Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2019

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) 19:31:19 27 March 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing my goal to create an "encyclopedic atlas" by bringing all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (one quarter of all municipality lists in North America are now featured!). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – honestly looks good to me. I removed an extra space since there was no point in telling you to do it. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't think I can pick you up on anything, nice one! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent work as always. I do not notice anything that requires improvement (echoing the above two comments). You have helped to provide an excellent resource for North American geography with all of these lists. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Municipalities of Mexico should probably be linked in the lead of these articles so readers can get more context, especially because these are equivalent to counties in the US rather than what we would call municipalities. Otherwise looks good as usual. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed here and on every other list of municipalities pages for all states in Mexico. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; very short reviews but that's to be expected at this point for this series! Promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:31:30 27 March 2019 (UTC) [2].

---

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After working on the Latin Grammy and Billboard Latin Achievement Awards, I finally to decide to do one for the Lo Nuestro Awards. The prose and table is based on what Jaespinoza has done for other articles related to the Lo Nuestro Awards. I look forward to your comments. Erick (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "honoring excellence of an artist's contribution to Latin music" doesn't really make grammatical sense. How about simply "honoring an artist's contribution to Latin music"
  • "The Lo Nuestro Awards was" - were, surely.....?
  • "a tribute is held to the winner of the award where the winner" - think something's got a bit mangled here
  • The lead is really short at around 1200 characters (too short even for DYK), I think it needs an extra paragraph. Maybe you could talk about the different nationalities, highlight that only a couple of groups have received the award, that sort of thing. Also, is anything known about how the winner is chosen?
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ChrisTheDude:, thanks for your comments, I believed I've addressed your issues. How does the length of the lead look now? Erick (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would revise this sentence (It was first awarded at the 2nd Annual Lo Nuestro Awardsin 1990 and has been presented annually since then.) to ( It was first awarded at the 2nd Annual Lo Nuestro Awardsin 1990 and has since been presented annually.) since it seems a little awkward to me to send a sentence with “then”.

Other than that one small/nitpicky comment, everything looks good. Once it is addressed, I will support it. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FLC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done, I'll see what I can do about your list. I haven't been so active in Wikipedia lately due to life. Erick (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I completely understand. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:31:23 27 March 2019 (UTC) [3].

---

Nominator(s): NØ 09:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I’ve created this list 100% alone from scratch, and I believe it meets the criteria. My previous nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa has been open for way longer than a month with over 4 supports but for reasons that remain unknown to me, the delegates are still yet to promote it. So I’m assuming it’s fine for me to open this one. Regards.—NØ 09:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see another song list! Here's some comments:

• Songs and albums should not be sorted by A, An, The, etc. (sort by the first actual word)
• Wouldn't hurt to give the table some color. Maybe to indicate singles and/or covers
• You can say who the artist is for covers ("Use Somebody" is Kings of Leon and "Under Pressure" is Queen and David Bowie, etc.) And put a break between the song and the word "cover" afterwards so it's under the title
• Who wrote "Handwritten Demos"?
• The lead should contain a couple more references
• Care to expand on his live albums? (meaning what they contained, or did either contain a live song/cover that he hasn't properly recorded in a studio?) – things like that

Everything else looks good for now. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can have another look at the list now. “Handwritten Demos” has no credited songwriters since it’s a 9 minute compilation of demos of various different songs. I addressed everything else.—NØ 07:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then put a centered en dash in that empty box for that track and make a note saying what you just said. Just so that it's not empty. Also, say "is featured" in the image captions. Reads weird without it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (Mendes signed with Republic Records in May 2014.), “Republic Records” should have a wikilink.
• For this sentence (Mendes has appeared as a featured artist on The Vamps' song "Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)", and has contributed a song called "Believe" to the Descendants soundtrack), I would add the years that both songs were released.
• For this sentence (He has released two live albums titled Live at Madison Square Garden and MTV Unplugged.), I would add the years of the two releases. It is important to give the reader a sense of a timeline, and as someone completely unfamiliar with Mendes, I was left wondering when did this happen for this sentence and the sentence above.
• I have a question for this sentence (His self-titled third studio album was released in May 2018, and included the singles "In My Blood", "Lost in Japan", "Youth", "Where Were You in the Morning?" and "Nervous".). In previous sentences about singles, you always included a colon after singles. I would add the colon to the above sentence for consistency.
• The “Contents” bar at the top of the “Songs” section includes parts not used in the list (i.e. “0-9”). Make sure to remove anything from the bar that is not currently represented in the table. They can be added if/when Mendes records albums that start with a number or that particular letter.
• The table includes something about a “Revisited” album, which I found out was a reissue from the album article. I would include the fact that he reissued this album with new material to the lead for clarity.
• I would expand the note for “Handwritten Demos” to clarify that it is “a 9 minute compilation of demos of various different songs” as you say in the FLC. If I looked at the list without looking at the FLC, I would wonder why this song in particular did not have songwriters credited.

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable comments as always, all done!—NØ 04:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "reissued as Handwritten (Revisited) with live recordings and four new songs in November" - of which year?
• "included the singles: "Life of the Party"," - there should not be a colon there
• "Mendes has appeared [...] and has contributed" => "Mendes appeared [...] and contributed"
• "cover versions of Plain White T's' "Hey There Delilah"" => "cover versions of "Hey There Delilah"" by Plain White T's" (avoids that awkward 's')
• "released in September 2016, included the singles:" - again, there should not be a colon there
• "released in May 2018, and included the singles:" - or there ;-)
• In the table, "Oh Cecilia" is a cover of the Simon and Garfunkel song, surely, and therefore should be marked as such.....?
• Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. "Oh Cecilia" definitely isn’t a cover of the Simon & Garfunkel song since all of the members of the Vamps are credited as songwriters. The song article calls it an “adaptation” of the latter so I added a note with similar wording here.—NØ 22:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. One other point - it's probably worth being more specific about the location of the Oracle Arena in the image caption, as I for one wouldn't even know what country it was in, let alone what town/city....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, ChrisTheDude :D—NØ 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• I would any type of verification for the liner notes; ASIN, EAN etc.
• Mark songs released as a single like here --Lirim | Talk 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the verification codes. I usually find it a pointless exercise to mark single releases on these lists because they’re already discussed on discography articles. So they just work as decoration and don’t really add much to a reader's understanding. And we’ve already marked the covers here to give colour to the table too.—NØ 06:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't switch so much between ASIN and EAN; use one or both. This list is a seperate list and not an addition to the discography. Singles are a "special kind" of released songs. I would mark them.--Lirim | Talk 17:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally use List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga, List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift and List of songs recorded by Katy Perry as reference while writing these and none of those highlight the single releases. There are also some songs which could be both covers as well as singles so it would be impossible to give them both colours.—NØ 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since their isn't a concrete rule for this I can't really say anything against your decision. I would still use either EAN or ASIN or both.--Lirim | Talk 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did switch them all to ASIN.—NØ 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Lirim | Talk 08:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't think I've ever seen a featured list with an opening paragraph that's only 30 words long – could you maybe combine it with the second paragraph to beef it up a bit? "Mendes signed with Republic Records in May 2014." This needs a source. "a more "matured" and "meticulous" side of the singer". According to whom? Presumably this is Mesfin Fekadu of Associated Press, but it would help if the text were explicit. Why is the References link repeated in the second TOC, when it was already in the first one? "Lost in Japan" moves above "Lost" when the table is sorted by name. Either "Lost" needs to be moved above "Lost in Japan" when the table first loads, or else "Lost in Japan" needs to be changed so that it stays put when the table is sorted. "nine minute" -> "nine-minute" Typographic quotation marks (i.e. “ and ”) need to be replaced with typewriter ones (i.e. ").

• The alt text for most of the images needs to be rewritten, as it doesn't really provide relevant context. That image of Khalid, for example, isn't just "a picture of a main with black hair". Something as simple as, say, "Head-and-shoulders colour photograph of Khalid in October 2017" would work.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, A Thousand Doors. Thanks for the valuable feedback.—NØ 06:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the alt text still needs some work. Unless these images were being used to illustrate an article on, say, celebrities dyeing their name, there's really no need to highlight their hair colour in the alt text for every single photo – it's only going to confuse our visually-impaired readers. I was thinking something more like this. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; A Thousand Doors did the alt text themselves; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:31:21 27 March 2019 (UTC) [4].

---

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above list is on the songs recorded by Jennifer Love Hewitt. For those of you only familiar with Hewitt's acting career, she has also recorded songs for four studio albums and a compilation album as well as for other projects.

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with a proper review later, but one quick point - it is not usual practice to include in these lists songs on which the person in question merely did something minor like backing vocals and wasn't actually credited as either the main or featured artist. I would therefore remove "Toy Soldiers" and "Pleasure".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed it from the table and the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hello again. I was just curious if you had any updates for this? Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I completely forgot. I'll try and take a proper look later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from ChrisTheDude

• Pedantically, she didn't record any songs for the compilation album if it consisted (as seems to be the case) entirely of already-released material. Might be better to say "American actress and singer Jennifer Love Hewitt has recorded songs for four studio albums as well as a number of soundtracks and other projects."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand Killeen to "Killeen, Texas", as I doubt many people know where it is

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two years later, Hewitt had recorded " => "Two years later, Hewitt recorded "

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth merging the next two sentences together as they are both very short

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth mentioning that her first album was credited to simply "Love Hewitt"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't need to say "(pictured)" in all the image captions, as the relevant people are obviously pictured

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First image caption is missing a "

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ....as is the third one

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You too - now happy to support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love to see yet another song list up for FLC. Here are some comments:

• Supernatural television show is a disambiguation link and needs to be separated. Preferably change it to "supernatural television show" (or series)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the alt text should be better than just "a photograph" (especially when it's the case for every single image)

• I have revised the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2013, she did record" → "In 2013, she recorded"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a top heading to the table (many other FL song lists have this)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "(Our Love)..." should be sorted by "Our Love" and be put in the correct alphabetical order in the table

• Unfortunately, I cannot get the formatting to work correctly, and I would greatly appreciate any help with it. I have tried to use the sort template, but it keeps pushing the title at the end of the list when I sort alphabetically. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN:@The Rambling Man: Apologies for the random ping, but I was wondering if either of you knew a way to address the above issue. When I was working on the list in my sandbox, I have tried to use the sort template as I have seen it in other lists. However, it just pushed the song title to the bottom alphabetically. I was obviously doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what. I was wondering if either of you knew how to do the formatting correctly. I would imagine that this issue must have come up in at least one previous FLC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Yep, done. The issue is that you have to include the quote marks in the sort template, because technically all the song names start with a ("), so Our Love needs to start with one too to not get sorted last (since O comes after "). --PresN 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying that for me and correcting it. I am not sure how missed that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Apologies for pinging you again, but I was wondering if you would have the time or interest to do the source review for this. I am only wondering as you did the source review for the FLC for the list of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano and this is a similar list (i.e. List of songs recorded by...). I completely understand if you would prefer not to. I am in no rush for this. I am trying to better about not rush FLCs and FACs and just let it go its own natural course. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Thank you again for your previous help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Album(s) → Release(s) (song are non-album singles)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice Hewitt doesn't have a writing credit for many of these. Maybe color code (in the writer col) the ones she's credited as co-writer?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the artist col is necessary since she's solo'd every song besides two. Maybe just put a break under the song title and put it there? I did that for Daft Punk's list.

• Revised. Thank you for the suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Make a note of the acoustic version of "Never a Day Goes By" (doesn't need to be in the table twice) (something like "An acoustic version of "Never a Day Goes By" also appears on Jennifer Love Hewitt")

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. Great job so far! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BeatlesLedTV: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I am uncertain on how to fix the "(Our Love) Don't Throw It All Away" listing. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sorting issue has been fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any major issues with this list. Overall, I think it would make a great featured list. My only comment is there are six instances of sea of blue ("When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link"). One example is in the opening paragraph ("the children's television series Kids Incorporated."). Once this is addressed, I will happily support this! Soaper1234 - talk 22:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Soaper1234: Thank you for the suggestion. I can sometimes get a little too link happy lol. I have removed the wikilinks for the television show and film genres as I am not sure if they are particularly helpful in this list. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As we all can! This looks better to me, so I'm happy to support this nomination. Soaper1234 - talk 12:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “Hewitt had recorded her first studio album Love Songs (1992), a collection of love songs” — Link to love songs

• Added wikilink. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “Prior to the album's release, Hewitt released the stand-alone cover of Blondie's "Heart of Glass" earlier in 1992” — I do not believe the word “stand-alone” is necessary

• I think it is necessary to avoid confusion and emphasize that the song was not released as part of Love Songs in any capacity. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “Despite finding commercial success with BareNaked, Hewitt has shifted away from music in 2004” — Clearly, the word “has” should be removed from this sentence

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “During a 2009 interview, Hewitt's then-boyfriend Jamie Kennedy said she was writing a country song; he encouraged her to return to her music career. Despite Kennedy's statement, Hewitt has not recorded a country album” — This whole part shouldn’t be in this article if she didn’t actually record the song.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “In 2013, she recorded five songs for the television drama The Client List, in which starred as the lead character” — There’s a missing “she” before the word “starred”

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• “she also collaborated with Sophie B. Hawkins for a song for the comedy film Alpha Males Experiment” — I would replace the first “for” with “on” to avoid repetition

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You’ll need to provide sources for the singles since liner notes for the parent albums do not cover single releases

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Good job with this list. I’d be glad to support once these are addressed.—NØ 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaranoFan: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One final thing, you should add verification codes for the liner notes (ASIN, EAN etc). ASIN codes are found on Amazon, and EAN codes can be found on eandata.com. I recently did it for all of the liner notes on this list if you want an example of how to use them.—NØ 15:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaranoFan: Added verification codes to everything. I had to use Discogs.com to get some of the codes though as Hewitt's releases are not as recent as Mendes' (given up to 10 to 15 years lol). Let me know if there is anything else. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—NØ 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits; please revert if you don't argee with them. I initially thought that Music Speaks Louder Than Words was an Earth, Wind & Fire album, but having checked the album's article, I see that that's not the case. Perhaps it would therefore be worth describing it as "the 1990 compilation album", or similar. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] "a collection of love songs". This seems a little redundant to me. The average reader is probably smart enough to realise that that's what an album called "Love Song" is going to be. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] "pop star". I realise that you're quoting Rolling Stone here, but you can probably drop the quotation marks, as they almost look like scare quotes. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Attracting further attention for her performance in the family drama Party of Five". I really wasn't sure what you meant by this. Are you saying that her earlier music career attracted further attention after she was in Party of Five, which then enabled her to release two new albums through Atlantic? Revised. Atlantic signed Hewitt purely do to Party of Five and I do not believe it had anything to do with her earlier music. Let me know if it should be revised further though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Do we know why she was dropped by Atlantic? Did one or more of the albums underperform? Revised. She was removed from the label due to the album's poor commercial performance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] "When I'm With You" and "When It Hurts" need to be above "When You Say Nothing at All". Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Similarly, "You Make Me" moves above "You" when the table is sorted by name. Either "You" needs to be moved above "You Make Me" when the table first loads, or else "You Make Me" needs to be changed so that it stays put when the table is sorted. That is odd. Thank you for pointing it out. I am uncertain on how to fix it. Apologize if it is obvious, but could you help with it? Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Incidentally, my current open FLC is Radio Times's Most Powerful People. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] @A Thousand Doors: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything (except for one part that I am uncertain on how to fix). Please let me know if there is anything else that requires improvement. I will do a review for your FLC tomorrow (Sunday for me) if that is okay with you. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] Personally, I think the simplest solution would be just to swap round "You" and "You Make Me" (see here), but, if you'd prefer those two songs to be the other way round, let me know and I'll come up with a solution. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] @A Thousand Doors: That makes the most sense to me. Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One final comment from me: some of the double daggers have spaces in front of them, and some don't. All of the single daggers do, so the double daggers probably should as well. Otherwise, great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support. I believe that I have addressed the spacing issue. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:32:39 27 March 2019 (UTC) [5].

---

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the FLC after six month stint. This is my second politics-related list and probably one of the most important one. As always, feel free to leave constructive feedbacks. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:

• 'Sworn in' doesn't need a hyphen
• Prime minister does not need to be capitalized per MOS:CAPS#Titles of people. It is a common noun unless part of a name.
• "youngest premier, and the third" doesn't need a comma
• "Thus far" is unnecessary (duh, we're not talking as of another time), and the exact number of days may be overly precise for that.
• The color key is unnecessary - every row in the table has the party right next to the color already!
• The symbols could go in the footnotes rather than a key (but other thoughts on this may differ); №, if not already a well-known abbreviation or obvious from the context, could be labeled with a tooltip instead.
• The smaller text size for the date on top of a normal-sized year does not look good, just keep it all the same size.
• Sorting the Term of Office column sorts the first date alphabetically! (1 June, 10 November, 10 October...)
• The Number and Lk Sabha columns also sort incorrectly. Reywas92^Talk 23:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: All done but I can't figure out the sortings. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try Template:Sort and Template:Sortname (the names should sort by surname not first. You didn't have to remove the colors altogether if you think they make sense to have (idk if they've been adopted as widely/uniformly in India as those in other countries); I was just saying the key was unnecessary since it's redundant to the party name column. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on sorting soon. Give me some time. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: All done now, thanks to Vivvt. Also I don't think the color keys are necessary at all. Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed sorting for Number, Name, Appointed by, and Loksabha. I have also made some minor changes. Let me know if anything else is remaining. All the Best! - Vivvt (Talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the table footnotes in the Notes section, otherwise I Support. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – honestly can't find anything wrong. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BeatlesLedTV Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Everything looks good to me. It is a very important list, and as someone is completely ignorant of India's history, I was still able to follow everything clearly and understand it. I was a little confused on why certain numbers above ten are sometimes represented in numerals (i.e. whose 19-month term also ended in death) and in other times, they are represented through words (i.e. India has had fourteen prime ministers, fifteen including), but it is not a major issue in my opinion. Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "14 prime ministers, fifteen " MOSNUM cats/dogs. " deputy Charan Singh" is a WP:SEAOFBLUE. "was gunned down by" why not just "assassinated" " Nehru-Gandhi " en-dash needed. Where is the data used in the "Prime Ministers of India (by state of birth)" image verifiable? Indeed, their states of birth isn't even mentioned in the list... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man All fixed. I had removed the image before, but it was restored by another user. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I'm leery of citing an encyclopedia for the INC (I) name change, but checking WP:TERTIARY I guess it's okay. Promoting. --PresN 19:32, 27 March 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) 19:31:33 27 March 2019 (UTC) [6].

---

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started this list about eight years ago in the model of List of national monuments of the United States and List of national parks of the United States and decided to finally finish it up since the only one of them I've actually visited was just taken off this list! Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Lirim | Talk 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• I agree with Lirim.Z the lead does seem a little long. You could get away with separating the history into its own section
• Tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (if you need help I can do this for ya).
• Fixed date formats for ya

Everything else looks really good. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks you for that, all done! Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made this edit for ya (unbolds the names). If you don't like it you can undo it but if you do let me know. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm can't decide if I have a preference, bold may look better on the gray background but it was regular before without a need to change so whatever others like is fine; regular is more consistent with the other articles. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbold is the right way to do it.--Lirim | Talk 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Long term planning for all sites must address erosion and visitor access." This is POV and should be attributed to a named author.
• "but debate over the meaning of this status and how the land would be acquired delayed action". "how the land would be acquired" and comments below seem to imply that national lakeshores and seashores have to be owned by the Park Service. The rules regarding ownership should be spelled out.
• Seminole Rest and Mosquito Lagoon should be linked.
• "The museum on the mainland preserves Timucua Indian history, Nathaniel Green and Eli Whitney's works, and War of 1812 battles." "preserves" sounds odd. Maybe "displays".
• "the most at any NPS site". You should have "National Park Service (NPS)" at first mention of the National Park Service.
• "Ice caves" should not be capitalised.
• Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, went with "exhibits", and yes, the land is owned by the Park Service. Thanks for your comments, Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does land have to be owned by the NPS in order to be designated a national lakeshore or seashore? I think you should spell out the general rules, not just the situation in some specific cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, with very few exceptions all of the units of the NPS are fully owned by the federal government, which is what makes them public lands. Added a couple phrases to clarify. 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:31:27 27 March 2019 (UTC) [7].

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian Tamil film, Vikram Vedha starring R. Madhavan and Vijay Sethupathi. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fourteenth attempt at an accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Provide alt text for the images.
• "is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller" --> is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller film
• The 'husband and wife duo' bit seems redundant to me. It'll work better without this bit

Yashthepunisher, I wrote it specifically because they are husband and wife. I feel readers would know it then and there. If you still insist on removing it, then I will do so.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to mention the banner also?

Y NOT Studios is a notable Tamil cinema production banner so I feel it needs to be included and also to let our readers know the company that financed the film.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You should mention the editor's name as well
• Provide a reference that can back the 'received positive reviews' claim. Right now, there are only two reviews

Yashthepunisher, it is in the India Today reference I've placed before (Reference no 9). The line states "Thanks to Vikram Vedha, which has opened to rave reception from critics and audience alike." Rave here obviously is positive reception.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A tweet cannot be considered a RS, IMO. Try to replace them with better source

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) tweets can be considered RS if they are from verified accounts. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second Kailash's comments. Vikn Media Creations is a company and also I found no other better source than this one that covers all the awards.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• The image caption should have punctuation since it is a complete sentence.
• I agree with the first two points raised by the above reviewer.
• For this part (feature in supporting characters), it should be either "feature as supporting characters" or "feature in supporting roles".

Everything else looks good to me. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, can you tell me where I should use punctuation in the caption as I really don't see where any punctuation could be used. The other two comments, I have hopefully resolved them.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To the best of my knowledge, if a caption is a complete sentence/idea, then punctuation is required. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change to it. Can you check it now, Aoba47?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the punctuation to the caption. I support this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could've just said "Add the full-stop" lol. Anyways, thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from Kailash: just add the trans-title value for this source, and if possible, link all the sources within the citations. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. I've added the trans-title. As for the source linking, I've only linked their first instance of being mentioned, which is common for most Wikipedia articles as it wouldn't be good with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Sorry I was waiting for everyone else's comments to be resolved first. Great job! :) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First para is over-long, needs splitting after "respectively"
• titular characters—"title characters is more usual"
• ₹110 million (about US$1,661,631 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,042,296 in 2017) worldwide —"about" seems redundant when you are converting to the nearest dollar. Even if it was exactly ₹110 million and ₹400 million, which I doubt, the conversion is over-precise.
• in the refs, is [@viknmedia] necessary?

That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Jimfbleak. Do have a look and get back to me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have missed the point of my conversion comment. To quote the US currency to the exact number of dollars, you must have assumed that the rupee figures are accurate to the nearest rupee, which I simply don't believe, they have obviously been rounded off. To me, it should read ₹110 million (about US$1,700,000 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,000,000 in 2017) worldwide or perhaps better ₹110 million (about US$1.7 million in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6.0 million in 2017) worldwide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done as asked, Jimfbleak.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no other issues, so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 19:31:22 27 March 2019 (UTC) [8].

---

Nominator(s): Mr. Smart LION 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list provides notable awards and nominations received by the 2018 Indian Hindi epic period drama film. The film is notable for Ranveer Singh, who received several awards for his role as Sultan Alauddin Khalji. This is my second attempt after a successful first attempt. If there are any comments regarding the list, will try to resolve it. Mr. Smart LION 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Set in 1303 AD medieval India, Padmaavat is the story of honor, valor and obsession" => "Set in medieval India in 1303 AD, Padmaavat is a story of honor, valor and obsession"
• "It garnered twenty one nominations" => "It garnered twenty-one nominations"
• "won eight awards, including Song of The Year for Ghoomar" - the song title should have quotation marks, and there's also no need to link it again as it was only linked in the previous sentence
• No need to link Singh in the last sentence as he has already been linked in the lead
• "It also received five nominations for Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress for Deepika Padukone and Best Actor for Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor at the Indian Film Festival of Melbourne, winning none." => "It also received five nominations for Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress for Deepika Padukone and Best Actor for Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor at the Indian Film Festival of Melbourne, but did not win any of the awards."
• In the table's first column, why is "Films of India Online Awards" centred, unlinked and in bold, a completely different format to all the others?
• Near the top of the table you have e.g. "Kruti Mahesh Midya (for the song "Ghoomar")", but then further down the format changes to simply "Shreya Ghoshal - "Ghoomar"" - be consistent
• Linking of things that appear multiple times in the table is inconsistent - some items are linked multiple times, others are not
• Sorting on the "reciepients" column doesn't work - the items starting with a " all appear at the top, and people's names sort by forename when they should sort by surname
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Mr. Smart LION 09:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorting on the "recipients" column still doesn't work correctly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm not able to understand that line. Mr. Smart LION 10:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you sort the "receipients" column, it should be in alphabetical order, and for people it should be based on the surname, so Ranveer Singh needs to sort under "S". So in Singh's case, rather than simply wikilinking the name, you need to use {{sortname|Ranveer|Singh}}. This will make Singh's name sort under S. You need to do this for the first name listed in each cell. Also, where a value starts with a ", those are currently appearing at the top, because punctuation marks sort before letters. So in those cases you would need to type {{sort|Ghoomar|"[[Ghoomar (song)|Ghoomar]]"}} to make it appear under "G". Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Mr. Smart LION 14:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to fix the five rows where the recipient starts with a " - at the moment these all sort at the top -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mr. Smart LION 13:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The film's script and screenplay were penned by Sanjay Leela Bhansali". 'penned' sounds idiomatic.
• Mention the cinematographer's name in the first para.
• Rephrase the 'honor, valor' bit and write a more straight forward plot synopsis.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher:  Done Thanks for taking some time to review it. Mr. Smart LION 05:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 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) 00:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (24% of all municipality lists in North America are now featured!). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Could you include more pictures?

• I would *love* to include more pictures, but the third largest city (and thus next in line for the pictures) would be Ciudad Cuauhtémoc but I can't seem to find a good picture of that city. If you find one I'm happy to add it!

• Every Ref that is not in English needs a translation, through |trans-title=

• I have not done this before but is it a requirement for featured list? I ask because I do not speak Spanish and thus can't translate! Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• --Lirim | Talk 00:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Just a couple from me:
  • The notes are complete sentences, so need full stops  Done
  • "The largest municipality by population is the Ciudad Juárez" - is that "the" meant to be there? None of the other municipalities mentioned in the prose have "the" in front of their name. Done
  • Other than that I have nothing, great job! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks ChrisTheDude! All changes made. Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - looks muy bueno -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this list for promotion. The prose meets the criteria for a featured list, and I do not see any glaring issues with the table. Wonderful work with this as always. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Continues the format of the previous lists, I see no issues. Reywas92^Talk 07:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 20:07, 20 March 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) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After List of songs recorded by Radiohead, it's time for my next song list, this time by the great John Lennon. It covers the songs he recorded during his solo career (not with the Beatles), including with wife Yoko Ono, the Plastic Ono Band, among other miscellaneous songs he co-wrote or performed on, such as David Bowie's "Fame". As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick query - "miscellaneous songs he co-wrote or performed on" - this implies that there might be songs included simply because he co-wrote them. As the title is "List of songs recorded by John Lennon" there should not be any songs on the list that he didn't himself record. Can you confirm.......? -- 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude So according to the liner notes for Starr's albums, Lennon wrote some songs for him and performed on them. He also co-wrote "Fame" by David Bowie and performed backing vocals and guitar I believe for that so I think that qualifies as recorded, but again I'm not sure. I definitely think "Fame" should be in the list but I can remove some of Starr's songs, except for "I'm the Greatest", which is verifiable that he performed on. Lennon actually performed on many of Yoko Ono's solo albums but I only included the only that are credited to the both of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the inclusion on "List of songs recorded by....." lists of songs on which the artist in question was not credited and only did something minor like backing vocals is something of a grey area, but if they are to be included, then I think you would need to include all such songs, not just pick and choose a selection. In the case of Lennon, that would potentially involve going to the extreme of listing "The Bitch Is Back", on which he played tambourine..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude Yeah you're I think I'm trying to be too literal. I'll remove the songs that aren't his. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments
  • As "Instant Karma!" ends with an exclamation mark, I don't think you need the full stop as well.
  • "more calmer" => "calmer". It's not possible to be "more calmer", as "calmer" is already a comparative adjective.
  • "an attack on former bandmate Paul McCartney" - avoid Easter egg links. Better to say "an attack on former bandmate Paul McCartney in the song....."
  • "a covers album of late 1950s and early 1960s rock songs, included covers of songs" - "covers" used twice in very quick succession - maybe change the second one to "versions"

• I just removed it to say "included songs such as" as you're right, it reads weird.

• • A handful of released songs have no producer listed - is the info unknown?

• So for some songs: "Free as a Bird", "Now and Then" and "Honey Don't" were recorded as home demos and don't have producers listed for them in liner notes or in sources I've found. Other live songs that don't have producers I can't find specific one for those specific songs; overall producers for their respective albums are listed on their WP pages but not for the specific songs, can't seem to find them in liner notes either. So I left them blank.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just spotted a few other little things (sorry!)
  • In the lead, the two refs after the word "suffering" are the wrong way round
  • Notes c and e are complete sentences, so need full stops
  • Conversely, note k is not a full sentence so shouldn't have one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks again! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fix this green link.
• Period missing from the lead image's alt text
• Make sure all the images have alt text

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Nice work! Damian Vo (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 PresN The Rambling Man This one good to go yet? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 20:07, 20 March 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) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a comprehensive list of the material and would be a great addition to Wikipedia's featured lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • No need for the hatnote, as the title clearly states it relates to the celebrity version. If you must link to List of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) houseguests, put it in a "See also" section.
  • In the article "HouseGuest" is repeatedly shown like that, but in the title it has no capitals at all - any reason why?
  • I would move the photo of Winokur to the top right and lose the logo
  • "Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother which premiered on CBS on February 7, 2018." => "Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother. It premiered on CBS on February 7, 2018."
  • "The series is hosted by Julie Chen Moonves with executive producers Allison Grodner and Rich Meehan" - as it is written, this states that all three of them hosted. Is that actually correct?
  • "The first season concluded twenty-six days after the start of the season on February 25, 2018" => "The first season began on [whatever date] and concluded twenty-six days later on February 25, 2018"
  • "The second season lasted for twenty-nine days when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote" => "The second season lasted for twenty-nine days and ended on [whatever date] when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote"
  • Name column should sort by surname, not forename
  • Where guests have two professions separated by a slash, no reason for the second to have a capital letter
  • No need for capital on Host against Mathews
  • No need for capital on Running against Williams
  • "Ottawa, ON, CA" - Canada should be written in full, otherwise this is highly confusing given all the usages of "CA" to mean "California"
  • "12-Time Olympic medalist swimmer" => "12-time Olympic medal-winning swimmer"
  • When sorting the penultimate column, Scaramucci's "Left Day 6" sorts right at the bottom - it should sort first (exactly as if it was "evicted - day 6")
  • What is actually sourcing the table?
  • Don't see any reason for the second table to exist
  • Date formats in the refs are inconsistent - some are (eg) 2019-02-13, others are February 13, 2019
  • Works/publishers are highly inconsistent in the refs - you have Entertainment Weekly both italicised and not. Some refs have "www.ew.com/. Entertainment Weekly." and others don't have both (you don't need both). Some works/publishers are linked, others are not.
  • Some refs have no work/publisher at all
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments, all are fixed, to answer your two questions, "houseguest" in the title I believe is either per Wikipedia naming conventions or per widely accepted long-term consensus, "HouseGuest" is per WP:BIGBRO; as for the host, only Julie Chen hosts the series but I've fixed that. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• What do you think about using a similar structure to the List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates list, where images of the contestants are placed by the table? It just seems a little odd to me to have only have an image of Marissa Jaret Winokur for the list. I would imagine an image of Tamar Braxton (the season two winner) would also be appropriate here. However, this is up to you. Just wanted to ask you about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: What are your thoughts on how it looks now? Due to this being the celebrity and all but one of the HouseGuests having photographs I've limited the images to just the significant ones so that the article doesn't drag on forever. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it looks better. I agree with you that it is best to keep the number of images limited, but I will leave that up to your judgement as you probably know better than me. I will add more comments momentarily after I read through the lead and the table. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*For this sentence (Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother.), I would add put this phrase (the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother) first as I misread the sentence as meaning this show was the second spin-off of being the things identified in the sentence.

• For this part (The series is hosted by Julie Chen Moonves and is produced), I would add a comma after "Moonves".
• According to the main Julie Chen article, she only uses the "Julie Chen Moonves" sign-off for the show's second season. Do you think there should be a note about it? I do not think it should be added to the prose of the lead as it would seem out of place, but do you think an endnote/footnote may be appropriate? I understand if you disagree, but I just wanted to raise your attention to this, as it was a controversial move on her part.
• For this part (as the winner and runner-up of the season respectively), there should be a comma after "season".
• For this part (On May 5, 2018 CBS renewed the series for a second season), I would add a comma after "2018" and "season".
• For this part (when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote over Ricky Williams who was declared the runner-up), is the "who was declared the runner-up" part really necessary? Couldn't it be assumed that if one person wins over another in a contest, that the loser would be declared the runner-up be default?
• I am a little confused by how numbers greater than ten are represented in the lead. For the second paragraph, you stick with representing numbers in words (i.e. "twenty-six", "twenty-nine", and "twelve"), but in the third paragraph, you represent numbers with numerals (i.e. "23"). Make sure to consistent with one way or another throughout the lead.
• I have two comments about this part (competed in Celebrity Big Brother, however one contestant was later declared to be a fake HouseGuest as part of a twist). I would use the word "but" here rather than "however" as it sounds a little off to me. I am also uncertain about "later" as it pretty vague. I would either drop it altogether or add a footnote/endnote about it to clarify what is meant here.
• For this part (Mathews and Jaret Winokur later received their own spin-off show entitled Off the Block with Ross and Marissa), I would say the year that the received the spin-off rather than just "later" as that is rather vague.
• I have never seen the show (reality shows are not really my thing tbh), so apologies if this is really obvious. I do not understand what is meant by this sentence (In addition, a number of first season contestants returned in the second season as special hosts.). Do the contestants do something similar to Julie Chen, do they host challenges? It is unclear what "special hosts" means in this context.
• Is it really necessary to include the country in "Ottawa, ON, Canada" in the table? The United States is not included in any of the other participant's hometown so it is inconsistent. It should be clear from the wikilink that it is Canada so I would just remove it.

Overall, the list looks in good shape, and I was be more than happy to support this when my comments are addressed. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments, all have been addressed. I should have time to take a look at your FAC soon! TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - think all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Allied45

• All images need ALT text (see WP:ALT)
• "aftershow show" could just be "aftershow"
• Table needs scope cols and scope rows per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB)
• I would suggest adding a table caption "Table of Celebrity Big Brother houseguests" where you can attach the citations that you repeat in the "Name/Age/Hometown/Profession" column headers (this would avoid the duplication of citations)
• I am not sure the "Status" column is even necessary, it is already explained in the lead that contestants are evicted. I think the "Finish" column is adequate for this information.
• Move the citations used in the "Finish" column to a seperate column titled Ref(s) – it just looks cleaner in my opinion
• "TV personality" links to different articles in the table "Celebrity" and "Reality television" (also maybe expand to "Television personality" like one contestant is listed as)
• "TV host" -> "Television host"
• "Host" -> "Talk show host"
• Add citations to the image captions to make it easier for readers to see winners and "America's Favorite HouseGuest" etc.

Allied45 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied45: All done except the status column, when the HouseGuests are evicted is pretty prominent within the series so I recommend it's inclusion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – that's fine by me (I just made the Ref. column unsortable for you) Allied45 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; it's a little odd that the cites for the evictions don't actually say the eviction day, but they do say the calendar day so I guess it's workable if you know when the season started (as per the lead). So... promoted. --PresN 20:07, 20 March 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) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because 21 of these lists have been promoted to FL in recent months. Here's the proposed #22...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just two minor things I noticed:

• The third instance of Neal McCoy in the lead can be shortened to "McCoy"
• The caption for the image of Mary Chapin Carpenter could be reworded as "had her only number one in 1994" kind of sounds like her career is over and she won't ever achieve number one again (and it looks like she is still active, so you never know!)

Allied45 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the comments - both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – awesome as always! Allied45 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Lirim | Talk 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Wonderful list as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass, promoting another! --PresN 16:26, 14 March 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) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because 21 of these lists have been promoted in recent months and one other currently has multiple supports and no outstanding issues. Here's the proposed #23..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z;

• Are you even stopable?
  • :-)
• The lead looks weird to me. Having such a big first paragraph doesn't seem to fit. It looks strange on 1920x1080 and on every other resolution I tried. I would suggest to split the first paragraph and most of the information to the second one. "When Randy Travis spent four ..." to the second paragraph.
  • I've re-arranged the lead - see what you think
• "title Hot Country Singles through the February 10 issue and Hot Country Singles & Tracks thereafter" Source for this?
  • Added
• Ref 7: AllMusic not Allmusic.
  • Done
• --Lirim | Talk 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ready for the next list ;) --Lirim | Talk 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• For this part (At the start of the year the number one song on the chart was), I believe there should be a comma between "year" and "the". A similar comment for this part (Three months later Whitley's widow), where I believe a comma is required between "later" and "Whitley's".
• For this part (in 1990 thirteen songs), I would add a comma between "1990" and "thirteen". Apologies for all of the super nitpicky comma comments. I just never feel comfortable doing edits on an article up for review, otherwise I would have added them myself.
• For this sentence (At the start of the year the number one song on the chart was "Who's Lonely Now" by the group Highway 101, which had been at the top of the chart since the issue of Billboard dated December 30, 1989.), I would say "Highway 101's "Who's Lonely Now" " instead as the dependent phrase should be attached to the song as it is the subject. I am also uncertain if the descriptive phrase "group" is necessary. The wikilink should clear up any confusion, and I do not believe you use descriptive phrases for any of the other artists, aside from Lorrie Morgan (which I think is necessary for context).

Aside from these relatively minor comments, everything looks really good. You have really gotten this down to a science. If you have the time, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I support this for promotion. Have a wonderful week. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great list, up to standard. You also got the capitalization of AllMusic correct this time ;) --NØ 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass, promoting another! --PresN 16:26, 14 March 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) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Rodrigo1198 and NØ 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo1198 and I are nominating this for featured list because we have collaborated on it and have concluded that it meets the featured list criteria. I've already effected all the feedback I got on my last FLC here, so this is pretty much ready. All input is welcome and appreciated!--NØ 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Dua Lipa is an English singer and songwriter who has won 26 awards from 103 nominations. I would change this sentence to something like English singer and songwriter Dua Lipa has won 26 awards from 103 nominations. I would also suggest that you use a note that, which says something like As of 30 January 2019.
• The lead is a little bit thin.
• Ref 19: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo
• Ref 12, 13, 22, 28, 44, 47, 50, 55: |language=
• --Lirim | Talk 20:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lirim.Z, thanks a lot for the comments! I made the changes. As for the lead I've kept it a bit shorter on purpose since Lipa is a new artist with just one album and the list is bound to grow. I'd be open to adding any other accolades you think are worthy of being in the lead though.--NØ 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lirim | Talk 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "released her selftitled debut album" => "released her self-titled debut album"
• "Her song, "New Rules" " - no need for that comma
• "The song managed to win " => "The song won"
• Stray space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the lead
• Why is the "Sound of..." entry in with the Bs?
• Conversely, "The Beano Awards" probably should be with the Bs
• "Organizations without a Wikipedia page are not included in list of accolades." - as she is British, you should use the correct UK spelling of "organisation" ;-)

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments! Done, ChrisTheDude. :D--NØ 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Only question is why is the lead image so big? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the image size to 220px and made the caption small, BeatlesLedTV. Feel free to suggest any more changes!--NØ 05:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Still seems a little big to me, but maybe it's just me
• Ref(s) → Ref.
• Feel the grammy sentence in lead should be referenced

That's all I got otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've gone with 200px for the lead image because thats what I did for my last two FLs but am open to dropping it to a specific size if you suggest one.--NØ 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• Do you think the nominations for “One Kiss” should be addressed in the lead? There appear to be eleven nominations according to the table. Right now, the lead only mentions the awards for the songs “New Rules” and “Electricty”. The same question applies to “IDGAF”.
• I would specify in the lead that “Electricity” is a collaboration with Silk City.
• For Reference 12, “Vote Now” should not be in all caps.

Everything looks good. The above comments are relatively minor, and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support it for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, it was an interesting read. Just remember to keep it updated. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad to see you around, Aoba47! The lead actually looks much better with the IDGAF and OK nominations added, thanks for that suggestion. I'll definitely take a look at your FAC when I have more time. I already glanced a bit through that article and it looked great.--NØ 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this, and thank you for addressing everything. I have somewhat lost track of current popular music so it is nice to read about a somewhat new-ish singer. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember to update the lead and award count after the Grammy wins. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment What's with the note saying that organisations without a Wikipedia page aren't included in the list? I don't think I've ever seen that in a featured list before; it looks rather out of place. Have any other articles been promoted to FL with notes like that? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @A Thousand Doors: I have seen some lists with it and some without it. I think that some lists include it if the subject has won awards outside of those discussed on Wikipedia, as a way to hopefully prevent those awards from being added if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to update everyone that MaranoFan is on a script-enforced wikibreak. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Have any of these lists been promoted to FL status? If they have then I'll leave it, but it does seem really odd to me to have what is essentially an editing notice in the middle of the article. Usually they'd be hidden comments within the source code. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A Thousand Doors: I have seen a few awards list promoted to FL status with the note, and others without it. It is rather inconsistent for some reason. Here is one example (List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey) of a FL with a similar note (i.e. note C in the infobox). Maybe, some day in the future, there can be a discussion and a consensus on it. I always forget about hidden comments/notes, but that would make sense in this context (at least to me). Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Her article refers to her as a singer-songwriter, why not use that terminology here?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably worth some introductory notes about her style, when she started etc, to put some context around this.
• "Her song "New Rules" earned ..." from the eponymous album.
• Last lead para is pretty awful, re-write needed so we don't see quick repeats of each of the three ceremonies.
• Where are the pending awards noted in either the lead, the totals or the infobox? Presumably since they're pending, they already count as nominations?
• Table and infobox have some discrepencies:
  • ASCAP Pop Music Awards vs ASCAP Awards.
  • Bambi Awards is linked to two different targets, albeit a redirect.
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto BBC Teen Awards.
  • The Beano Awards aren't in the infobox in the same order.
  • Echo Awards are piped to two different things, one a redirect.
  • European Border Breakers Awards is linked to two different targets, albeit a redirect.
  • "Gaygalan" has no English Wikipedia page so I'm surprised by its inclusion.
  • Likewise the SCTV Awards.
  • GQ Men of the Year Awards is linked to both just GQ and the section in GQ's article dealing with this award. And shouldn't GQ be italicised?
  • Popjustice - table has one nomination, infobox has two. Probably therefore worth double-checking all the totals add up properly.
  • "Sound of..." doesn't appear in the infobox.
  • Swedish Gaffa Awards is linked differently. And shouldn't Gaffa be italicised?
  • "Choice Female Artist" is piped to a redirect.
• Since the table is sortable, all linked items should be linked every time since once re-ordered, no way of guaranteeing the linked item appears first.
• If you're doing the rowspan thing, shouldn't Herself be spanned across ASCAP and Bambi? And Glamour and Global? Probably worth checking all others for consistency.

That's probably enough for a first pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing these concerns. As was noted above, I (MaranoFan) am on a script-enforced WikiBreak due to examinations. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could get to these concerns in a timely manner, maybe Aoba47 if he has the time. It would be a shame to see this FLC fail after the overwhelming support. Thanks a lot in advance.—2401:4900:1984:15C7:DD24:D399:82C:57FD (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, I do not have the time to take this on. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess this will need to be closed. I'll leave it a week and then archive it if no action is taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that MaranoFan's wikibreak will be done tomorrow (at least according to the script) so they may come back to address your comments then. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If MaranoFan doesn't return in a timely fashion, I'm happy to help out (don't know if that would invalidate my support)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Many thanks to ChrisTheDude for volunteering to fix the list in my absence. The Rambling Man, I think I addressed all your concerns. Instead of overlinking the song names every time I just sorted the table according to every column and linked the first mentions. Do let me know if there's anything more that needs to be done.--NØ 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overlinking, in a sortable table every linkable item should be linked every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, The Rambling Man.--NØ 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan:, you all sorted now.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my examinations ended today!:D--NØ 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; tweaked one sort and 2 links; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 14 March 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) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [15].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth instalment in a campaign to increase the number of Australian Football League FLs (there have been three successful promotions since August 2018). The AFL Rising Star is a prestigious annual award presented to a standout young player in the league. I hope that if this attains featured status, it can be replicated across a lot more lists across the project. Allied45 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I honestly can't find anything to pick you up on......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, is it coincidence that no player was nominated in more than one round, or is there a rule that a player can only be nominated once per season? If so, might be worth adding that. I clicked on the ref about the 11 players who have been nominated more than once in history and they all seem to have been nominated in two different seasons, so I was wondering if being nominated twice in the same season was actually possible..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude! A player can only receive one nomination per season, therefore it is uncommon for players to be nominated in more than one season as few would meet the age/games criteria. I have added a line in the lead to clarify this :) Allied45 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. I was sort of expecting to see the 2017 AFL Women's Rising Star. It's just that time of year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7, I am hoping to do that next and get the pair to FL-status! Allied45 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: minor points, not a review, came here from WT:WikiProject Australian rules football)

• The club that garnered the most individual nominations this season was Carlton with five players nominated for the award across the season. (emphasis mine) One of the bolded parts could be cut without losing any information.
• Additionally Brisbane Lions player Alex Witherden, who received a nomination in round 17, was subsequently nominated for the award again in the 2018 season–becoming the eleventh player to ever be nominated twice for a Rising Star award. Is 'additionally' necessary? Either 'subsequently' or 'again' could also be cut. 'eleventh player ever to be' seems a more natural phrase than 'eleventh player to ever be', but that might just be personal preference.
• Andrew McGrath, winner of the AFL Rising Star in 2017 Why not 2017 winner Andrew McGrath or Andrew McGrath, 2017 winner?
• Alex Witherden, who received a nomination in round 17, was also nominated for the award again in the 2018 season. Cut 'also' or 'again'.
• table of nominees The header immediately above says nominations; it's clear that the list is a list of nominees without the need for a subheader. Same with 'table of voting' below, but that one is tricky to eliminate as there's no other clear place for the citation.
• Who publishes AFL.com.au? I have seen Bigpond, Telstra Media and AFL Media all used in articles as the publisher. My understanding is that AFL Media provides the content but Telstra Media publishes the site (previously under Bigpond branding). – Teratix ₵ 10:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Teratix for the comments, I have actioned them all except for the table headers, as it is my interpretation that the Manual of Style prefers captions on tables for accessibility. In regards to AFL.com.au, I have changed all publishers to Telstra Media (as per this report) – Allied45 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by NatureBoyMD

• The infobox image is missing alt text; add using |alt=
• The existing alt text for the other images is a little lacking to my taste. Instead of using the player's name, which the caption provides, give a brief description of the image.
• The en dash (–) in the last sentence of the last paragraph should be an em dash (—).
• Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NatureBoyMD, I have fixed as per your suggestions, is the alt text now more descriptive? Allied45 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nicely done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 14 March 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) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

;Comment from BeatlesLedTV Change all numbers in lead above 10 to numbers. Reading numbers as words like "one hundred and sixty-three" is a little off-putting. I know MOS:NUMS doesn't explicitly say you have to but I think you can just do that here since the numbers get big (especially since you use actual numbers in the table itself). I have changed the numbers in the second paragraph, not the third. I think it would look wrong having a mixture of styles in the same paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] My only other comment is that this is a MASSIVE list, (almost 400k bytes). I'd love to see what other editors have to say about that but maybe you could separate it from like A–K and L–Z. Just a suggestion because it's so big. I would strongly object to splitting the list as it would make it much less useful. You could not, for example, so easily sort by area to see which is the biggest site or by location to see whether there are sites in your town. Great job on this! Must've taken a lot of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the review. BeatlesLedTV. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should begin with information about SSSIs rather than a whole paragraph about the county irrelev vascular plantsant to the list. Population does not have anything to do with the sites, nor do the local governments, nor do bordering counties, so why are they there right at the top? The location column lists cities and towns, not district councils, so I don't see the purpose here.

• It is standard to have background information about the area in FLC candidates on lists of SSSIs and scheduled monuments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the lead should begin with what the article is about. The list is about the SSSIs so it should begin with background information about the SSSIs. Population, district councils, and bordering counties are completely irrelevant to SSSIs and do not provide any background to this list whatsoever. At the very least the list should start with the topic of the list! List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands does this well. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight is also nice, it actually discusses the county's geology! Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If it said how many sites are in each district council like List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire does that would make more sense, but as it is, the first paragraph is just a bunch of facts about Norfolk. If readers wanted to know that, they can go to Norfolk, but this list isn't about the county, it's about the SSSIs.

• Background information about the county is generally considered helpful by reviewers. It is given in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent, nominated at FLC by me, and similarly in List of local nature reserves in Somerset, nominated by Rodw. However, I will be happy to delete the first paragraph if other reviewers agree that it should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to delete, seems to me a minor change of grammar plus swapping the first paragraph with the third would fix this, and also would neatly reflect the title, 'list' of 'SSSI' in 'Norfolk'. Mramoeba (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment Mramoeba. I put the second paragraph first as it did not seem to work with the third one first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "123 are biological, 25 geological and 15 are both biological and geological." is not parallel

• This is almost universal in lists of SSSIs and I do not see the objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Parallelism (grammar): Should have "25 are geological" OR "15 both..." Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There does not need to be a whole column to link the citation when it is already linked as part of the reference. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is useful to the reader and has been in a dozen SSSI FLCs without anyone objecting. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there hardly needs to be a duplicate reference when the citation is already linked in the table! Whatever, not a huge deal but not great form.Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review but these points refer to features which are standard in SSSI lists I have submitted to FLC and I prefer to keep to the format which has been approved by previous reviewers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed quite a few of these and each time I find fewer comments, the lists are excellent. Few quibbles:

• Sedge is unnecessarily capitalized in Beetley and Hoe Meadows, Woodlark in Breckland Forest

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link relict to Relict (biology)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "one species not previously recorded in Britain" doesn't really make sense without some time reference. Every species was not previously recorded until it was...

• Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Invertebrates include two nationally rare dragonflies, and the marshes have several important breeding bird species and an internationally important population of wintering wigeon" and...and...

• Split into two sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalize Sphagnum, acanthophyma , hygrolycosa

• Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "dry acid dune grassland, the latter of which is very extensive. " can be reworded to say " very extensive dry acid dune..."

• Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sphagnum needs to be italicized twice.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'a fine example of oceanic heathland' should have " "

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ...by glacial meltwaters It is species-... is missing a full stop?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• link coppicing

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• a rare amphibian and a rare butterfly... can you be specific?

• The source does not specify, probably because they forgot to cover amphibians and invertebrates in detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done the A-G sites, and will have to work on part 3 later. Overall these are just minor quibbles and I'm happy to Support once they are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Comments addressed, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phew I made it through the rest. It looks good, just a few minor points! Mattximus (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work with this huge list. Two comments:
  • A map of Norfolk would better fit the top of the article instead of a random sunset photo. East Sussex uses a map, for example.

• I have used a picture of the site in the previous 11 SSSI county lists I have nominated for FLC and I think it is more relevant than a map for an article on SSSIs, whereas a map is more relevant for the article about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • What is a "common"? Many places are named so, and then the text says "The common has ...". I guess it's Common land? A link somewhere would help. --Tone 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added links in each case where common is referred to. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your review. Tone. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor ce., water dropwort has a page on Wikipedia, but as it is a common name is it the same? You have reedswamp as one word, should it not be two? I would wikilink vascular plants for those of us who have to look these things up. Wigeon can also be wikilinked as the other birds are. Hopefully I will have more time to read through later. Mramoeba (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Water dropwort - this is the name of the genus, which is also used of species in the genus. I have linked to the species according to Natural England, but it is a red link.
• Reedswamp. OED agrees with you that it is two words. Changed.
• Vascular plant. Linked.
• Wigeon. Linked.

• Thanks for your comments Mramoeba. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " by Natural England as "finest " -> as the "finest..."

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This area of spring fed fen" shouldn't that be "spring-fed"?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Quaternary till, " sea of blue.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " grassland, and it has a " no need for "it".

• It reads better to me with "it". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No need, honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent on how you refer to the IUCN Red List.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dersingham Pit is important " the entry is called "Dersingham Bog"...

• Clarified that Dersingham Pit is part of Dersingham Bog. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't "Scots pine" be capitalised?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Neolithic flint-mines " don't think that needs to be hyphenated.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "LNR[224] Ramsar,[8][68]" needs a comma.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is the best site displaying" needs attribution.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " The Devil's Punchbowl is " this is called "Stanford Training Area"...

• Clarified that The Devil's Punchbowl is part of Stanford Training Area. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "is the Type locality for " no need for capital T.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 seems to be in trouble.

• Fixed - I must have accidentally corrupted it when fixing another error. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes" shouldn't that be "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"

• That is how it is shown by Natural England. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article is Ludham – Potter Heigham National Nature Reserve and the lead starts "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"... Some consistency would be appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The list links to Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes. I was not aware that there is a separate article on the NNR, although I should have picked it up. I think it would be best to change the NNR article to a redirect. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably, sounds reasonable, but ensure that en-dash is used, rather than a hyphen. I would have thought, ideally (and per MOS), that it should be an unspaced en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK but I do not know how to insert an en-dash in a move. Can you advise please The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, a few responses above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks The Rambling Man. Reply on Ludham - Potter Heigham above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder to think how much work has gone into this mightily impressive article. When I pasted a copy into Word to check it (easier that way I find) it ran to 57 pages. A most impressive achievement. Only one drafting point: at Kelling Heath something has gone awry in the fifth column, leaving a red formula showing. The article is comprehensive, neutral, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Clearly meets the FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. It is the fifth largest county by number of SSSIs with 163. I shudder to think how much work Cumbria would be with 278! Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent example of what a featured list should look like and no mistake. @Dudley Miles:, as a purely stylistic question, have you considered making the "Other classifications" section two columns? Then all three would all sit flush on the top of the table? ——SerialNumber54129 16:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serial Number 54129. I am afraid I do not understand your suggestion about making the "Other classifications" section two columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go; but. @Primefac: who knows about these things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN means splitting the "Other classifications" list into two columns, but I think that would require either fake headers or nested column creation. Personally I'd say that since that section is twice as long as the other two, having the two-column setup is the best way to go. Splitting that list into two might make it a bit more convoluted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Many thanks Primefac, that's exactly what I meant, and that sounds excessively complex for only a tiny return. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still lost. Isn't the section the whole table, which is the main part of the article? So what are the other two sections and what is the problem which you are trying to solve? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly simple. I was suggesting a layout such as

, but Primefac as established that it would not be as easy as it looks, and probably not worth the hassle of attempting. Which is fine by me. See wot I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see now. I thought you were suggesting splitting 'Other classifications' in the sites section, but you meant in the list of codes. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, in keeping with the rest of the series, promoted. --PresN 21:11, 13 March 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.