly
- In notes a and b I think you need a bit more explanation of "builder", as it sounds like they let construction workers into the Hall of Fame
- Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, think I've addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- All images are missing alt text.
- "In protest at this policy Canada..." Add a comma after "policy".
- "Throughout its existence the Soviet Union..." Add a comma after "existence".
- "When the Soviet Union dissolved it was replaced..." Add a comma after "dissolved".
- Drop the comma after "Unified Team (1992),"
- "Medals" columns (both tables): The same sort key has been applied to gold, silver, and bronze medals such that they don't sort at all. List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, for example, has golds with a whole number of 3, silver with 2, and bronze with 1.
- Everything else looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, got everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from zmbro
- The image of Grigory Mkrtychan doesn't have a caption
- The note columns in the tables don't need to be sortable
That's all I've got. Comparing this one to your other similar FLs, very good job and well done! :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking it over, fixed those issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the notes should be sort able: it allows the ability to see who was captain, inducted into the different halls of fame, and so on, in an easy fashion. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking it over, fixed those issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your other FLs of the same type have them sortable and that makes sense so yep all good for me. Happy to support :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 09:33, 18 June 2019 (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) 09:35:40 18 June 2019 (UTC) [4].
- Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to meeting the criteria, this is the next-to-last team-related article before a push towards a Featured Topic. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A couple of questions, at least one of which may be down to my unfamiliarity with how US sports coverage works
- The text concentrates (understandably) on the radio announcers, but also mentions that some games were televised. Were the listed announcers also used for the TV coverage? As far as I can see that isn't made explicitly clear.
- I've added text explaining that the radio announcers provided commentary for TV games except in the 1979 season. I've not added the TV announcer to the table. I'm wondering if I should create a separate table for TV announcers & stations or try to sandwich his name into the existing table. ? NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest just making it a footnote, TBH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a footnote beside the station in the table. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- By the sound of things the announcers are employed by the club, rather than by a radio station, which is the opposite of what I am used to here in the UK but presumably explains why the coverage was able to jump from station to station but retain the same announcer. But why does the coverage change stations? Might it be worth a sentence or two saying something like "Sounds games have been broadcast on 13 radio stations in the club's history, changing because [whatever the reason is - contract re-negotiations.....?]"
- Correct, the team has a contract with an announcer to call the games and a separate contact with a station to air the broadcast. (Though, the 1978 announcer owned the station.) I've added prose regarding why the first station was selected, why they switched in the second year, and reasons for subsequent station changes. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that I haven't spotted anything..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks good to me. Great job to you! :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 09:35, 18 June 2019 (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) 20:40:21 13 June 2019 (UTC) [5].
- Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like 2016 and 2017 before it, the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season was yet another damaging year for tropical cyclones. The two names that will forever be associated with 2018 are Florence and Michael. Florence caused catastrophic flooding across North Carolina and South Carolina in mid-September. Michael, meanwhile, was the first Category 5 hurricane to strike the United States since Andrew in 1992. Together, these storms killed over 120 people and cost nearly $50 billion in damage. This timeline represents the season as it unfolded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hurricane Noah
[edit]Only issues I have are with the lead. NoahTalk 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the year really necessary after June 1 since you already had "timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season" before it? NoahTalk 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope! ☁❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise later on in the lead. NoahTalk 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's outta here. ☁❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Link the mention of United States. NoahTalk 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS says we should avoid linking to major geographic features that most people know. USA certainly falls under that. ☁❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Most articles have links to United States. The US isnt a geographic feature. Geographic features are things like North America, the Pacific Ocean, the Himilayan Mountains, the Saharan Desert, etc.. NoahTalk 19:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Average readers won't understand what "third deepest" means. NoahTalk 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully that's better. ☁❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would simply say third strongest by atmospheric pressure and fourth strongest by winds (you do need to clarify for that one as well). NoahTalk 19:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TropicalAnalystwx13: All my concerns have been addressed, so I support. NoahTalk 19:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
- Support good work, my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I couldn't find anything to pick you up on. Nice to see they named a hurricane after me, BTW ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just one nit-pick from me: the first see also link isn't needed, since we link to that article in the opening sentence and in templates at the bottom of the page.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:40, 13 June 2019 (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) 20:40:15 13 June 2019 (UTC) [6].
- Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally just going to be the National Park Service units like List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States but then I doubled my workload with the memorials that are independently operated but don't receive the billing the NPS sites do. Congress is quite inconsistent with naming sites as "national memorials" as they either authorize construction of memorials or commemorative works that may or may not be built or other times name an existing site, so I read a lot of legislation during this project. Anyway I look forward to your comments. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from BeatlesLedTV
- Many links need to be fixed; some green some blue, many redirects, and one dead link
- "The National Park Service manages 30 national memorial as official units." → memorials
- The link "other national monuments" doesn't go anywhere
- "Area [9][8]" → remove space
- You use "U.S." in some instances and "US" (no periods) in others. Make sure it's consistent
- Why no area for Pearl Harbor?
- "Thaddeus Kosciuszko" ".02 acres" → "0.02 acres"
- Center all the image cols
- Put en dashes in squares with no images
All I got. Great job on this! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Pearl Harbor is brand new so the NPS Index doesn't have the area but it's the same as the Hawaii portion of the former World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument. I don't know what the blue ELs are supposed to mean or how to fix the 'connection issue'; I can open those links from the article just fine. Reywas92Talk 07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – yeah they work for me too. The only thing I can think of is to archive everything. Anyways great job on this! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
That's enough for a first pass. I'll read the notes on each memorial after these are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Further
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "The affiliated areas are in four states (two additional)" - not sure what "two additional" means here, similarly for "five additional" later......
- Additional to the 15 states the NPS memorials are in, not sure how else to concisely put it.
- Maybe "The affiliated areas are in four states (including two which have no NPS memorials)"...? To me, just saying "(two additional)" isn't completely clear.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with "two additional beyond those with NPS memorials" Reywas92Talk 19:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "The affiliated areas are in four states (including two which have no NPS memorials)"...? To me, just saying "(two additional)" isn't completely clear.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional to the 15 states the NPS memorials are in, not sure how else to concisely put it.
- "a white granite wall engraved with the named of the 40 victims" - typo on what should be "names"
Done - "Notable quotations.....are etched on granite walls and a 30 ft (9.1 m) sculpture of King" - are quotations actually etched on the sculpture as well as the walls, or are there some words missing here?
- Yes, see image
- "The majority of victims were Black" - don't think "black" needs a capital B
- [8] Not sure if the MOS addresses this
- "having been exileed" - typo Done
- "what's left of the building's walls " => what is left.... Done
- "are surrounded by Wall of Honor" => "are surrounded by a Wall of Honor" Done
- "This is first museum dedicated to veterans" => "This is the first museum dedicated to veterans" Done
- That's all I have....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Reywas92Talk 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, minor changes only. Promoting. --PresN 20:40, 13 June 2019 (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) 20:40:11 13 June 2019 (UTC) [9].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 26 of these year-by-year country number ones lists at FL status, so here's the next in the series, covering a year when one of the biggest country hits of the year was (bizarrely) by Julio Iglesias.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
" spare pipe.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks good as always. – zmbro (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – the scopes are finally right :)-Lirim | Talk 07:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – It looks like there's a formatting issue with the dash in reference 4. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Embarrassing typo now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, minor changes only. Promoting. --PresN 20:40, 13 June 2019 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 08:28:10 10 June 2019 (UTC) [10].
- Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is modeled on the existing FLs of the Kerala State Award. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from zmbro
- Links look good
- Add scope rows to the table (name col)
- Is there an image available for the figurine awarded?
- I'm afraid there are no free images available.
- Why was there no winner in 2002?
- I could not find any information beyond that on the internet or any book.
- I actually had the same issue with the Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award so all good there.
- Should there be mention of the first female winner in the lead? As well as how many women have won in general?
- There's a random extra table that's very small above the main table – remove this
- Maybe add an extra table for multiple winners?
- But that wouldn't go with the similar existing FLs in this category.
Looks good. Great job! – zmbro (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest has been addressed. zmbro Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – All good for me. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this nomination only when above issues are addressed. Mr. Smart LION 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, the reason for not giving the award in 2002.--Let There Be Sunshine 13:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Thanks much! Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"have won the award two times in their careers" => "have won the award twice in their careers"
- "The Academy did not present the award in the 2002 ceremony" => "The Academy did not present the award at the 2002 ceremony"
- "Shyamaprasad who was awarded for his film" => "Shyamaprasad, who received the award for his film"
- The infobox says "Total awarded: 49" but this does not match the prose
- I don't know if this is a Chrome-specific issue, but on my screen I can see a random small rectangle between the "winners" heading and the table caption - why's that there?
- The table sorts on first name/initial - it should sort on surname
That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude All done. Please have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Aoba47
- I would add ALT text for the images.
- Under the section title for the "Winners" section, there is an empty box/cell. It could just be something with my computer, but I am wondering if this is a formatting error of some kind?
- I have a clarification question about this part (The awardees are decided by an independent jury formed by the academy.). You mention in the lead that the academy was started having influence in the awards after 1998. Was this jury used before 1998 or was a different method used to select winners?
- The winners have always been decided by the jury even before the academy was setup.
- That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure the "figurine" wikilink is necessary.
- Is there a reason why an image of G. Aravindan is not used for the list as he is the person who won the award the most?
- The only image of his available on common's has licensing issues.
- Then I agree that it is best to not use it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some instances where you use "the academy" (i.e. The awardees are decided by an independent jury formed by the academy.) and "the Academy" (i.e. The Academy did not present the award in the 2002 ceremony.). Make sure to be consistent with either format.
I hope this helps. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the list again and most likely support it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47 The rest has been addressed. Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the responses. I support this for promotion. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I hope you have a great end to your week, and I look forward to reading your future work. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47 Thanks for lending the support. Sure, I will look into your nomination soon. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I will actually be taking a wikibreak because I realized that my time will soon be taken up by off-Wikipedia activities so I will be withdrawing my FAC (though you are more than welcome to add commentary/suggestions whenever I come back with it lol). I still really enjoyed reading this list though and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. There were a couple of small formatting issues that I feel compelled to bring up before this gets promoted:
Ref 4 (Cultural Heritage of Kerala) has an author listed on Google Books that isn't provided in the article (A. Sreedhara Menon, which you can see on the book cover), and no page number is given. The latter sometimes happens with Google Books excerpts (I can't access an excerpt for this book from the U.S.), but the author should definitely be listed, and the page number provided if Google Books gives you one. Also, since this is a book cite, an access date isn't required (refs 1 and 2 are similar and already don't have them).The archived version of ref 4 isn't that helpful and could be removed. Google Books excerpts don't archive properly in the Internet Archive, and this is just the summary page anyway, not something that aids in verifying content.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants2008 Done. Thanks! Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With those couple of points resolved, the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 6 June 2019 (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) 22:02:33 2 June 2019 (UTC) [11].
- Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A list covers the Vietnamese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Damian Vo (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Allied45
- "Note A" could be condensed to "The category is set to be renamed as the Best International Feature Film, beginning at the 92nd Academy Awards in 2020."
- "It is the only Vietnamese film to have secured a nomination and the first nomination received by a Southeast Asian country in the category" --> add a comma after "secured a nomination" and add "was" before "the first nomination"
- "It was, however, failed to included on the final list, announced by the AMPAS in October." --> "It was not, however, included on the final list announced by the AMPAS in October."
- "Vietnam began to receive AMPAS' invitation to participate in the competition in 2006, after they require films to be released at least seven consecutive days in a commercial movie theater in their respective country during the eligibility period." --> "Vietnam began to receive AMPAS' invitation to participate in the competition in 2006, when a requirement was introduced that films needed to be commercially-released for at least seven consecutive days in a movie theater in its respective country during the eligibility period."
- Ref(s). --> Ref(s). [include the (s)]
Great work, overall! Allied45 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thank you for the review. Damian Vo (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Allied45 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from HĐ
- For sources from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences only the first reference should include the full name of the organization; for the followups just set the publisher to simply "AMPAS" (with wikilink removed).
- I'm not sure if press releases qualify for reliable sources; I have encountered contrary opinions previously. If possible I'd recommend finding other reports from secondary sources instead of press releases. They're fine to me, but I'm not sure if other reviewers will point this out as an issue
- Unlink "United States" in the lead and shorten it to "US"
Given the triviality of my concerns, I support this list for promotion, fantastic list content-wise and format-wise. HĐ (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for your support :) Damian Vo (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Lirim.Z
- The scope should be the first column of the table. You could either add ! scope="row" to the year column or swap the Film and Year column. Other than that great article.--Lirim | Talk 08:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Thank you for your review. Damian Vo (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Lirim | Talk 15:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Aoba47
- The image caption for the Trần Anh Hùng image should have punctuation as it is a full sentence.
- For this sentence (It is the only Vietnamese film to have secured a nomination), I would simplify "to have secured" to "to secure".
- For this part (was the only film responded to an open call for entries), I think that "submitted" would work better in this context.
Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Once these relatively minor points are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Zmbro
- Support – everyone else's comments have taken care of everything. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you :) Damian Vo (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The formatting of the sources and their reliability looks good, and the link-checker tool reveals no problems. Spot-checks of refs 30, 41, and 48 showed no issues. Overall, this source review looks like a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 28 May 2019 (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) 22:02, 2 June 2019 (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) 22:07:06 2 June 2019 (UTC) [12].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far 25 yearly lists of Billboard country number ones have been successfully promoted to FL, so here's what will hopefully be #26...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Lirim.Z
[edit]| Resolved comments from Lirim.Z (talk) |
|---|
* And again, the scope is always the first column
|
Support — The only thing I felt this list needed was a table caption for accessibility, which I added myself. Great job as always! Allied45 (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks great as always. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments trivia, but hey.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The references are all reliable and well-formatted, and the links are in working order according to the link-checker tool. No problems with the sources here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 29 May 2019 (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) 22:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.