Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2014

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 Crisco 1492 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21, Statυs (talk, contribs)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album is an honor presented annually by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences at the Latin Grammy Awards. According to the category description guide for the 2012 Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental alternative albums. It is awarded to solo artists, duos or groups. → Call me Hahc21, Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was closed because it stalled (busy people!) but I have taken care of all the issues raised and we're ready to go again :) → Call me Hahc21 01:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per last FLC. Erick (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- can't see any major issues. Two minor things. The alt text for Julieta's image indicates she's wearing a purple dress which is incorrect, I think. Remove the red links. Cowlibob (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - This nomination is being closed as successful. The article will be promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. Please do not remove the FLC template from the talk page; the bot will do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more centuries list; probably my last in this category. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "His tally of 37 international centuries place him" => "His tally of 37 international centuries places him" (the subject of the verb is "tally" not "centuries"
  • Also in the same sentence, "behind only Jacques Kallis" sounds more natural than "only behind....."
  • "against Australia in during the 2001–02 home series" - lose the "in"
  • "he scored double centuries—277 at Edgbaston and 259 at Lord's)—in consecutive Tests" - don't think that closing bracket should be there......
  • "earned him being named the Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 2004" - doesn't sound at all right, try "led to his being named the Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 2004"
  • "His three centuries in consecutive Tests was instrumental" => "His three centuries in consecutive Tests were instrumental"
  • "He is most successful against England" => "He was most successful against England"
  • "25 of his Test centuries have come while captaining the side, an all-time record" - never start a sentence with numbers written in digits. Maybe try "Of his 27 Test centuries, 25 came while....."
  • "Smith's highest score in ODIs is 141," => "Smith's highest score in ODIs was 141,"
  • "In ODIS, he made centuries" - S in ODIS should be lower case
  • "his highest score of 89 not out was made against in February 2006" - spot the missing word ;-)
  • Key: "(for example, (1/3) denotes the first Test in a three match series)." - no need for brackets round 1/3 when it is not known in brackets in the table
  • Third ODI century - dagger symbol for MOTM appears twice
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all. Even while editing the list, I forgot the fact that he's retired :) —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite, you missed the one about not starting a sentence with a number. I did that one for you and now am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments Chris. —Vensatry _(Ping) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Format the accessdate field on the references as on over half of them it displays incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.86.212 (talk • contribs)

• Done and thanks! —Vensatry _(Ping) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Does it say anywhere that SA never lost when he scored a Test 100 ? That is a remarkable record. The next best batsman with a all-win/draw record has only (iirc) 22 hundreds.
• Would be good to put some stress on his exceptional record in the fourth innings. Tintin 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice ones! Included both, although I've given more importance to centuries. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tintin1107: Can you list down the source for the "all-win/draw record"? —Vensatry _(ping) 11:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/23366709 look okay ? If you put the names of Smith Hammond Boycott Greenidge in google, you'll get several hits, but not sure which ones will qualify as 'good' references. Tintin 15:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tintin1107: Thanks but I'm not sure many of the sources would qualify WP:RS. Hence, I'm removing the "record" claim. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support another good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great list for a great cricketer. My only suggestion would be to change the "as of 2014" to "as of May 2014" because 2014 hasn't ended yet but that's my own personal preference and wouldn't impact my support. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Thanks for the support. I've implemented the suggestion to maintain uniformity. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - This nomination is being closed as successful. The article will be promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. Please do not remove the FLC template from the talk page; the bot will do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 23:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is one of a series of Anatomical terminology lists that I would like to nominate. These articles are viewed by several hundred thousand people a year, and are one of the more important article's under the scope of WP:ANATOMY. I've tried very hard to make this readable and easily-understood, and would value not only any feedback on FL nomination but on how readily understood the article is, as I plan to nominate the other articles in the future. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation 2 is a mess - it seems you're doing "name, job", so you need to a) put a semicolon between positions, b) keep the job title capitalization consistent, c) fix the ". /copy", d) you abruptly shift into name job at the end, e) Willert has no first name, and f) this is the only citation that you don't have as lastname, firstname

 Question: I myself am still a little confused on this. I'd be very grateful if you could point me somewhere that tells me how to get this right, or fix this. I'd like to get this fixed and have tried but it may need some work.--LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your use case is just too complicated to try to use the last, first fields; I've instead moved it all into the "author" field, which allows whatever free text you want. --PresN 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely sure how to format this citation - for example, I don't think it's standard to note the role of editors, nor to provide the proofreaders and illustrators. Should I remove these, and leave only the list of editors in the order they were given, without noting their status? --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go either way, but I do agree that it would be more standard to just put the editors' names (and probably not the assistant editors) into the "editors" field. (or alternately, split them all into editor1-last/editor1-first, etc.) --PresN 00:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - there's a point outstanding, but I'm comfortable supporting now since it's just moving a reference around. --PresN 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. This is a good article and I found the definitions generally clear. My queries are mainly on prose.

I've made a number of basic changes to this: removing the spaces before refs, moving pp. to p. for single pages in the citations etc.

• "Motion, or the process of movement": the first two links in the opening line both point to disambig pages
  •  Done Redirected one, and removed the other. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Of greatest concern, there are a number of paragraphs or sentences that do not carry citations. As a general rule of thumb, each para needs to end with a citation. Thus, in the first para of the Classifications of motion section, the following is not supported by any sources:

"Additionally, motion may be divided into gross motion, affecting the large joints (such as legs, arms, and torso), and fine movements, which describe those made by the fingers, toes, feet or wrist. The study of movement is known as kinesiology, and a categoric list of movements of the human body and the muscles involved can be found at list of movements of the human body."

This happens throughout the page, leaving many statements unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll address this shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I will address your comments today or remove the offending statements. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --LT910001 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, SchroCat. I wasn't sure whether these statements were one of the types (direct quotes, bibliographic information, contentious statements likely to be challenged), but I have erred on the side of caution and cited them all. I've also standardised the phraseology ("For example, ..."). Because this is Anatomy, many of the sources have labelled pictures, so I am often describing what is in the image, or providing an analagous situation. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've made a couple more tiny formatting tweaks, largely in the sources section: now happy to support. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the users for their comments. It's now two and a half months since nomination, and three users have voiced their support, with none opposing. Is there a way to conclude this review? --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was planning on doing it after coming home from my trip, but I can fit this in now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delegate's Comment - This list has been promoted. There may be a delay waiting for the bot to close the nomination. Please do not edit the article history template or remove the FLC template; the bot will do that automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crisco 1492, it's been 5 days now. Is it usual to have a delay of this length? --LT910001 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... I'll check to see if the bot has been active. This is not the only delayed nom, sadly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So... how's it going, Crisco 1492? Perhaps this can be done manually? --LT910001 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the bot is being silly again. I have RL work to do, but perhaps Hahc21 has the time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) [4]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk), TriiipleThreat (talk), Fandraltastic (talk), and Richiekim (talk)

I am nominating this article for a featured list. The content of this page was previously placed on the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, and while there, was awaiting GA review. A decision between these editors decided to split the list content off, before the GA review started, so I am nominating this content here to be considered for a Featured list. All nominators have worked hard to get this content to where it is today. Please note, as I mentioned, that this content was split off from Marvel Cinematic Universe, and history edits for this content would be on that page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I worked on a similar list (even if the Marvel one covers parts me and the others put on other articles due to size concerns), and this is well-done enough to both stand on its own and earn a star. igordebraga ≠ 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, Fandraltastic and Richiekim, more than two weeks have passed without much progress. I request you invite more users to review the article before the FAC is stalled. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DWB

• Having read the article through I think it's a fairly solid ground work, good info, good overview. Not too keen on the scrolling cast list but as I cannot think of any possible alternative for that number of cast, it appears to be the best solution for that situation. I will say I think the lead needs to focus less on who paid to send copies of the film to cinemas and more on the phases/development/notable info and the critical/financial reception (overall, can't go into individual detail obviously), but aside from it being the second highest-grossing franchise, have the films broken any other records individually that makes some of them more notable than others?

Yes, given the amount of the films, the scrolling cast list is the best option. I will work on changing up the lead a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, while this wouldn't prevent me supporting it, for future development, prose may be better than RT/MC scores, again not going into the same level of detail about each individual film as would be on their articles, but a brief overview of just what kind of reception was received. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea behind not having prose, was that readers could go to individual articles for more indepth insight. But I'll look into this. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

1. In the "Box office performance" section you break down the income into US and International. That's a bit too US-centric for the majority of the world! Perhaps "US" and "Non-US" would suit.
2. I have not checked, but are the figures you're giving definatley just the US, or do they also cover Canada as well, which is what a number of the sites tend to do?
3. You've also managed to incude one of my all-time hated elements: "Domestic". That's too misleading - domestic to who? (I also note this is linked to the US and Canada list, so you need to make the labels more clear)
4. The column sort on the films should sort The Incredible Hulk under I, not T.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer to 1 and 2) Well the info is considered "Domestic" and "Foreign" at Box Office Mojo, so I believe Canada is included in the first number.

So a) why do we have US if it's US and Canada? B) Why are we slavishly following BOM, when it's a US-facing site, rather than the multi-national Wiki? - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Domestic appears to be the common vernacular in the film industry to discuss the North American (US and Canada) box office, as I've gathered from the inline sources here.

"Common vernacular" isn't encyclopaedic, and I strongly suggest you tweak this to reflect our international readership. To me "domestic" shows UK sales, not US! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, have you asked yourselves the benefit of the false split between having a column for the US and Canada and another for the rest of the world? (And a third for total of the two?) have you thought about just having an international column? Your call on the number of columns, but the labelling does need to be a bit tighter. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first column can be changed to North American and also "All-time North American". And since these are American films, it would make sense to use the American BOM source. I would expect international films to use reputable sources from their country of origin to cite the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've grasped what I've said: I've not suggested using a different source, I've suggested using different terminology. "North American" is good, but the "International" isn't: international means worldwide, not just things outside the US. My second point was also why do you have this false split between N Am and the rest of the world? - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"North America" and "Outside North America" should work.----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The films originate from the US and the numbers are commonly reported with this split, so I wouldn't necessarily call it false. You'll often open up a journal or an article and see a mention of Avengers making $600 million, so I think our readers would want to see those same numbers. Also I'm not sure about the "North America" labels, as the domestic numbers do not include Mexico. Maybe we could use BOM's "domestic" and "international" labels, and include notes at the bottom indicating exactly who those are referring to? I can't think of an ideal alternative. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go for domestic and international then I'll swap my comment to oppose, as they would be grossly misleading, note or no note. If you are going to keep the false split, try "US/Canada" and "non-US/Canada". (I'll stick to calling to false - and you should just try reading what you've written: to paraphrase, "it's not false because these US films are shown with their US and Canadian box office figures". The logic escapes me on that!) I've also not seen anything saying Avengers made $600 mill: the things I read focus on $1.5 bn. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's "US/Canada" and "Outside US/Canada" then?----TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 19:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inaccurate paraphrasing and I don't necessary appreciate the implications therein. I did note that they are US films and that listing their US gross makes sense (in the same way we list the US release date, country of origin). But my main point was that the numbers are covered extensively with that split. And we must be reading different things, I read a number of things that focus on the 600 million number. In fact a quick google search would return you thousands of results. Actually, I think the best solution would be to remove the middle column entirely, that's the one whose title causes issues and its focus on "everywhere but the US" seems arbitrary. Would two columns, "United States and Canada" and "Worldwide" work for you? -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inaccurate, and there are certainly no implications. US films with US gross may make sense in some circumstances: US films with US and Canadian grosses doesn't. That's where the logic fails. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately this is the best we have to work with. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is also an option, although I think some (not a tremendous amount) readers might wonder if the worldwide includes the United States and Canada despite the title. Is "other" or "other markets" viable? If not, maybe the two-column solution is best.--TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be misleading: worldwide is worldwide. Why not go with "US/Canada" and "Outside US/Canada"? - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. How's that? -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: all good for a support now. I may have been being pedantic about the titles, but there are people outside the US who will look to "domestic" as being their own territory, rather than anything else. As the colums relate to a specific set of two countries, it may as well say that clearly at the top to remove any doubt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Small point. I have to agree with TriipleThreat; for some deranged reason Hollywood counts Canada as part of the "Domestic" market, probably for the same reason the "National Hockey League" or "National Basketball Association" have Canadian teams. As "Domestic" is the industry standard (yeah, it's yucky, but it's what one would expect to see), it may be reasonable to use that, with a footnote regarding how "Domestic" is defined in Hollywood. Sources can be something like this. Nevertheless, "US/Canadian" is acceptable... just feels clunky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 16:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What makes linking this nomination in your signature not canvassing? I count almost 100 incoming links from such varied pages as Wikipedia:Files for deletion, Talk:Untitled Man of Steel sequel, and several user talk pages. I doubt many, if any, of these people expressed interest in the nomination previously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how this is canvassing. I am not influencing the outcome of this discussion, or doing it in a way to stack the outcome in anyway. The link is there in my sig, and any one can chose to come to this discussion. I'm not forcing it on people. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC)

• My issue is that this nomination has been spread through about a hundred pages, and is not intended to draw "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics); Editors known for expertise in the field; Editors who have asked to be kept informed". Further, Wikipedia:CANVASSING#Appropriate_notification classes such wide-spread notifications as "Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")" and terms it inacceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone can wander here of their own free will, the link neither forces people to come nor spend time commenting, it merely prevents the nomination, like so many others, dying a death through basic apathy caused by it being advertised only in a singular space. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Says the editor with a link practically begging for a GA review in his/her signature. You do realize that spamming does not necessarily require people to actually follow the link, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk)

I will admit that these links also make me feel a little uncomfortable. It may not have been the original motive in adding the link (which I am sure was in good faith), but canvassing/spamming does seem to be one of the results. I'm not sure that saying "the link is there, people don't have to follow it" avoids the issue: that's the same situation as with any canvassing or spamming. Can I strongly suggest that you remove these links from the signatures, if only because the reasons for which they were added could be misconstrued. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that I have brought up this issue (whether or not such links should be allowed) at WP:AN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favre1fan93, the AN discussion has closed with a consensus that signatures linking to these discussions are disruptive. Would you please remove the link to this nomination from your signature? I will discuss with the other delegates whether or not the signature taints this nomination too much for it to be promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the discussion and removed as requested. However, I don't see how this has tainted the nomination. If we got an influx of users commenting, then I'd say maybe. I don't remember exactly when the sig change occurred, but I think since it was, only yourself and SchroCat joined the discussion (and Nergaal below). SchroCat started a worthwhile discussion regarding some labels on the page, and Nergaal I guess too. So how did those two contributors taint this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That it did not have a noticeable effect does not necessarily mean it was not tainted. I've asked others to comment at the FLC talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really a list or is an article instead? Nergaal (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly think it falls into the list category. A series of one or two para sub-sections about a long string of films falls into the list area, I think. If there had been more text per section then the distinction becomes a bit more blurred, but I'm happy that the FAC co-ordinators would turn this down on the basis of this being too "listy", whereas FL co-ords are happy to examine and accept it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One could compare this to, say, List of chronometers on HMS Beagle or Description of the Western Isles of Scotland, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those two have very obvious tables. This one has only 2 ones which are not really overwhelming. And the "List of" can be dropped from the title regardless if this ends up going to FL or FA. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tables do not equal lists. As with many list pages, the words "List of" can happily be dropped without diminishing the fact that this is a list, rather than article. As an editor (and the nominator of the similar List of James Bond films) I can see this as being a list; as a FL delegate I am also happy this falls into the list category. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's Note - This list has been promoted, though there may be a delay while the bot runs through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list so that I can develop a consistent discography style for Japanese music pages. Since I began editing the page in December 2013 it has been very stable (well, as stable as a currently releasing musician's discography can be), and I believe it satisfies the criteria! Prosperosity (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prosperosity has used the Oricon database and other reliable and relevant charts extensively to reference the sales figures, rankings, and certifications to vastly improve the article. I have worked on editing this list article, and can attest to its stability in comparison to many of the other J-pop discographies. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a good list and a pleasure to work with an editor who wants the best out if. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very well written and presented. All my support for feature content. Daan0001 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list, everything's sourced and laid out neatly. Ryoga (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 12:35, 22 May 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Mediran (t • c) 13:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Here again nominating another list which I believe is of featured quality. I have redeveloped the article mainly based on List of The Simpsons guest stars, which is the only featured guest star list here on en.wiki. The main table lists all the guest stars who have appeared on the show. The list-article also details how the crew casts familiar voices. I welcome any comments, suggestions, and others. Thanks in advance. Mediran (t • c) 13:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems exhaustive and well referenced! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your c/es and support! :) — Mediran (t • c) 03:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems alright. Good work. Holiday56 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tweaked to remove "convincements", as I'm not sure this is right in any language. (Even if it is passable in AmEng, I'm not sure it should be used).
• Who are Brad Abrell, Steve Kehela and The Capsules? If they are not notable enough to have their own articles on Wiki, how can they be classed as guest stars?
• If you so create a page for The Capsules to justify their inclusion, you need to change the sort on their name: they should sort under C, not T.
• In the Roles column there are a number which sort under the T of The, rather than the second name (DJ, Chief etc)
• Same column, this should sort on all surnames (Captain Frostymug under F; Dr Marmalade under M; Johnny Krill under K, etc)
• Any reason why the Episode titles don’t sort?

- SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and for fixing that "convincements". Fixed sorting of surnames in the Roles column, those "The", and made Episode title column sortable. Anyway, I think articles that are not yet created do not necessarily mean they're not notable but no one has written them yet. The Capsules are credited in the opening credits, while the two are not. Also, the table lists outsider performers who contributed to the show in addition to the show's regular cast. Other lists like that of The Simpsons also have actors who don't have Wikipedia entries. — Mediran [talk] 07:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of minor tweaks on the names, including red-linking the blank names. One more minor point: you just need to tweak the episodes titles to sort properly (i.e.: not under "The"). It should be the last wrinkle to sort. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat! I think it's done. — Mediran [talk] 11:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good: moving to support now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat! :) — Mediran [talk] 07:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment - This article has been promoted. There may be a delay until the bot closes the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [7]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the format of the other NNL lists that I have recently brought to FLC, with changes based on feedback from those nominations. I look forward to comments! Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• No DABs nor dead links.

• Why do the headers need to be colored?

• You give a broad description of what NNLs are, but what about NNLs specific to Illinois? What flora/fauna make up NNLs in Illinois?

• The coordinate system is not consistent in terms of markup; some use decimals, some do not.

Otherwise, I think this list meets featured status. Thanks for the contribution. Seattle (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! The headers are similarly colored in all National Natural Landmark, National Registered Historic Place, National Historic Landmark, etc. articles (each with their own specific color). To change one, it would be necessary to change them all, and I think this was a color scheme determined by the relevant project, so it would probably need to be discussed there. The entire first paragraph is about the NNLs specific to Illinois, but I have added a sentence on the flora and fauna. To be honest, NNLs are more about the habitats and landforms, rather than the animals/plants themselves. Finally, I have standardized the coordinates. Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seattle, do you have any further comments? Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets featured list requirements. Seattle (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not blown away by the repeat of "National Natural Landmark" in the opening sentence just to get a bold intro.
• You haven't linked Illinois in the opening para of the lead.
• "upland forest" just links to "forest" which is a pretty common term.

• Upland forest redirects to forest, but the forest page doesn't actually mention the term. Suggestions? - DB

• Heron Pond should have an en-dash.
• I don't think tallgrass is hyphenated.

Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've either fixed or replied to everything above. Thanks for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man, is everything addressed to your satisfaction? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I've taken the bold out of the opening line: it's advised against in the MoS (only the full title, not a part of it should be bolded). Nice piece of work, very well put together. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - This list has been promoted. There may be a delay while waiting for the bot to close the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC) [8]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its sister list Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia was promoted to FLC in November 2013, and I believe this list is now at the same standard. These two lists have resulted from a significant amount of work and will contribute to comprehensive coverage of the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia on en WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The level of detail provided on the army units is much less detailed than that on the air units - the article describes the composition of the ground forces only to divisional level, but provides the numbers of aircraft each air unit operated. German armies and corps of this era tended to have large numbers of independent combat units (such as artillery regiments, engineer and other specialist units) directly assigned to them, and I'd suggest that they be included in this order of battle as well. Please note that I'm going to be out of town for a week or so starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to follow up responses to this post in a timely manner - sorry in advance if this causes any problems. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick, to what level might that go? Principal combat manoeuvre and fire support regiments of each division, or down to battalion-size? I think battalion-level is really something for the individual division articles rather than an ORBAT for a campaign. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that you leave the divisions as is without providing detail on their components, but add the independent combat units which reported directly to the corps and army headquarters (and Army group HQ, if appropriate). Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Nick, I've had a look at the detailed 2nd Army ORBAT (to get a sense of what we are looking at), and the direct-command battalion and larger combat units at corps level consisted of significant numbers of motorised artillery battalions, and some pioneer battalions. The Italians also had machine-gun battalions held at corps level. I suggest I add the number of each under each corps rather than listing all the units by full designation. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tend to like lots of detail in OOBs, but that sounds sensible. German corps always seem to have had an extraordinary number of units directly reporting to them. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, no worries, I'll go ahead and add the detail. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nick-D: Done, let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is obvious that a lot of work and effort went into the preparation of this ORBAT, nevertheless a few glitches caught my eye:
  1. The heading for the German ORBAT includes the Waffen-SS. This implies that the Waffen-SS supplied a substantial portion of either the manpower of the invasion forces or of the Waffen-SS itself. However, we are talking about a division and a reinforced regiment, less then 10 per cent of the total force, either way. More so, the SS units were subordinate to Army command and control. Why are they considered on par with the Army?

Not sure I agree with the implication that including them in the section heading means they are on par with the Army, they are listed second for a reason. They were merely another land force component but as they were not formally part of the Army or even the Wehrmacht (despite being under Army control), I've included them after the Army. They actually performed key tasks in the invasion, Reich (for example) captured Belgrade. I do not see what the issue is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. This said, there was no 2nd SS division in 1941. The SS Division Reich was not numbered until October 1943. In April 1941 it was known as SS-Division Reich. Incidentally, No. 1 division, AKA Leibstandarte, was a brigade-size formation at the time at best.

Good point re: Reich, an oversight. Thanks, will fix. Re: LSSAH, yes, I know, but I believe the designation on the ORBAT for it is correct for that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If my sources are correct, LSSAH still used the "traditional" SS-terminology, ie Sturm for COY, Sturmbann for BAT, and Standarte for regiment, in Spring 1941. A 1st Motorized Infantry Regiment LSSAH was not formed until July 1942. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolitely, have changed the name to LSSAH.

• 1. Giving exact numbers on the strength of Luftwaffe units and formations asks for similar information on part of the Army. So far I have found no information on overall strength, number of guns or tanks at all.

I don't necessarily see the correlation between aircraft, guns and tanks. Numbers of aircraft assist in clarifying strength across different aircraft formation types (squadrons, wings, groups etc). Tank and gun numbers not so much (in that respect at least). However, I will see what data is available. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added total German major equipment at the top of that section, haven't been able to find any data on the Italian and Hungarian land forces, although they are far less important in the context of the invasion, as they joined the fight late and had very little impact on the result. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a figure for total number of Italian troops and added it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krzak certainly is a valuable addition. Haven't thought of checking JSMS. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. I have most of the Luftwaffe-related sources at hand, but was unable to verify the translation of Fliegerführer as Air Command. Where does it come from exactly?

Bloody good question, a brainfart by the look of it. Will fix. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. I'm no expert, neither on the Hungarians nor the Italians but the same seems to apply there.

• Have corrected the Italian one to Air Force.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

• The lede mentions three motorized infantry regiments. This refers to LSSAH, Großdeutschland, and Herman Göring, I believe (125 IR was a 3rd line territorial outfit). However, Herman Göring is a) listed as a "Panzer" regiment in the ORBAT and b) was still a AA regiment at the time - at least according to my books (Müller-Hillerbrand II, Tessin XIV).

• Absolutely, the source I used for this information appears to be a bit sloppy on some nomenclature. My understanding from looking at other sources is that the formal name of the regiment at the time was the "General Göring" Regiment, and that it was a motorised flak regiment of the Luftwaffe at that time. I will fix, thanks.

• The ORBAT lists several "Panzer corps". According to Tessin, they were still called "Armeekorps (mot.)" in 1941. The change of name did not occur until July 1942.

• Again, right on the money. It appears that the US Army source has used later designations for a number of formations. I will source and fix these issues. Thanks.

• Subtractive notation is used on German corps throughout. As it is used consistently there is no problem with this. However, most academic sources I have checked, follow the German practice of using non-subtractive notation for the 40-49 range.

• I know non-subtractive Roman numerals is the German pattern, but I have consistently used the English one given this is en WP. Native English speakers that read XXXXV Corps will automatically question it in my experience.

• I miss 60th Motorized Division from the ORBAT. The division should come under XIV corps of the 12th Army.

• Again, thanks. I misread the source. I checked some other sources and the 60th drove through Kosovo.

• May I suggest renaming the chapter "German Army and Waffen-SS" to "German ground forces"? When discussing operations, Waffen-SS units are usually subsumized under "Feldheer", ie the active army. If mentioned in captions, Waffen-SS is usually set in brackets. Apart from that, why not mention the Luftwaffe (Regiment Göring plus several AA units) or - in the Italian section - the MSVN?

• All good points, I'll rename the section heading.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ÄDA - DÄP: Think all the above are done. Let me know what you think and if you have any other comments. It has been great to have someone with the knowledge to identify the flaws. I am going to go through and corroborate formation names used by the US Army source, as it is clearly a bit off in that respect. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me now. Great job. I am glad, I was of assistance. Only one question remains: Under German Air Force, it says “Fliegerführer Graz was commanded by Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Karl Christ, commander of the 3rd Dive Bomber Wing (German: Sturzkampfgeschwader 3, StG 3).” It is my understanding, that Fliegerführer was no command position as such, but just another hat of Col. Christ's, much like Geschwaderkommodore. Maybe you could find a way to express that more clearly. No big deal, though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shores and Cull state that both the Fliegerfuhrer's were under command of the respective Kommodore StG. They were both the ranking officers in the dive bomber wings, makes sense that they would be put in charge to ensure they had proper fighter cover. It was an intermediate grouping, much like a kampfgruppe, so just designating the senior officer as commander makes sense. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have not been clear on this. What I was trying to say was: As the Kommodore StG was at the same time the Fliegerführer, he would have to order himself around. But that is just my German point of view. If English-language sources consider Fliegerführer to be the formation, rather than the person, then all is fine. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good work. The only thing that may, emphasis on may, require checking if some of the tables require row scope to be fully WP:ACCESS compliant. I enjoyed the read MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Not at all sure that I regard Nafziger as a RS. I bought some of his self-published material back before he donated it to CARL and found that it didn't always match the material in Tessin, which is pretty much the gold standard for German OB material. That said I suspect that its probably OK for divisional-level units here, but some of the non-divisional stuff may be wrong. I'd suggest referencing Leo Niehorster's OB website [9] which does show some differences, especially in the engineer units. Forex, there were three bridging battalions, plus a road battalion under the 677. Pionier Rgt., assigned directly to the 2nd Army itself; not two bridging battalions. And XL Corps (mot.) doesn't have a bridging battalion, but rather six separate bridging columns. Niehorster is RS having published extensively on German OBs. Using Tessin, if you have access, would be best, of course.

• I wish I had access to Tessin, but sadly it isn't easy to track down. I have found Nafziger slightly lumpy at times, but don't necessarily consider him non-RS. One of the key issues is the date of the ORBAT, because a flick of the pen could allocate a battalion or regiment from here to there as deployments progressed and tasks were allocated. Nafziger's ORBAT is 1 April, Niehorster's is 5 April. Getting ready for this invasion was a very rushed job, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if both ORBATs were correct on their respective dates. Granted, Niehorster's is closer to D-Day than Nafziger, and that would be a reason to re-look at the sourcing or make some notes about re-allocation of troops. Having looked at Niehorster's website, I'm a bit confused about the idea that the three bridging battalions were "under" Headquarters 677th Pioneer Regiment, if that is what you mean. In my experience of military wire diagrams, if they were "under" the regimental HQ, the wire diagram would connect them to the regimental HQ, not directly to 2nd Army. My reading of that page of Niehorster is that the supporting "engineer" elements of 2nd Army were Headquarters 677th Motorised Pioneer Regiment, and the 7th, 548th and 577th Bridging Battalions, ie a Regimental HQ and three battalions. The relationship between the regimental HQ and the three battalions is not a command one (so far as the wire diagram indicates, at least). Nafziger has HQ 677th under LI Corps and 548th Bridging Battalion under XLVI Corps, and it is quite possible they were re-allocated between 1 and 5 April. Thoughts? Peacemaker67

(send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly possible; only archival data or unit histories on these units would say if they'd transferred between commands between the 1st and 5th. I looked through my copy of Tessin at these non-divisional units and was unpleasantly reminded how lacking it was regarding these low-level, non-combat arms units. It's been years since I needed to use it and I'd forgotten how it really only focused on divisions and above, other than formation dates for the smaller units. The command relationship between the engineer regiments/staffs is often unclear in the OB diagrams I've seen from the captured records. Typically they're all listed under a higher HQ without specifying exact command relationships, presumably to give the higher commander flexibility in controlling them as he saw fit. If you want to list the battalions, that would be fine. I can give you the Army structures as of 5 April from Tessin if you'd like as a cross-check, but that only goes down to the divisional level. I'd still replace Nafziger, though, across the board, if only for the difference in dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm much more relaxed about using Niehorster in preference to Nafziger based on using a consistent date (ie the air ORBATs in Shores et al are as at 5 April too) than because of issues with the reliability of Nafziger. I'll start adjusting them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Shores, et al, should allow you to replace all of Nafziger's air OBs.

• Again, not sure it is necessary, but I will look to compare the two to make sure there aren't any discrepancies, and will thin out Nafziger as much as possible.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are using him mostly as a reinforcing cite and is less than critical to your sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I will where I can. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the only place where he's irreplaceable is the Italian Army OBs. If there's a volume of the Italian Offical History that cover the invasion, that would probably be the only thing that would trump him that I can think of off hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the German non-divisional units were independent, but would fall under higher-level HQs like regiments for specific operations and/or tasks. If one of these regiments is present, I'd suggest not tracking the battalions.

• See my point about regimental HQ and battalions, but I will start checking Niehorster. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Really don't like the term "direct command". How about something like "Y Corps was supported by three motorised artillery battalions and an engineer regiment". Alternatively I'd add another column to the tables, list them there, and bypass the whole issue.

• Have dropped it out and been more generic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to 1st Panzer Group in the lede.

• Done. Actually to 1st Panzer Army, which I believe is the relevant article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fliegerführers, from what I understand, coordinated/commanded the activities of their type of aircraft across multiple units in a given area. Depending on the situation, they were not necessarily Gruppenkommandeur, but did command entire Geschwader if deployed in their area. IIRC, Luftflotte 2 and 3 each had a single Jagdfliegerführer in charge of all of their fighter units during the Battle of Britain.

• My understanding was that a Fliegerführer was essentially a designated commander for a groups of air units operating from one area performing a specific task, not just one type of aircraft. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that depended on the situation. On the Eastern Front they were often more of a geographical commander, usually below the Fliegerkorps level, but sometimes they were type commanders like I mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that here they were specific task oriented regional groupings below Fliegerkorps level, so I don't see the issue with how they are currently identified. Can you clarify what the issue is? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have put this under ÄDA - DÄP VA's point above about the Fliegerführers. No other reason, really.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got pictures of pretty airplanes, but how about some of troops, tanks, ships or artillery pieces involved?

• Working on it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ships were almost irrelevant, but I will add some more land force pics. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd delete Scutts, Luftwaffe OB research has come a long way since the '70s, especially since you're only using it once as a reinforcing cite.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the squadron IDs for the Hungarian AF, with their types of aircraft, available, although numbers are not given in my source.
• AFAIK, the He 112s were never assigned to a combat unit as they were bought for evaluation purposes. Link Ca.135. You missed some Heinkel He 70 recon aircraft, and the Re 2000s weren't yet operational.
  • I thought my source was a bit more than it actually was, so disregard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd hesitate to call the Z.506 a naval bomber; it was a long-range reconnaissance aircraft that could carry bombs.
  • Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Shores, Cull and Malizia call it a "bomber floatplane", so I'm sticking with it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then use that phrasing; naval bomber is not one I've ever seen used before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Make sure that you're linking aircraft on first use.
• It seems kinda redundant to specify bombers, etc. being assigned to a bomber unit, but that's a minor point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is quite a bit of work to convert from Nafziger to Neihorster (which I've started), and there are some things that will need to be compared and contrasted in the text (the command status of G-H Reinhardt's corps, for example differs between Niehorster and other sources). I'll be working on these changes over the weekend, but ANZAC Day is beckoning, so not much will get done tonight or tomorrow my time. I plan to get it sorted out in the next few days though. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Take whatever time you need. According to Tessin, XXXXI Corps (mot.) belongs to 1st Panzer Group and does not control XI Corps. 60th ID (mot.) is controlled by XIV Corps (mot.) XI Corps is controlled by 12th Army with 76th and 198th IDs. I have unit histories of a couple of these divisions and dig further if you want me to. 12th Army also controls 1st Panzer Group.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking for some corroboration, I've struck a bit of a conflict between Neihorster and Schreiber, Stegemann and Vogel (Vol 3 of Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg), p. 491 with respect to the 2nd Army ORBAT. Schreiber et al explicitly states that the 169th and 197th Infantry Divisions (and a number of other formations) were planned as reserves, but their transport to the Balkans was stopped on 12 April. It is clear neither division actually participated in the invasion, so I'm not going to list them. I will add a note to that effect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tessin lists 79th, 168th, and 197th as z. Vfg. which basically means arriving or scheduled to do so. A note is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck another glitch with Neihorster on the Italian VI Corps. The divisions listed are completely different from all other sources, and the 18th Infantry Division Messina is listed as part of both the VI Corps of the 2nd Army (Italy) and the XVII Corps of the 9th Army (Albania). Have emailed Neihorster to see if it can be clarified. For the moment, I'm going to stay with Nafziger on the VI Corps divisions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And another with the 32nd Division Marche listed under both XIV Corps and XVII Corps (both in Albania). Again, I'm sticking with Nafziger on the divisional allocations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd contact Leo and ask him about the discrepancy. He's very good about correcting things if he's messed something up, in my experience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did, and he's now uploaded the corrected version, it was apparently an oversight. I've now replaced Nafziger completely, and have been able to removed quite a few of the older refs as well. I still have a little tidying up to do, and a couple of notes to add, will probably be done in a day or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I think I'm done. Let me know if there are any further points that need clarifications etc. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hate to tell you this, but a single generic link to Niehorster is insufficient. Link to the actual page used as a reference. I'll add the more detailed info on the Hungarian AF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You translate "Luftwaffe" at least twice - the second is redundant.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are some terms given in German/Italian and translated to English and others are in the opposite order? Especially for relatively common German words like Luftwaffe. It reads very oddly for things like "commander of the German Army (German: Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres) Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal)"
  • Yep, a bit of that crept in. Unnecessary really. The trick is deciding which are common words and which need explication, which varies a lot in my experience. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lately I've opted to translate everything, because even though it might be obvious to me that (in my context) Vizeadmiral means Vice Admiral, the average reader might not know that. It's an editorial judgement, really, but I would prefer using the native language first (especially for things like the Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, since readers might have run into acronyms like OKH or OKW elsewhere before, and it could be useful to have - for instance, I've frequently used this construction in my articles: "Reichsmarineamt (RMA—Imperial Navy Office)" since the office is commonly abbreviated as the RMA in English sources). It's of course up to your discretion, but I'd prefer if the formatting is standardized (so either "English (German)" or "German (English)"), if that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Any information on specifics for the Hungarian Air Force? Or what specific naval units supported the invasion (either the specific names of the 3 destroyers or the other naval forces)? Or the X Air Corps? Having just a couple of lines for each section without a box gives the reader the impression that the list is incomplete/under construction, and that's not the impression we should be giving with featured content.
  • Well, there are several things at play here. I had a list of aircraft for the Hungarian Air Force, but pulled it because it was for the whole air force, there were a couple of accuracy issues, and there were no figures available for just those formations that flew in support of the invasion. In fact, Shores, Cull and Malizia don't even list the Hungarian air assets, and barely mention what aircraft they operated in support of the invasion. I will add what detail they do provide though. The naval aspects are almost irrelevant. There were no naval actions, nearly every Yugoslav ship of all sizes was captured at anchor. I have not been able to locate a source for the names of the three destroyers that were apparently used, but there is no mention of any action by them during the invasion, which probably explains why. Likewise with the Hungarians, we do know the designations of some Fliegerkorps X units that actually flew sorties, but listing all their units would give the wrong impression, as they were still heavily committed to Malta convoy work in Sicily, and most of their assets were sent back in the first few days of the invasion.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Have added the Hungarian Air Force information from Shores et al. Still have the hunt down the refs to the FkX units. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added what I could find that definitely were involved. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the information is spotty. I had hoped Chronology of the War at Sea might reference the three destroyers (it's usually pretty good for that sort of thing), but no luck. It did mention a couple of Italian submarines that were involved in operations in the Adriatic - see page 67 - Salpa, Medusa, and Jalea. I'll dig some more and see what I can come up with.
        • As for FkX, could you make it clearer that they didn't play much of a role in the invasion? I'd include basically what you told me here, that most of their assets were still committed to convoy operations in the central Med. And for the two fighter units, you could add them to a table.
          • I've searched for any more on the FkX units, nada. I think given there are only two identified units, I'll leave it as prose. Have added info about Malta and a citation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-158-0094-33, Balkan, Spähpanzer der Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler.jpg might be a good addition to the "12th Army" section.
  • Added. I've also added a couple to the Hungarians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately we need a source for the Ca. 135bis photo - you might consider replacing it with one of the nice photos in the article Fiat CR.42. That reminds me - an image review is needed here. See below.
      • As suggested. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of images, why is the Regia Aeronautica section the only one with a gallery of equipment types used? And it struck me as rather odd that the photo of the Ju87 is in the Italian section and not the German. I'd say either add them for all or remove the Italian one.
  • I've spread them out in the Italian section instead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps I'm a little OCD but I'd rather that all of the tables in a category be identical (mainly, I'm talking about how some include staging location but others don't - one can merge all of the boxes in a table if all units staged out of a single area so they're not repeated. And the others that have duplicates can be merged as well - for example, the locations for the last two rows of the 2nd Army table can be combined.
  • I don't think the identical tables thing is necessary. The tables are like that because that's all they need to include. I've kept the boxes separate so it is clear, for example, which aircraft belonged to which Group or Wing. I can't think of a good reason to make them all the same unless they had the same content.
• A minor point, but I'd redlink the names for commanders who don't yet have articles. Flag officers are almost always notable and these men will more than likely have articles at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I've now redlinked the 2-stars and above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images, in addition to the problem I mentioned above about the Ca. 135bis photo:

• File:StukaRA.jpg - the GNU license is incorrect, it should be {{PD-Italy}} - under Italian copyright law, simply photographs are only protected for 20 years after creation.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:VittorioAmbrosio.jpg - needs a source, any source will do
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Ludwig Kubler.jpg - this is almost certainly a German photo, not a Polish one (I don't know how many Poles were running around taking photos of German generals during the war ;), and is almost certainly still copyrighted in Germany (and thus the US).
  • I've replaced Kubler, can you have a look? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else checks out. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've made a couple of brief copy-edits to this article. Overall, it looks very good and has been greatly improved since it was first nominated. Good job. 23 editor (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:07, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [10]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard magazine to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why was the first FL nomination closed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody commented on it. Erick (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comments: There are several red links in this list. If there is no article to the list, then it should not be linked.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and updated with 2014 nominees. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that red links should not be linked? According to WP:RED, red links encourage creation of articles. Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 and Premio Lo Nuestro 2014 should be linked and created. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's inconsistent in the Year column now of what is linked: the year or the order. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

• Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
  • I am specifically talking about WP:DTAB when it comes to WP:ACCESS. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still do not understand what do you mean, can you give me an example? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of what the award winners are wearing is not in context with the article. For example, the alt text of the Isabel Pantoja image should only be "Isabel Pantoja performing". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• América Sierra is not sorted properly.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Surprised "Lo Nuestro Award" is not linked in the prose in the lead somewhere.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "award" is used three times in the opening two sentences, twice in the first, a little repetitive.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The nominees and winners were originally selected by a voting poll " where are the nominees for 1989, 1990 and 1994? And what does "for the majority of the years awarded" mean? The info isn't available? There were no nominees?"

We do not have the references for the nominees, I even send emails to Univision without any response. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: The good news is that we now have the complete nominations thanks John M Baker and User:Gamaliel from the Resource Exchange for providing the article with the nominations that were other wise paywalled. Erick (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the present time" see WP:ASOF.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "by the audience through an online survey" surely just "through an online survey" or are only the "audience" allowed to vote?

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tierra de Nadie " is a dablink.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Check all non-English-language refs have a language parameter, e.g. ref 3 should have Spanish somewhere in it.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American network Univision." → "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American television network Univision at the Lo Nuestro Awards."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was first awarded in 1989 and has been given annually since." → This is repetitive using "annually" again. Suggest removing this sentence and just adding in 1989 to this sentence "The award was first presented to Desde Andalucía by Spanish singer Isabel Pantoja.".

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey." → "However, since 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "for the most awards, winning on three occasions each" → "for the most wins, with three each"

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively for Aries (1994) and Segundo Romance (1995), with both earning also the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance." → "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively in 1994 for Aries and in 1995 for Segundo Romance; both albums also earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively, and both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance with Maná receiving the award." → "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year accolade was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively. Both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance, with Maná receiving the award."

Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Supernatural by Mexican-American band Santana also won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year." → Why exactly is this mentioned in the lead? It's the only mention of the album in the lead.

It is mentioned in the lead because the Grammy Award for Album of the Year is one of the most important music award, and Supernatural is the only "Latin" album that received the accolade along with the Lo Nuestro Award. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? In the preceding sentence "Spanish band La 5ª Estación, and Mexican groups Camila, Maná, Pandora, RBD, and Sin Bandera are the only musical ensembles to receive the accolade." You can throw in Santana throw and mention the Grammy Album of the Year accolade like saying "the latter group received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year" or something like that. Erick (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Status (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

• I'm not the biggest fan of the "Winners and nominees" table. Is there any particular reason why this style was chosen? I've seen many different ways to do these sorts of tables, and I like Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album the most.

I think this table is easier to navigate. I also took several LGA list to FL status, with another template, but for this award I tried something different. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm not personally a fan of that format, but that doesn't have anything to do with the FLC criteria. It's always nice to try things differently sometimes. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not very convinced on why the "Multiple wins/nominations" table is needed.

Most award related lists include the wins and nominations table, that's the main reason to have it here. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Status (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! I will give my support once the one remaining issue is amended. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

• Some external links that need to be corrected.
• If 2013 and 2014 don't have their own articles, I don't think that need to be redlinked in the table.
• Maybe instead of "Multiple wins/nominations", this title could be reworked as "Multiple wins and nominations"?

And that is pretty much it, since the list is already in very good shape. I trust that you will address my comments as necessary, and am happy in giving my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the above comments. Erick (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not the table I'd use but it works, so I won't be picky about it. Everything else looks good. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Erick (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Oh, there seems to be a dead link. Other than that, everything looks all right. You guys have done an excellent job finding the sources. – DivaKnockouts 12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind review, we already replaced that link. Cheers! Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great job! - DivaKnockouts 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you do realise that this currently isn't listed at FLC at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not know. Erick (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Blasted Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [11]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Both Santana (2006) and Cabrera (2012) are the only award winners to also earn the pitching and batting Triple Crown, respectively, in the same season" - pretty sure the "both" isn't needed here
• "The date marks both the feast [....] as well as the anniversary of Aparicio's professional debut" - is "both....as well as" valid in AmEng? In BrEng we would say "both....and"

Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed both comments. Thanks for the review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as my concerns have been addressed. C679 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-closing support Just noticed this nomination existed. Whoops. I took a look at the page before coming to the review page and I concur that this currently meets FL criteria. Well done! – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 4 May 2014 [12].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2007 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Please note that some references were retrieved via Internet Archive.--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Winners are listed first and highlighted in boldface.[20]"—No they aren't...—indopug (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Changed to "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double-dagger (‡)."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good as usual. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All good! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job, once again.--Jagarin 03:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Great list!--Earthh (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [13]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it garnered much support votes last time but wasn't passed due to it being archived early. It's a great list, very informative and accurate. It exposes a side of world history that few may know about. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is high quality and appears to meet the requirements for an FL. --1ST7 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems quite extensive and well referenced. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "fate" bar under the "Notable deportees" section reads along the lines of "Killed", "Survivor" and "Died". I suggest you change "Survivor" to "Survived" throughout for consistency. 23 editor (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @23 editor: I appreciate your suggestion. As you may know, the definition of the words died and killed are different. The column is already consistent in the sense that those who were killed (murdered) are labeled as such and that those who died (i.e. illness, fatigue, and etc.) are labeled as such as well. I think the reader would be interested in determining and differentiating who was deliberately killed or who just happened to have died. That's important in genocide studies since the deliberate attempt to murder is often viewed as an evidential consequence of any genocide. I believe the Armenian Genocide is no exception in that regard. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and re-read your comment, I don't think you understand what I said. I'm talking about "Survivor" and "Survived" (the references to "Killed" and "Died" were putting my statement into context). "Survivor" is a noun, while "Survived" is a verb. "Killed" and "died" are also verbs, and there should be a consistency in the list. We can't be mixing these things around :). Other than that, it's a great list and I'm happy to support provided this issue is resolved. 23 editor (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor: Oh boy, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes I'll fix that right away. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor:  Done Sorry once again for the misunderstanding. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Again, I'll reiterate my support for FA promotion. Good job! All the best, 23 editor (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I supported the last nomination where I did a large review, and I see no changes that I find objectionable, so I'll support again. --PresN 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:46, May 4, 2014 (UTC) [14]

Nominator(s): Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL requirements. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After this, you have my support! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]