Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2016

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination of this article closed with two supports some 20 days ago. So I'm renominating it in the hope that it'll gather a greater consensus. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination can be seen here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry/archive1. Miyagawa (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I have my own Featued List nomination Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship, if anyone would like to drop in and give it the once over.

• "Couldn't" should be "could not"
• I am not sure if the details on Ellison taunting them etc. is really relevant for the article. It's about Roddenberry's nominations and awards, not someone else's.
• "Various Rewards" - should that be "awards"?
• NASA should be spelled out.
• Table looks good, sorts well etc.
• Sources look legit to me too.

@Miyagawa: - Overall a good list, very few issues jumped out at me. MPJ-US  02:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Thanks, I've fixed those issues. Miyagawa (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: - Perfect, Support  MPJ-US  12:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• I think everything from "At the 1967 Writer's Guild of America Awards" right up to note 1 should be its own paragraph; it's odd splitting discussion of one element across two paragraphs which each contain other information as well.

• I think I did it because of image placement, but having fixed it as suggested, I don't have the same issue that I once did. So that's sorted now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a comment on your work, but isn't Harlan Ellison just a dislikeable bollock or what?

• Roddenberry wasn't exactly an Angel with it either, but just about everyone had a go at re-writing that episode. I'm intending to tackle it prior to the 50th Anniversary in September. Still though, if Ellison had just re-written it to reduce the insane budget requirements then everything would have been fine - but mind you, Roddenberry re-wrote everything during that first season so he would probably still have pissed Ellison off anyway. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yeah, but we're talking about a man who's been sitting on other writers' unreleased work for decades just because. There's also a funny story out there about him blowing up at a fan at a convention over some jellybeans too. GRAPPLE ^X 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Use of "Awarded" rather than the standard "won" template is interesting. I will probably steal this somewhere along the line.
• A few of the awards listed in the table have articles but aren't linked; this seems strange given that some are linked and others not.

• I think I've added the missing ones. Not sure how I missed those ones. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources seem good, tables seem accessible and images are free and suitably alt-texted.
• The size and placement of the military medals table makes it initially look like it might be a key rather than its own table; I'm wondering if it might not be a bad idea to draw some focus to it by adding images of the relevant ribbons for these medals as an illustration to the right-hand side. It wouldn't take up much space but it'd be eye-catching enough to show the table is actually its own thing.

• I think that is a really good idea. I've added it now, and I think it looks really good. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All in all this is concise but well done, and I'm leaning towards supporting once you've responded. GRAPPLE ^X 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. Support. GRAPPLE ^X 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list:

• "he was a pilot in the 394th Bomb Squadron, 5th Bombardment Group, of the Thirteenth Air Force, during World War II." - the commas are throwing me here. Maybe "he was a pilot in the 394th Bomb Squadron, 5th Bombardment Group of the Thirteenth Air Force during World War II."
• "While working in the Los Angeles Police Department, he began his television writing career" -> "While working in the Los Angeles Police Department after the war, he began his television writing career"; you need a transition
• "So, instead Roddenberry re-wrote the script for the episode, but Ellison" -> "Instead, Roddenberry re-wrote the script for the episode, but Ellison"
• Sorting the table by result gives you awarded-nominated-won, which looks odd to me since both awarded and won are colored green, but I'm not sure that it's actually wrong, per se.
• If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC up above. --PresN 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've made those fixes. I did try to force a sort in the result column but it broke the award/nominated/won templates. I could change it to a different color or shade of green if you think it'd be appropriate for Awarded. Miyagawa (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --PresN 19:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink

This list is indeed very well written, but I do have two concerns:

• The final sentence of the lead paragraph is a bit of a run-on:

"Following Roddenberry's death in 1991, he was posthumously awarded the Robert A. Heinlein Memorial Award by the National Space Society and the The George Pal Memorial Award at the Saturn Awards as well as the Exceptional Public Service Medal by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."

In my opinion, it should be split into two sentences:

"Following Roddenberry's death in 1991, he was posthumously awarded the Robert A. Heinlein Memorial Award by the National Space Society and the George Pal Memorial Award at the Saturn Awards. He was also awarded with the Exceptional Public Service Medal by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."

You may wish to use different wording, but you get the idea.

• A symbol, (such as "†") denoting that an award was given posthumously could be added to the awards chart at the bottom. In general, such a cross is used to denote that a person is deceased, but another symbol may be more appropriate.

Other than this, everything seems to be in order; I see no reason why this list shouldn't gain featured status. Good work, and best of luck. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look - I've split that sentence into two and added the symbol along with a key. Miyagawa (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond: support. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief glance at this nomination, and it appears as though there wasn't a proper source review yet, so I decided to take that upon myself. I checked all the online sources (simply because I don't have access to the books), and they all checked out fine, although in ref 33, it mentions that he won the The George Pal Memorial Award, but it never specifically stated what year it was awarded. I doubt that'll become a problem, so I'm going to give a Support for the source review. Cheers. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets criteria. Based on many FL's of the same structure. Little Mix have released three albums with a lot of material.  — Calvin999 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can now gladly support. Well done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  — Calvin999 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nice work lad. -- Frankie _talk 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• becoming the first group to do so
• had originally entered
• "but were put together to make a quartet..." I think this could be worded better, something like but were placed together in a quartet
• I don't think we need to know that their first single had a "gothic feel" to it. Seems superflous to me
  • I'm describing the track, so the style is linked to the lyrical content.  — Calvin999 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Commas after member and Roberts
• You don't need to use had before words like originally and previously, the past tense is implied by these words
• My biggest concern is that the lead is too long. As the group are still active and likely to record new material, how are you going to work this in? Four paragraphs for a group that has released three albums and only been active since 2011 is a bit excessive. I would trim it down to what's necessary
  • I've had this comment above I think. Yes they might release another album, but when? It could be in 2 years time. I don't think we should be focusing on what hasn't even happened and it shouldn't be a factor that influences this nomination, as it's raising an issue which isn't even issue and doesn't exist. If and when they release another album, then something can be done then. As it stands, I only talk about a couple of songs from each album anyway, so I think it is quite short.  — Calvin999 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The table shouldn't change when sorting it by song initially. Currently, A.D.I.D.A.S. moves down the table, when it should stay at the top
  • It sorts as Adidas, without full stops. Unless you think it short sort as A.D ?  — Calvin999 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 6, there's no need to archive it as the original link still works, especially when the archive one doesn't load.
  • What happens when the link becomes dead and I can't use the source anymore to archive it?  — Calvin999 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 7, should be an en dash
• ref 14, it's The Daily Telegraph not The Telegraph
• ref 17, needs an en dash, as does ref 19, Independent is spelt wrong as well in that ref

NapHit (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Addressed all. Thank you.  — Calvin999 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo

Overall, looks very good. I was also concerned about the length at first, but since they just released a new album, I doubt they'll be doing anything for a while. The length is fine for now. I made two edits to the article, which I originally had written down as issues that needed to be fixed, but when you look at the actual edit, they're very small (one word was missing an apostrophe, while The Daily Telegraph in ref 14 wasn't fixed earlier). Anyway, I support, nice list as always. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.  — Calvin999 08:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

• You do no need to cite sources for the release dates of their albums in the lead.
• You're kind of spotty as to when you're adding the publisher of publisher in refs; you have done it only in one ref (6, Hearst Corporation). It's not a big deal, but you should be consistent.
• Consider archiving the online references you haven't already so that linkrot doesn't mess up your references, thereby unciting content or causing you extra work later on. -- Frankie _talk 19:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I don't know how to archive URLs, can you link it to me please FrB.TG?  — Calvin999 09:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to archive them. It's just a suggestion. Here is how you archive a source: visit [3] and enter the link you wish to archive them. You can either archive with the existing ones (if they exist) or create one yourself. Anyway, source check passed. -- Frankie _talk 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated

Lead

• "Latin inspired" = "Latin-inspired"
• "its composition, while lyrically" - I don't think you need the comma?

Table
Sorts correctly, formatted well, no problems there

I only have a few nitpicky comments overall it's a really good list.  MPJ-US  11:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: Calvin999, are you planning to come back to this? MPJ-DK's comments have been sitting for a while, and they're about the only thing holding up this nomination. The other thing: NapHit, are you concluded with your review? It's unclear if you ever saw the response to your review. --PresN 20:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes I've done them PresN.  — Calvin999 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry guys, I completely forgot about this, looks like my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to support 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(Note- the above was NapHit. Also: @MPJ-DK:). --PresN 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally missed that my comments had been addressed, sorry. Support  MPJ-US  17:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The British girl group Little Mix have recorded songs for three studio albums..." and a couple of non-album singles.
• Cannonball isn't listed in the table.
• Missy Elliott has two t's (lead and image caption).
• "Name of song, songwriters, originating album and year of release." no full stop needed.
• "Love Me like You " -> "Love Me Like You "

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks. Done all.  — Calvin999 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted; no need to wait for TRM to come back to !vote since he often doesn't for small reviews. --PresN 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. Bharatiya29 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it meets the criteria's now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good work! —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So full disclosure, I have my own FLC candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and I figured the best way to gain some input on that is to give some myself.

• Lead - I don't have any real comments on the lead, the prose looks good to me, my challenges were cricket terms but it's a cricket article so I used the links to get an idea of what they meant.
• Table

• Under the column BF the "-" sorts as the lowest number, but in 4s it sorts as the highest? Same with 6s? is there a reason this is not consistent across the table?

• Sources

• I take it "CricketArchive", based on what I read on their wikipedia article is considered an "industry expert" or whatever the term is for Reliable sources?
• Looks reliable and check out on the "External links" tool.

• Other than the sorting being incosistent I would say this article has all the hallmarks of a a Featured Article. MPJ-US  13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I have no idea how unknown stats should be sorted. I have started a thread on WikiProject Cricket to get a better idea. Bharatiya29 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good idea, personally I have no preference for one or the other as long as it's the same across the table. MPJ-US  16:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made some changes to the sorting order. I think consistent sorting will not work here, because there is a substantial difference between "balls faced" and "number of 4s". An innibgs with lesser balls faced and more 4s and 6s is considered to be better. As per the advice on the WP Cricket talk page, I have taken unknown stats as "worst", so I have sort them as 999 in BF column, and as -1 in the 6s and 4s columns. Bharatiya29 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay I am good with that way to sort since that's the Cricket project's suggestion on how to sort. Support  MPJ-US  23:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Besides the one article from The Hindu, the topic of "Ranji Trophy triple centuries" doesn't seem to have been discussed or covered in any notable secondary/tertiary sources. All other references are merely proving that a certain triple century was made, that too based on a website that stacks all Cricket stats. In that case, how is this topic even notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the subject(s) (Ranji trophy and triple century) is/are notable, there shouldn't be any problem (with respect to notability) with these lists. As a matter of fact, you won't be able to find significant secondary/tertiary coverage of filmographies, discographies, awards list, et al. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as long as "Ranji trophy" and "triple century" are independently notable topics, their intersection is also notable? Film-lists are totally a different genre or unencyclopaedic stuff and I am not directly comparing this list with them. The traditional printed encyclopaedias used to incorporate only "notable films" in biographies. Even WP did that earlier. Over time enthusiastic editors increased and taking advantage of expandable online feature, filmographies started including each and every film. Maybe all films of a particular actor are notable; but that does not happen with all. Take for example Dara Singh who has been in many B-grade films and I don't think those all should be enlisted. Similarly, we also try to keep only notable awards in awards-lists. Enthusiastics are always gonna increase for whatever reason. But that should not make non-notable un-educational stuff encyclopaedic. Should a "List of Tweets by Lady Gaga" be allowed because she is notable, twitter is notable and in addition various gossip columns also discuss her tweets? Sporting records, award lists, are almost on verge of NOTSTATISTICS and hence I feel it's better to see if the complete topic in itself is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Scoring a century is an 'achievement'. A celebrity (or anybody for that matter) tweeting a 'tweet' is not. Twitter (as a topic) is notable. It's for the very reason we have articles like List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, and not List of international cricket fours hit by Sachin Tendulkar, List of international cricket wickets taken by Muttiah Muralitharan. The best (or 'notable') century made by Tendulkar (or best fifer by Muralitharan) is subjective. They hardly matter because all centuries/fifers are considered an 'achievement' in the sport (regardless of who made it or how effective it is). On a related note, you won't be able to find much independent coverage on the centuries and fifers list of other players. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's irrelevant for FLC. If you don't think the list is notable, then file an AfD and see what happens. Otherwise, and similarly, if you think it should be merged into another article, there is a process for that. But none of those processes happen here. Harrias ^talk 17:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Passed

• Spotchecks: checked refs 4, 12, 22, 35, 37 - all clean
• Formatting: I dislike the "link the first time" style for references, but whatever. Also- in ref 11 you have "The Times of India (Lucknow)", but in 35 "The Times of India (New Delhi)" - pretty sure the location field is meant for where the newspaper is located, not where the actual news report was filed from. It should be dropped from both refs, as per {{Cite news}}: "place: Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the location; examples: The Boston Globe, The Times of India. [...] Alias: location" --PresN 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN:  Done Bharatiya29 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review now passed; promoting. --PresN 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive work, I believe this list is now worthy to face the scrutiny of the community. I currently have a list up, but is has multiple supports and no outstanding comments. NapHit (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all my comments sorted, support. Relentlessly (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pleased with the improvements and believe it is worth featured status. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list:

• Germany's Jan Ullrich won the event in 1999, beating Swedish rider Michael Andersson by fourteen seconds, around the 50.8 kilometres (31.6 mi) course in Treviso. -> Germany's Jan Ullrich won the event in 1999, beating Swedish rider Michael Andersson by fourteen seconds around the 50.8 kilometres (31.6 mi) course in Treviso.
• "edging Rich by a minute and twelve seconds" - edging is an odd word choice, given that that was the largest winning margin to date; would fit better for the 3-second win in 1997
• Why do you stop listing the winning margin for the 2007-2010 races, and then again for the 2013-2015 races? I don't feel that you need to list them all, but it feel strange to do it for 1994-2006 and then stop.
• "He would retain the rainbow jersey the following year;" - sudden tense shift, this is surrounded by past tense
• The third margin column is sorting the 1995 2:03 margin behind the 2009 2:30
• The table has the 2003 silver margin as 0 seconds... either a mistake or you should mention it in the prose

They were split by less than a second! I have added a note to clarify this. NapHit (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it! If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC up above. --PresN 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @PresN:, much appreciated. I have addressed all of your comments. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to support- still find it strange that you don't mention the closest margin (the 2003 sub-1 second) in the text part of the article, though the new note is appreciated. --PresN 21:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added it, though I haven't mentioned the exact gap, I'm not what the exact measurement is when something is smaller than a second. NapHit (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --PresN 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review and Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink

I've reviewed all of the sources for this article (as it appears there has been no source check thus far), and everything looks good. Every source is functioning, and they all cite reliable third-party sources; this list meets the citation criteria. As for overall quality, I couldn't find any major issues, but I did find some minor issues, mostly in terms of grammar or punctuation. I managed to fix them myself despite my terminal laziness; if you want to review my edits, just pull up the page history as you wish, and notify me if I managed to throw the article into disarray (as has been known to happen with my editing). I support promotion to FL status; this list is indeed an example of Wikipedia's best. Good work, good luck, and farewell. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Barrymore was a superlative actress whose career ran between 1893 and 1957. She was one of the finest stage actresses of her time, although her career—like those of her siblings Lionel and John—suffered from periods of dalliances with drink and drugs. This list has been separated from the main Barrymore article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of her work. This is the third history of the siblings, following successful FLCs for John's career and that of Lionel. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This new history is long overdue and complements the two listed above. It is well and clearly written and thoroughly referenced and sourced. It needs to be on featured lists. Jack1956 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Jack - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not much to say from me.

• Is the title of the final citation correct? "WOOB"?

• LOL - yes! I did check, and I'm still unsure of what or why, but that is what is there!

• She was forced onto the stage for financial reasons, but did she always want to be a pianist really? Did she eventually enjoy being an actress? If so, at what point?

• She may have done, but it's not really clear from the sources. I'll have another look to see if anything else comes up. (Incidently, this was exactly the same as John and Lionel Barrymore: none of them actually wanted to be actors, and all tried to escape from it at some point). - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There might be some merit in the caption of the lead image providing some more context. It's also taken from Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines, presumably?

• Good point: I'll address that now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks ATD: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and her two siblings were Lionel and John. These and other family members were part of an acting dynasty." -- not sure about the conjunction here, or the sentence on the whole. It would work better, I think, with the introducer coming first; "Barrymore came from a notable family of actors; she was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and the sister of two brothers, Lionel and John.." possibly?
• "Her first Broadway role, alongside her uncle John Drew, Jr.," -- Ethel or Louisa?
• "Barrymore was quickly popular..." -- Not sure about the adverb here. It would be more impactive without it, in my opinion. Or even: "Barrymore became popular quickly with..." should you wish to keep it there.

• I've gone with "Barrymore was soon popular with English...": I hope that suits? - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "On her return to America in 1898..." -- New para, new noun.

Apart from all that, it's the usual good list I've come to expect. Support (btw). Cassianto^Talk 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! All tweaked, as per your suggestions (with one minor change). Thanks for your comments and time on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks better now. I support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks SNUGGUMS. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few drafting points you may like to consider; they are too minor to affect my support:

• The false title in the lead is an unnecessary injury to the prose (banned by The New York Times, so by no means de rigueur in American usage).
• Irving offered her roles in The Bells and Peter the Great – I read this as meaning they were offered but not accepted, until I read the main table. Perhaps "cast her in The Bells…"?
• Did they really spell "déclassée" without the accents? I see the film of that play got the accents right.
• Stage appearances table: to my eye the en dashes for the first four productions and a few below indicates that they are still running, which I don't suppose is the case. If they indicate that we don't know when they closed would a "– ?" be clearer? Merely a thought.
• Full stops: Mrs. Chesney gets one but Mrs Tanqueray doesn't. Mesdames Warren, Morley, Willey, Riordan, Pennicott and Grey are also full-stopped, so perhaps Mrs Tanqueray ought to follow suit, à l'américaine.
• Theatres outside New York: is it your policy not to name them even if known? Fair enough, if so, but if not you could, if you wished, name the Adelphi for Secret Service, the Lyceum for Peter the Great in 1898 and Wyndham's for Cynthia in 1904, according to Times archives.

That's my lot. Happy to support this excellently clear and comprehensive FL candidate. Meets all the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim, I've make the change, as per your suggstions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Overall very happy with this one, though I would suggest the use of alt text for the images used. Everything else seems grand. GRAPPLE ^X 10:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Grapple, much appreciated. Mea culpa on the alts - it's one of the things I keep forgetting and I'll address them shortly. Cheers - – SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spotchecks:

• Checked refs 5, 24, 41, 66 - all clean

• Formatting:

• Is there a reason that you don't have a publisher for the ibdb sources (publisher=The Broadway League)?
• ref 5 has the work as IBDB, rather than the full name like the other references to that site
• Consider archiving your online sources, so that they don't fall prey to linkrot.

Couple minor formatting tweaks, and then I'll go ahead an promote this nomination. --PresN 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers PresN. I've done points one and two, and I'll sort the archiving in a few days when I have a little time. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, happy to promote now. --PresN 22:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the format of List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire, which recently passed FLC, and I hope it will also be found to be of FL quality, Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Recusing myself in order to review this list.

• "As of January 2016 there are twenty Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire, eight in Bedford, eleven in Central Bedfordshire and one in Luton" - the 8/11/1 are the breakdown of the 20, so the comma after Bedfordshire should be a colon.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooper's Hill - "This Site of Special Scientific Interest has the best remaining area in the county of heathland" - best? What determines best?

• Now cited as the view of Natural England. Dudley Miles (talk)

• Why is it "Galley and Warden Hills SSSI", not just "Galley and Warden Hills"? It's the only SSSI to get that callout in the name

• This is how it is shown by Natural England. All names are as in the NE listing.

• Henlow Common - "Plants include marsh marigolds and there are kingfishers and the river bank has otters and water voles." - and...and...

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Marston Thrift - "Like Kings Wood and Glebe Meadows, this is a Site of Special Scientific Interest which ash and maple woodland on heavy clay." - which "has"?

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Park Wood, Bedford just be Park Wood, since the disambiguator isn't needed in a Bedfordshire list?

• As Galley and Warden Hills SSSI above. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Putnoe Wood - "Bird species include wood pigeons, blue tits and great tits" - seems consistent to link those three species, since you link other relatively common animals

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed a citation error that I'm not sure is usually directly visible to editors- line break inside of a citation title

• Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty darn solid overall, some quick fixes and I'll support. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement FLC down below. --PresN 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review Pres. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks like you've gotten the pattern for these lists down. --PresN 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much Pres. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Cottage Bottom Fields: Not sure Wheatears should be capitalized.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Flitwick Wood: "with some ancient trees and others which have been recently planted." Should "been" and "recently" be reversed in order?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – well up to the fine standard of its predecessors, and certainly meets FL criteria. I think there is an unintentionally repeated word in the Harrold-Odell Country Park row: "water water meadows". That apart, I have nothing but applause. – Tim riley talk 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Typo corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work on the list. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nominations:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Space Shuttle missions/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards for a featured list. I previously nominated this list a year ago and declined because I was inactive due to schooling. I have since resumed activity on-wiki and will be around to answer questions. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list:

• Looks like I reviewed and supported this list a year ago, so that's a good sign
  • Indeed it is! :)
• The first time you call it the International Space Station it should be followed by (ISS), since you use the abbreviation thereafter.
  • Fixed.
• "78 missions while 54 missions [...] and one" - use numerals consistently
  • Fixed.
• "Four full operational orbiters" -> "Four fully operational orbiters"
  • Fixed
• "by Atlantis on 21 July 2011" - in the image caption in the lead you use month-day-year, but here is day-month-year- either is fine, as it's american / military-ish, but you should be consistent. You seem to use day-month-year in the tables.
  • Fixed the lead image caption.
• Okay, the numbering section is really confusing. Looks like what it is is that they numbered them 1-9, then had the code scheme, but kept using the sequential numbers on paperwork? Then when they started up again after STS-51-L, they went back to sequential officially, with the numbering starting at 26, only now the numbers can get out of order because they didn't renumber when they rescheduled a mission? Assuming that's right, your text is a mess- You say they were sequential for 1-33, then that they officially used the code scheme for a while, then sudenly say "Flights were assigned with sequential numbers from STS-9 through STS-33"... which you already said a different way, so it gets read that the code scheme stopped and they restarted at 9... and it isn't true anyway, your table says that STS-9 was the official number, no code given. You then say that "After the Challenger disaster, NASA restarted with STS-26R"... except what they actually did was go back to using the sequential numbers, and they slapped an R on the end (which you don't have in the table). Then you change paragraphs, and talk about the Challenger disaster again, saying that the numbers got out of order. It would be way less confusing if you combined these two paragraphs- "after the Challenger, they went back to sequential number, though they get out of order. For STS-26 through STS-33, the missions taking place in the two years after the program restarted, an R was appended (e.g. STS-26R) to represent 'reflight'."
  • You got it right, as far as I know. I've removed some information to clarify.
• Basically: that whole section needs to be re-flowed, it's confusing. It's also not clear why STS-26 through 33 don't have an R in the table.
  • R's added, articles don't exist though so I had to fiddle links.
• Additionally, both here and in the lead you talk as if STS-9 was the first flight with a code, but you call it STS-9 in the table, not STS-40-A.
  • I confess I am confused here, as I reference by year not flight. I changed one link, I hope that clarified things.
• "Four missions were cut short by a day or more whilst on orbit" - "on" orbit?
  • Fixed.
• You use periods in the tables sometimes, when you shouldn't: "ISS assembly flight ULF4: Mini-Research Module 1.", "ISS assembly flight ULF3: ExPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs) 1 & 2.", etc. Rows: 2, 18, 19, 28, 74, 127, 129, 132
  • Fixed.
• Redirects that don't seem intentional, if you want to fix them: Challenger in the lead, DoD row 4, TDRS and EVA row 6, Sullivan row 13, EASE/ACCESS row 23, Magellan row 29, Misty row 34, EVA row 47, NASA and tether row 49, TDRS row 53, EVAs row 74, EVAs row 88, Spacehab isn't allcaps'd in row 117/119, PMM and ELC in row 133, ELC row 134, the "main article" link to Cancelled Space Shuttle missions, Soyuz at the end of "Contingency missions", and 4 of the "See also"s
  • Fixed
• If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement FLC down below. --PresN 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I will give you a review as soon as I can give it a proper in-depth look. I've addressed everything above, thank you so much. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reworded some of the numbering section, but I'm satisfied enough now to support. --PresN 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much! It reads much better than my version. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The Kennedy Space Center served as the landing site for 78 missions while 54 missions landed at Edwards Air Force Base, California and..." commas after while and California
  • Fixed.
• Tables needs colscopes per MOS:DTT
  • Fixed.
• I would move the colours in the statistics table to the name column, so they are with the symbols
  • I wish I could, but I can't figure out how do do it without CSS hacks. Currently, the rowscopes override the row coloring.
• Sources column in that table should be unsortable
  • Fixed.
• make sure all sources that are PDFs have the parameter |format=PDF added to the ref. I can see a few that are missing this
  • Fixed.

NapHit (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • @NapHit: Thank you very much for your comments. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So full disclosure, I have my own FLC candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and I figured the best way to gain some input on that is to give some myself.

• Lead

• Caption displays &mbsp; for some reason?
  • Fixed, see above.
• The term "Space Shuttle" is not linked in the lead? I was surprised at that.
  • Fixed.
• Kennedy Space Center is linked twice in the lead
  • Fixed, see above.
• Clarification for my benefit - All launches took place at the KSC right?
  • As far as I know, yes.

• Table

• The note [a] states that when there are two numbers it indicates how many astronauts they took off with and landed with. So when I see 7/7 I have to infer that it means that it's not the same seven astronauts they landed with as took off with right? otherwise ALL flights would have this? I think it would be good to clarify the note on that so we don't have to infer.
  • Fixed.
• I would spell out EVA the first time the term is used. ESA too?
  • Fixed.
• Mission STS-41-B, need a space between "two" and "comsats"
  • Fixed, see above.
• Contingency missions - I am confused why this is forced to be side by side? I assume that is why it does not sort etc.? What is the logic behind this choice?
  • Truth be told, I inherited it that way and didn't want to go through the work of changing it. I tried it a single column, and I like it much better.

• Sources

• Are the sources listed for the row where notes "b", "d" and "e" intended to cover the statements made in those notes? They should probably be explicitly sourced in the actual note (you can use Template:refn to accomplish this)
  • Done for d and e. I didn't to b because the citations on that row are designed to cover the entire row not just the landing location.

• So I really only have some detail issues, overall it's a great list and very close to FL standards.  MPJ-US  14:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the above issues, and will get to your list as soon as I can give it proper in-dept review. Thank you much. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I am happy to say that I Support this for Featured List. Great work. MPJ-US  21:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spotchecked: 1, 7, 70, 112, 303, 309, all clean
  • Thank you.
• Formatting:
  • The source/work wikilinking is inconsistent: You link NASA each time, but don't link pretty much anything else- Space.com, Forbes, etc. This should be consistent.
    • Fixed
  • It's Space.com, not space.com
    • Took a guess and missed. Fixed.
  • "NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project" is the work for refs 7-10, NASA or Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center is the publisher
    • Fixed.
  • Your Space.com references have authors and dates, but you haven't stuck them in the references (e.g. ref 15)
    • Fixed.
  • It's not NASA Spaceflight.com, it's NASASpaceflight, as per their page footer.
    • Fixed.
  • ref 306 - "John F. Kennedy Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration" is an odd publisher; it's just NASA or John F. Kennedy Space Center.
    • Fixed.
  • ref 308 is redirecting, and Fox News Insider would be the work, with Fox News the publisher, same for 314.
    • Fixed 308, archive.org no longer archives #314 so I tagged it. I will work on hunting down another source.
  • ref 309 the NYT isn't italicized
    • Fixed.
  • It's Time (or Time), not Time Magazine
    • Fixed.
• --PresN 18:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I've fixed all of your issues above, thank you much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 01:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost done- "Time" should be in the work field and thus italicized on ref 315, Florida Today should be linked in refs 312, 316, and 318, and you have a deadlink on 314. --PresN 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed everything except the dead link. Fox News Insider changed their link archiving policy and excluded that domain, which means I don't have access to the archived edition that used to be there. I'm working to find another similar source, but until then I'm leaving the current source as it was valid at the time I used it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: I've added a new source to replace the dead one. Thank you much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 01:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Passed. --PresN 02:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and Hwy43 (talk)[reply]

We are attempting to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 8 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Now that the fixes have been made, I'm satisfied that the list meets the standards set by the others in this series. I'll leave the source review out so the potential closers can see that it was done. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, thanks for the quick response. Nothing stopping me from Supporting now. I'd greatly appreciate it if you checked out this, though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good! --PresN 22:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Pass

• Spotchecks: checked sources 6, 11, 13, and 19 - all clean
• Formatting: You link Statistics Canada as a publisher in refs 1, 8, and 19, but not 10. On the flip side, you don't link any of the government organizations (like Department of Environment and Local Government (New Brunswick)); presumably this is intentional, but odd. Not a big enough deal to wait to pass the source review, but thought I should mention it. --PresN 22:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! I went ahead and made the changes you suggested to the links. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I have modeled this page on the pages Academy Award for Best Actor, Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, and Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, none of which were significantly contributed to by me. I have completely redone the table on the page and have also written a lead, a "multiple nominations and wins" section, and an "oldest and youngest winners" section. Thanks to any commenters on this historic and important subject! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I can help you with the remainder of the sorting. Anyways, great job!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jimknut

• It looks like the film titles still need some work with the sorting. Titles that begin with "A" or "An" should sort under the second word in the title. Likewise, while it's optional, I think titles that begin with number (such as 12 Angry Men) should sort as if the number was spelled out (i.e. Twelve Angry Men). Jimknut (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jimknut: After looking at Birdie and Cowlibob's edits with regard to sorting, I understood how to do this and was then able to complete the sorting by myself. I am finished with all the films that begin with "A", "An", or "The". However, I do not think that I should change titles that begin with number, as this was how they were initially marketed. Also, it would be a bit silly to change 2001: A Space Odyssey to "Two Thousand One: A Space Odyssey" or 8½ to "Eight and a half". :) Thank you for the comment! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spot checks not done):

Additional comment from Birdienest81

• I've replaced the TBD bar for this year's slate of nominees into bar that reads "Winner will be announced on February 28, 2016". From my understanding, that is how fellow featured lists from the Daytime Emmy Awards indicate a ceremony that has yet to happen.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination. -- Frankie _talk 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from Miyagawa

  The only comment I have is regarding the table formatting of the first awards. It isn't immediately apparent that three of the films were considered for the Dramatic category and two for the Comedic. As I see it, there are two options - either the bracketed Dramatic/Comedic lines are added to the nominees or just for that year, add a further column in to state dramatic/comedic. I would personally suggest for former, only because that way it won't break the sort function for the Director(s) column. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look at this and I'll lend my support. Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Miyagawa: Thanks for the comment. I have added a parenthetical of (Dramatic) or (Comedy) to the nominees as well. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check - I have done a source review as seen above in my comments and now after checking them for verification, I think all of the references are meticulously sourced. The facts present in the article can easily be verified with the sources. -- Frankie _talk 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1997 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done):

Support - Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nomination. -- Frankie _talk 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support based on improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I believe this meets the standard. Miyagawa (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check – I have already done a source review above, spot-checking:

• FN 14 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• FN 15 -- Fine.
• FN 35 -- Same as above.
• FN 36 -- Verifiable.
• FN 45 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- Frankie _talk 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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