Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2020

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) 00:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With Denmark promoted and Norway getting in shape, Finland is next in the series of sites from Northern Europe. I started paying more attention to the alt text for images since the last discussion. The style of the article is following the previous ones. Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews

• Both pass. Sources look reliable and spot checks check out. Images are free and I added FoP-Finland tags where appropriate. buidhe 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This should have a longer lead so it can stand alone. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom in comparison which goes into some more detail about the types of sites and the country's relationship to UNESCO. I don't see any issues with the table though. Reywas92^Talk 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the intro. --Tone 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. I think there's enough overlap with the parent list List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe that it might be a 3c problem, but I don't have enough experience to make the call on that. I made an edit to address one point, and I see that you were given conflicting advice in a previous list so I struck the other point. We're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the church was abandoned as a newer church was built nearby, so the old church remained well preserved". This is a non-sequitur. Abandonment is normally a reason for neglect, not for preservation.
  • Rewrote according to the source. I suppose they still did general maintenance but not major restructuring while it was not used.

• The source says "The church is well preserved due to the fact that it was abandoned in the late 19th century, as the new parish church was built, and did not suffer from major alterations such as the installation of heating systems." This clarifies that it was not well preserved because it was neglected, which you seem to say. Maybe "The original features are well preserved because the church went out of use and therefore was not modernised by the addition of features such as heating systems."

• Good point, I like this.

• The link to the Last Glacial Period is wrong. It should be the Last Glacial Maximum.
  • Makes sense, changed.
• It is worth spelling out that the reason for the post-glacial rebound is the removal of the weight of the glaciers.
  • Added.
• How about [2] for an image for the Gaddtarmen carvings?
  • Great, added.
• Why is Kvarken not linked?
  • In the location column? Because it is already linked in the name, I wanted to avoid overlinking.
• The descriptions are very good. Some of the images do not give a good idea of the site even though better ones are available in the Commons categories for the sites. This applies to Old Rauma, Suomenlinna and Verla. The Struve image may be relevant but if so this should be explained in the file description of the image. See [3] for alternatives. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the images for Verla and old Rauma. The Suomenlinna aerial looks informative to me. For the Struve, the description is in the file - that the church is one of the markers.

• I see now that there is a description if you hover over the file, but I would expect it - with a reference - in the file description on opening File:Alatornio 3 2015 Copy.JPG, which has a blank file description. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I now added a link to the church article, the UNESCO reference mentions it on the map tab. --Tone 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: Done, please have a look. Excellent review, as always. --Tone 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind. A few comments/observations below, but nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• I still wonder whether this is a bit on the short side. Perhaps a slight expansion of the final para., actually just a sentence, to give a bit more detail on what a "tentative list" is?

Images

• Agree with Dudley, especially in relation to Old Rauma. I think the image in that article better shows the buildings, and it doesn't include the distracting cyclist!

Descriptions

• Fortress of Suomenlinna - "The fortress, which spans over six islands" - does this mean it covers six islands, in which case could the "over" go? Or does it mean it covers more than six islands, in which case I'd say that?
• Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki - "but are now further inland due to the rising land". I think this is Dudley's point above. For a non-specialist like me, while rising sea-levels are an understood concept, rising land-levels are not. Could it be expanded a bit? You do explain it two descriptions down, but I'd suggest the clarification comes at the first encounter.
• The Rock paintings of Astuvansalmi at Ristiina - "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose, boats, and hand prints" - are these actually paintings of hand prints, or just hand prints? If, as I suspect, the latter, then, "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose and boats. Hand prints are also visible."
• The Holy place of worship of Ukonsaari by the Sami people at Inari - "was used for sactificial purposes" - typo, I think.
• Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System - "This is a part of a serial nomination" - not getting "serial" nomination. Group nomination?

• • @KJP1: Thank you for the review. As for the tentative list in the intro, what this list is is explained more in detail later on. For the rising land, there is a longer explanation at Kvarken, I am not sure if it makes sense to repeat it? The Saimaa-Pielinen is supposedly a nomination of more than one country, yes, but the source is so bad that it is hard to write anything more detailed. This is often a problem with older entries to the tentative list, they seem like placeholders. I changed some pictures and fixed the text as you suggested. --Tone 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:05, 23 March 2020 (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, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 39 FLs, so here's the potential #40. In 1975, crossover pop-country was everywhere, not to my tastes at all, but on the other hand Willie Nelson finally had his career breakthrough with "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain", which is a great song from a great album....... -- -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• I would add punctuation to the image captions as I believe all of them are complete sentences.
• For this part (contrasted with the lush country-pop style which was prevalent at the time), I think you can cut out "which was" to just say (the lush country-pop style prevalent at the time) to make it a little more concise.

I only have these relatively minor notes. It is interesting how the discussion on what constitutes real country music versus crossover with other genres has continued till today. My personal favorite from this would be either ""The Bargain Store" or "I'm Not Lisa" as I have a preference for female singers for some reason. Hope these comments help, and great work as always with these lists. I should do some work on Billboard chart list too. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done, many thanks. And yes, I think the debate about what is country and what isn't will rage for a while yet...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. At least the debate is interesting lol. I support this for promotion. This may sound weird, but I have honestly learned a lot about country music from reviewing your FLCs. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool - to be fair I learnt quite a lot that I didn't already know from working on them! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list passes the FL standards easily. I can't find any issues. Great job! (What a great year for music. Thank you for working on this) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank:

• Same disclaimers as for List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1976.
• Did some copyediting ... as always, feel free to revert.
• Same views on the second sentence as last time.
• I'm checking all the title links in the table ... so far, I've avoided one redirect. (Some people find that useful for titles ... feel free to revert.)
• FLC criteria:
  • You make excellent use of images (but this isn't an image review).
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements.
  • 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – zmbro _(talk) 04:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:29, 13 March 2020 (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, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something different from yours truly, the Isabelle Stevenson Award. This is a non-competitive philanthropic award that has been presented at the Tony Awards every year since 2009 in honor of the charitable work of an individual from the theater community. Am hoping this list is worthy of the bronze star. MWright96 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. I might or might not claim 5 points in the Wikicup for this review.
• "who had or were in a crisis or in transition as a member ...": Having trouble parsing that, and it doesn't seem to be in the cited source.
• You're sorting David Hyde Pierce under H and Brian Stokes Mitchell under S.
• I did a little copyediting. As always, feel free to revert.
• "and is not necessarily presented at every ceremony": I'd chop this bit. It's a little confusing, since you later say that it has been awarded every year since its inception. Sure, we can't know what the future holds, but I don't think it adds much to say that. If it's been awarded but not presented in some years, some clarity or details would help.
• FLC criteria:
  • You make excellent use of images (but this isn't an image review).
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements.
  • 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears to me to meet the FL criteria and pleased to Support. A few comments/observations but nothing to stand in the way of that. KJP1 (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Isabelle Stevenson - it seems a real pity that the eponymous heroine is a redlink. Is there not enough for a stub?

• There are articles from perennial reliable sources that would allow Stevenson to have an article on this site. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "is not necessarily presented at every ceremony" - this puzzled me slightly. I appreciate it is what the sources say, and presumably the award's 'constitution' stipulates that it doesn't have to be given out every year, but it has been in each and every year since its inception.
  • Have reworded. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "disk-shaped" - does this just mean "circular"?
  • Yes. Have clarified this. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "designed by art director Herman Rosse" - given that Rosse died in 1965 and the first award was made in 2009, I'm puzzled as to how he designed it. Is it just a copy of the Tony? Or is this sentence actually referring to the Tony, and not the Isabelle Stevenson award? Can it be clarified?
  • Have clarified. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• … in 2009. Actress Phyllis Newman was chosen as its inaugural recipient that same year... - given the "2009" in the preceding sentence, I'd probably remove the, slightly clumsy, "that same year".
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Phyllis Newman Women's Health Initiative" - does the "The" need capitalisation?
  • No MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• General - Some of the notes end with full stops and some don't. For example, the first does, but if you removed "Newman", it wouldn't need to do so. I wonder if these should be consistent?
  • Have made changes to the wording for consistency. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Brian Stokes Mitchell - "were in a crisis or in transition" - what does "in transition" mean? Between jobs? Gender reassignment? I just don't know.
  • Clarified. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nick Scandalios - unknown to me, I couldn't see what his role in the theatre community is? Only if you know that, or click through to the Nederlander Organization, does it become clear. Perhaps, "Scandalios, executive vice-president of the Nederlander Organization, one of the largest theatre operators in the US, volunteers with..."?
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:29, 13 March 2020 (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 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two years after the last one, this is the next in the series, and follows the format established in the FLs England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), England cricket team Test results (1920–1939) and England cricket team Test results (1946–1959). I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. Harrias ^talk 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

As I've spent a little time looking at the list, I'll add a quick accessibility review.

There are no accessibility concerns (though I'd add the caption to the 'Summary' table, as there is one for the 'Key' table). Hope you find that useful. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A link to Draw (cricket) will be helpful.
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Same for Run (cricket).
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• UK cricket council should be replaced by Test and County Cricket Board, and a link should be added.
  • They are subtly different things; it is more accurate to say that they left the UKCC. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "was their second largest defeat in Test history" -> "is their second-largest defeat in Test history"
  • Changed to "remains their second largest defeat in Test history". Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be consistency between the Key table and the main table. Plainrowheader has been used in the latter but not in the former.
  • They are different tables with different purposes, I don't see any specific advantage in formatting them the same; what is there seems to work best, aesthetically. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that it might be a better idea to have a separate column indicating Home/Away, which can span across rows like the Series column. It will then be possible for one to sort by the type of ground.
  • I think you might be right on this one, as I was working through, I was pondering why I had it like I did. I will just go back through and check it wasn't in response to a request from another reviewer before making the change though. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that the MA Chidambaram Stadium was called the Madras Cricket Club Ground back then, but I can't find the exact year in which it was renamed.
• Mumbai was known as Bombay back then.
• Kolkata was known as Calcutta.
• Chennai was known as Madras.
  • Hmm, odd, I was sure I had done these, but no matter, all done now. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Feroz Shah Kotla has been renamed to Arun Jaitley Stadium, so maybe a note about that. However, the ground is still called Kotla and only the stadium has been renamed. I am not completely sure how this should be handled.
  • The link redirects fine, so I don't see any need to change anything here. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dacca is now known as Dhaka. A note can be added for that.
  • Again, the link goes to the right place, so this one is fine. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Gaddafi Stadium was known as Lahore Stadium back then.
  • Changed. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I may use this review to claim WikiCup points. Bharatiya29 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bharatiya29 20:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MWright96

This list appears to comply with the necessary guidelines. Only one comment from yours truly. MWright96 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "after pressure from the British Home Secretary, James Callaghan." - this sentence would be better off rewritten to avoid a violation of MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • Thanks MWright96; I rephrased it to "from James Callaghan, the British Home Secretary." Harrias ^talk 20:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:29, 13 March 2020 (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) 00:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well referenced and well worded list of Robert Mitchum's work in film and television. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Robert Mitchum (1917 – 1997) was an American actor who was in over 110 films and TV series" - "was in" is a bit weak. Maybe "appeared in"
  • "He is ranked as #23" => "He is ranked 23rd"
  • "During the 1940s, he also cast in" => "During the 1940s, he was also cast in"
  • "The Friends of Eddie Coyle, The Yakuza and Farewell, My Lovely (in which he played Philip Marlowe)" - presumably he only played Marlowe in the last-named film? This could be interpreted as saying he played him in all of them.
    • Tweaked a bit and just took out the Philip Marlowe role altogether
  • "His later roles in the 1980s up until 1995" - 1995 was not in the 1980s, so this needs re-wording. Also why 1995, given that there is one film listed for 1997?
    • Tweaked again to say "His later roles between 1980 and 1997"
  • "He was also in the 1985 miniseries" - as above
  • "He had a reoccurring role" - pretty sure you mean "recurring"
    • Lol yup, done
  • In the 1940s films table, the role of Jeb Rand seems to sort under J and Seaman Chuck Ryan under S. Both should sort under R.
  • In the 1970s films table, Father Oliver Van Horne should sort under V, not H, and "the final victim" should sort under F.
  • In the TV table, is there a reason why Victor 'Pug' Henry's rank is not listed both times?
    • I checked and he's actually not credited as Captain at all, so I removed
  • Also in that table, Jake Spanner should sort under S, not J
  • In the short films table, titles starting with A or The should sort under the next word in the title
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude:, all above are done with some notes on some. Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work on this list. Cowlibob (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all your help and ref work :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (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) 00:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meats the criteria. Some changes might be required but I am completely open to any constructive criticism. Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Just one thing, add the alt text for the image. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! Bharatiya29 06:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Off the top of my head, Somerset were known as "Somerset Sabres" in 2009 (but just Somerset by 2011), Hampshire were known as "Hampshire Royals" in 2012, and Yorkshire were known as "Yorkshire Carnegie" in 2012.

• I determined all the team names through the tweets by the official CLT20 handle. For example, none of their tweets regarding Hampshire uses the word "Royals". (I can't provide the link for the search results as it is blacklisted.) Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That be as it may, that is how those clubs were officially known in T20 cricket at the time. Here is a source for the Somerset Sabres in 2009 and this one for both Hampshire Royals and Yorkshire Carnegie in 2012. Harrias ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Bharatiya29 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for accessdates for book sources (ref #2 and ref #3).
• What value does the nationality column add?

• I followed the precedent set by the existing FL List of Indian Premier League captains. I am aware that the justification given for the nationality column in the past was the limit on the overseas players in domestic tournaments like the IPL, which makes one's nationality an important factor. The overseas limit continued to be enforced in the CLT20 (at least for IPL teams as far as I know), so I think that the nationality column does add a minute value. Although if there is a consensus that the list will be better off without it, I am willing to remove it. Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Among the captains who captained.." The repetition makes this clunky, consider rephrasing.

Generally very good, not too much from me. If you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1960–1974)/archive1. Harrias ^talk 10:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. I have given the justification for point 1 and 3, rest two are done. Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more minor issues:

• The key table needs row and column scopes, and ideally a caption, to meet MOS:DTT accessibility requirements.
• You now need a note for the English counties mentioned above: on Yorkshire Carnegie stating that they are now known as "Yorkshire Vikings", Somerset Sabres known as Somerset, and Hampshire Royals known as Hampshire.
• Be consistent with your formatting in the references: ref #5 uses "Last, First" for the author, but refs #2 and #3 use "First Last". Also, "Cricket Australia" should not be listed as an author for ref #2.
• All the "Records / Champions League Twenty20..." references need an endash instead of a hyphen per our MOS.

Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias ^talk 09:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Bharatiya29 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work. Harrias ^talk 19:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (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) 00:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list of nominations and awards are cited thoroughly. The content is also up-to-date and sorted correctly. The list was a FL candidate a few years ago, I think the list has been updated and sourced correctly since then. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • ChrisTheDude, I believe I addressed all of your comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humblest apologies, but I just spotted one more thing - "The Norman Felton Award for Outstanding Producer of Episodic Television, Drama" is shown in quote marks for some reason, which means it sorts incorrectly. It's also shown inconsistently both with and without the "the" at the start. I would say without the "the" is correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the note Chris! Not sure why "the" was included because it's not included in the official award. I've removed both "the" at the beginning as well as the quotation marks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - thanks for bearing with me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

• In the second paragraph in the lede ref #5 does not reference all 10 nominations. There is also no referencing for Producers Guild of America Awards (one win), eight Directors Guild of America Awards (two wins), seven Art Directors Guild Awards (five wins) and fourteen Satellite Awards (three wins).

• So just a comment about this. I couldn't find any references containing all of the nominations and awards for the specific award. I had to create a ref list within it to list the different award ceremonies. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AFI Awards 2014 and 2015 are not correctly referenced. Currently Ref #18 displays the 2019 awards.

• Changed the 2014 and 2015 AFI Awards references. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some refs are not archived some of these include refs: #1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and more (did not count all of them).

• I went through and added archived links to all of the references that didn't have one. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it might be worth giving a brief explanation under the Significant Guild and Peer Awards heading as to how they differ from most of other awards

• I added an explanation under the section heading. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The publisher parameter needs to be correctly filled out when there is one. For example: website=IGN|publisher=Ziff Davis

• Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When filling out the website or publisher parameter could you make sure to wikilink it where possible as I can still see some which are not wikilinked.

• Added a wikilink to both the work and publisher. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Spy-cicle, I have started to work on these. I will continue this week. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spy-cicle, I believe I addressed all of your starting comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. I should have some more comments up by the next weekend.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brojam

• The infobox should use {{Infobox awards list}} and include all the awards.

• Infobox replaced. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series, mostly written by Benioff, Weiss and Martin," change to "The series, mostly written by Benioff and Weiss," since Martin only wrote 4 of the 73 episodes so not really appropriate to be mentioned here alongside Benioff and Weiss, who wrote 50+ eps. Especially, considering that Bryan Cogman and Dave Hill have written more or the same amount as Martin.

• Removed "Martin". -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, it's not necessary to include all those references while listing the number of noms and wins for each major award (from Golden Globe Awards to Peabody Award) since it's already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD, especially since you are duplicating references.

• I have removed the duplicate references in the lead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the nominations and awards for the cast table, each "Actor" row needs a "! scope="row" |" next to it and all the columns a "! scope="col" | " for accessibility. You can also remove "align="left;"" from the "Actor" rows since the "! scope="row" |" will handle that.

• Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the awards tables, only "scope=row" the first row, not every row.

• Removed and added as needed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actor/crew names and categories in the awards tables should be linked every time since the tables are sortable and thus the first instance will not always be the same.

• Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Emmy nominations and awards for the cast" section should be a subsection of "Emmy Awards".

• Moved the section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be some sort of consistency between "awards and nominations" and "nominations and awards" everywhere in the article. Probably best to stick with the former to align with the article's name.

• Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it for me for now. Great work on such a long list! - Brojam (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Brojam! I have addressed all of your comments above. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Brojam (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (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) 00:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game for the PlayStation 4. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all parts of the FL criteria, covering the plethora of awards and nominations received by Marvel's Spider-Man whilst also following accessibility guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on the List. Kind Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Table has scope cols but still needs scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
• Make sure all refs are archived (I can pinpoint a couple that aren't)
• I believe "Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018" is listed twice in the bibliography section
• Does "Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"" have a pub date?

Rest looks good for me. Great job on this! Absolutely loved that game. – zmbro _(talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, @Zmbro: I have made some changes based on your suggestions and here. I have Added Scope rows, Archived all sources, Removed duplicate reference (Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018), and added the date on the reference (Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "the game received twenty-one nominations and went on to win three awards for:" - don't think that comma needs to be there
• "Spider-Man appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2018, including first place by Wired" (and so on) - this reads a little oddly to me. Personally I would use say "being ranked in first place by Wired" and so on
• "one of the top-30 games of the year" - don't need that hyphen there
• Any reason why "runner-up" is not coloured the same as second/silver? Surely being runner-up is the same as coming second? Or does that award have multiple runners-up?
• Note a refers to "the Metacritic". I think this should just be "Metacritic"
• Notes which are not full sentences don't need a full stop.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude, I have made all the requested changes here except to the colour of the "Runner-up" Result since Runner-ups are given to multiple games. However, I have changed it so when it is sorted by Result "Second" will appear above a "Runner-up" result here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now updating oppose rationale, see below. Please implement the award inclusion criteria as described by User:Dissident93 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Undertale/archive1 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_comment_by_WPVG_editors_at_an_FLC. As a general note, I'm not pleased with the recent trend I'm seeing of editors unilaterally splitting out lists and then rushing them to FLC. The rush leads to sloppiness, as evidenced by comments above. FLC/FAC should be where a piece of content gets put through its final paces, not act as a first time peer review or copyedit. The best content on Wikipedia takes time and, more importantly, collaboration to get to that point. In this case, you also copied a tremendous amount of work from Spider-Man (2018 video game) (without attribution in the edit summary) without consulting or even notifying Darkwarriorblake who was the primary contributor there. FL is not an "easy chit" to add to your editing resume. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus for these type of Lists (Video game accolades) has been to include these as seen the last three FLs of this type: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto V. One user does not get to simply overturn years of consensus. In regards to your second point, in hindsight I probably should have notified User:Darkwarriorblake but in end decided not to when I made a good-faith edit to the lead and was met with a rather rude edit summary [16]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't get to avoid attribution and credit just because you perceive someone to be rude to you. That's not how this place works. Consensus can change and this and other discussions are evidence that the consensus, if any existed at all before (n.b. there was no specific WP:MOS/VG guideline on it as of this writing), is not what you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, I have not heard of that guideline here before, I have added a contribution message on the Talk page since I cannot alter my previous edit summaries. In regards to your second point, yes consensus can change but there is currently no significant evidence of it changing. Perhaps an RfC could be set up?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angeldeb82 too, they found most of those awards and were a star in sticking to the referencing structure used throughout the article to maintain its integrity as an FA. Given that most of the content was made in the initial edit, a lot of that work was probably done by Angel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. Point stands that this FLC is tantamount to taking credit for other people's work. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per failing FLC#3c: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Per WP:SIZERULE, the main article Spider-Man (2018 video game) is only 43kb of prose and does not warrant a split of this nature. The lead is largely a copy of the parent article but the table should be merged back. No one was clamoring for this bold-split-and-immediately-nominate-for-FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On Grand Theft Auto V the readable prose is 37kB and yet the accolades table (FL) has a readable prose of 2.9kB. So in theory it should be put on the same page per WP:SIZERULE. However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
  • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
  • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
  • Uncharted 4: A Thief's End readable prose = 25kB; Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
  • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an FLC about List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man, not a FLRC on other FLs. It is not relevant that you seem to be arguing that those lists should be merged back to their main articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet WP:SIZERULE but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
      • Furthermore, Spider-Man (2018 video game) has a readable prose of 43.8kB. Thus it falls between 40kB and 50kB so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful per WP:SIZERULE. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.
      • Pinging @Rhain: for some input, since he knows far more about Video game accolades tables than me. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm seeing Harv errors on citations 34 and 79. It also looks like three quarters of the citations in the bibliography do not have a Footnote pointing to them. They should be pulled off into a further reading section. It is hard to find which citations in the bibliography are used and which ones are fluff to citation check. The lead is okay, but it talks more about the game's reviews than the contents of the table. Can you expand the third and fourth paragraphs a bit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero: I have changed the list based on your feedback. I have fixed the two harv errors and have removed citations in the bibliography that do not have a footnote pointing to them (instead of a further reading section since most of them can be found in the main article). Additionally, I have expanded the lede to encompass more awards. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support quick work Spy-cicle --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. I know there's an outstanding oppose, but I'm going to be bold and discount it- this list is far too long in inches to be included in the parent article, prose size or not. I think that's partially due to the proliferation of video game awards shows, and means that basically any AAA game in the top 10-15 or so of the year could conceivably support an accolades list; that's not a result I like, as I don't think we should have accolades lists like this for any media, but the consensus to date has been that they are fine for films, and it appears the consensus is forming that they're fine for video games as well. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (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.