Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2015

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 21:10, 31 May 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Krimuk90 (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk)

Meryl Streep needs no introduction, so I won't be giving one. :) This is a listing of all her notable stage and screen appearances, and is my first work beyond Indian films. Dr. Blofeld and I look forward to constructive criticism. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Two final points: "Ethel Rosenberg" could be wikilinked, and "The Woman" needs to sort under W rather than T. Otherwise, great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Both done. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Pretty nice work: Doctor and Krimuk. I think that centering the references in the table make them look better. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent work and very informative list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrankBoy and Birdienest. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• Alan J. Pakula should be sorted under P.
• Also the refs could be centred.
• For book sources, maintain consistency in dates. Some only have a year. Also they should be listed in alphabetical order of the author's last name.

--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skr15081997 Done. The full date is provided for the book sources, where available. If not, only the year is mentioned. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My comments have been resolved. Excellent list and the images are like gems to it. Deserves to be FL.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Skr. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2015 (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) 21:34, 31 May 2015 (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 21:10, 31 May 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is modelled from PCA Player of the Year, which looks like it will be an FL soon. The most noticeable difference is that this list includes international appearances of the award winners in the list. This is a statistic often mentioned alongside this prize, and reflects amongst others, the presentation given in Wisden, so I think the inclusion of the appearances is justified, though it does mean I will have to put more work in to keep the list up to date! As I mentioned, I have an FLC open at the moment, but it has received significant support and has no outstanding concerns. As always, all critique will be welcomed. Harrias ^talk 12:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • In the key, to the left of the yellow box, I can see some small text that says "see tfm" - is that meant to be there?
    • It's because the template is nominated for a merge at the moment. Don't think there is anything I can do about it until that's done, one way or the other. Harrias ^talk 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rows for current players look a little odd with all the cells yellow except for the player's name. I realise this is something to do with row scopes, but is it possible to use the colour in any other way, such that we don't wind up with one odd non-coloured cell on an otherwise all coloured row? Just a thought
    • @ChrisTheDude: Based on Seattle's note above as well, I've tweaked this, how do you find it now? Harrias ^talk 09:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Other than that it all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Miyagawa
• Before I give the full run-down, what is the bracketed information in the international appearances columns (this is just my lack of cricket knowledge I'm afraid)? I ask, because right now the sorting on those columns are making anything with a bracket sort lower than those without - so for instance when sorting by Tests, Ian Bell is above Geoff Boycott. Depending on what those brackets signify, this may need need to have some sort templates inserted to make it appear the other way around. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird, for me the sort gives no preference to either, so whichever was listed first before is listed first after. To be honest, it makes little difference; as noted in the key, that denotes the number of times the player captained England - so the 4 times Boycott did so is contained within his 108 appearances. So they both made 108 appearances, with neither necessarily deserving to be forced to sort higher in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. Just from personal preference I would sort them so that where there are equal numbers, the bracketed ones appear higher. There should only be a couple of instances of that (easiest way to do it is to use the sort template have add a .1 to the ones with brackets so that they get sorted as 141.1 instead of 141, for example). Otherwise it just looks odd from a presentation standpoint. Miyagawa (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Miyagawa: How's that? Harrias ^talk 10:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, that's better. The only other comment I would have leads out of this - it might be a good idea to explain what the brackets are in the key. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Miyagawa: The key already states Number in parentheses indicates number of international appearances as captain. Harrias ^talk 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, missed that! In that case, I Support promotion. Miyagawa (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me —Vensatry _(ping) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support high quality list, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks good to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2015 (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) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (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 13:50, 20 May 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it was modeled after several "award and nominations" lists. The subject is Jorge Drexler, an Uruguayan singer-songwriter, who received the Academy Award among other accolades. I will be watching your comments closely. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my addressed comments on the talk page. Erick (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I think you should remove indiscriminate award (e.g. Shock Awards). Well-sourced list nonetheless. HĐ (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What if I create the article for the Shock Awards?.Javier Espinoza (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of removing the Shock Awards to begin with when the purpose of the list is list every award and nomination the artist received. Erick (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really good work! I also nominated a list recently. It would be great if you could take a look at it and leave some comments here :) Littlecarmen (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Great Job! — DivaKnockouts 23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nicely done, can't find anything to pick at. Best, jona^(talk) 13:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now
• is an Uruguayan singer-songwriter who has received awards and nominations for his contributions to the music industry. - First, it's "a Uruguayan" (it's pronounced with a hard U, according to the Uruguay article). Second, who is he, exactly? You say "his contributions" but don't actually say what they are in the opening sentence.

I expanded the lead to include, please let me know if that is enough. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you don't mention what they are in the opening sentence. It works a bit better now that you include the first album, however.

• He received the first Academy Award awarded to Uruguay for the song "Al Otro Lado del Río", written for the film The Motorcycle Diaries (2005). The track earned the Academy Award for Best Original Song, and received Latin Grammy and World Soundtrack Awards nominations. - I suspect that this could be rewritten to avoid repeating "Academy Award", and to combine the two sentences.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• for the latter album, he won the award for Best Singer-Songwriter Album at the Latin Grammy Awards - when? To do this, I'd include the release years of the four albums mentioned in parentheses.

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The song "Universos Paralelos", performed with Chilean performer Ana Tijoux, earned the singer a second Latin Grammy for Record of the Year. - Again, unclear when this was — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good now. Striking my oppose. I'll promote within a week, if nobody else has done so by then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (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. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (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 21:05, 17 May 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL standards. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment Titles in the tables need to be sorted like you've sorted The Company so that the "the" is ignored and the sort only takes into account the word after. Roles need to be sorted by the character's last name. Dates on refs also need to be month/day/year as he's American so check all are like that. Cowlibob (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. @Cowlibob: Done. I'll get to them ASAP. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 14:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list! Simon (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2015 (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) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (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 06:31, 13 May 2015 [7].

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting list, IMO. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work. Harrias ^talk 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my support (hopefully temporarily) due to the issue raised by the IP editor below. I can't see any justification not to include unusual dismissals in women's international cricket in this list. Harrias ^talk 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why isn't there a column for actual reason of dismissal. Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your point here. You want me to have a "Key" for the items listed in the table? —Vensatry _(ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is covered in the mode column. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead counts hit wicket among the "much rarer" dismissals, but it isn't considered "unusual", and the bowler does get credit. It's also much more common than the unusual dismissals. —Raven42 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "These are regarded as "unusual" ways of dismissals in cricket" - by whom? Is there a reliable source that says that these methods of dismissal are widely considered/referred to as "unusual"?
• "the bowler is denied of any credit" - should just be "denied any credit"
• Second sentence of second paragraph doesn't start with a capital letter
• "six different players were dismissed for "handled the ball"" => "six different players were dismissed for handling the ball"
• "the most common way of an "unusual" dismissal" => "the most common form of "unusual" dismissal"
• "the first player to be dismissed in both the ways" - "the first player to be dismissed in both ways"
• "In international women's cricket, the only instance of a usual dismissal" - should say unusual
• Also, as mentioned above, the lead indicates that there are five "unusual" forms of dismissal, but hit wicket is not included in the list. Either players who were out hit wicket should be included, or else it shouldn't be considered an "unusual" form of dismissal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Raven42: @ChrisTheDude: Good catch! I do agree that hit wicket is a rare dismissal, but unlike others here the bowler is credited with a wicket. I think this fairly distinguishes it from other "unusual modes". Also, their frequency is quite high when compared to other "unusual forms". There have been 154 and 62 occasions in Test and ODIs respectively. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue is that the lead explicitly states that there are five "unusual" dismissals but then only four are used in the article. The lead needs a statement as to why only four of the five are used (and to be honest I think it would need to be something more concrete than just "hit wicket hasn't been included because there have been a lot of them". Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed hit wicket from the lead. According to Wisden Dictionary of Cricket and The Extraordinary Book of SA Cricket, hit wicket is not counted among the unusual dismissals. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should I remove retired out from the list? —Vensatry _(ping) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias, ChrisTheDude, and Raven42: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(ping) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Editor removed all references to women's international cricket from an article supposedly about "international cricket", obviously has problems. THis is why women are driven away from Wikipedia, don't marginalise women's sport. 58.7.156.156 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very well know that women play cricket at all levels – Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Technically speaking, I see a point to include women's cricket stats, after all this list talks about international cricket. But please tell me do we include women's cricket in all articles/lists associated with international cricket. For instance, why is Tendulkar regarded as the first player on the planet to score an ODI double-century when Belinda Clark did that many years ago. Also why is Sri Lanka credited with scoring the highest team total (443) in ODIs when the New Zealand women's cricket team made 455 way back in 1997? If your answer is good enough to convince me, I'll more than happy to include women's cricket stats here. Above all, you should stop campaigning against me. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think in many cases there is sufficient information on women's cricket that we can have separate articles. However, in this case, with just one unusual dismissal in women's international cricket, it does not warrant its own article, and therefore should be included in this one. Harrias ^talk 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Harrias. There's no need for us to have two separate lists for unusual dismissals since there is only 1 record from women's international cricket. Also, the fact that other articles and lists don't include women's cricket isn't a convincing reason. If the scope given by the title and lead of the article don't exclude women's cricket, there's no reason it should be excluded. If that means that other articles need to be fixed (either by clarifying scope or adding women's cricket), then so be it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added —Vensatry _(ping) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Kaldari and Harrias: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(ping) 07:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your new edits look good to me. I can't find any other issues with the list. Kaldari (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a heads up that this is currently an orphaned article/list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kid has now been adopted by four of its relatives. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support - Looks pretty good to me, although it should probably be consistent about whether the refs are in a separate column or not. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kaldari: Done —Vensatry _(ping) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrias, is the current version of the list acceptable to you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, yup, looks good to me now. Harrias ^talk 06:22, 13 May 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2015 (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 01:18, 13 May 2015 [13].

Nominator(s): — Tom^(T2ME) 13:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I worked on it for five months and I really think that it satisfies the featured list criteria. The lead is long, however, here unlike on other lists on Wikipedia that I saw so far we have an artist with a career of 30 years and 150+ recorded songs. I tried to summarize his songs in five paragraphs. The table is well organized with every song marked in color to represent in what language it was recorded. Although I didn't agree (and I still don't), I opened the artists just to have the bronze star because I think this man deserves it. — Tom^(T2ME) 13:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This sentence "After five years part of the band, he left it in 1989; shortly afterwards, he started persuading solo career" - it just reads funny to me. Shouldn't it be "After being with the band for five years, he left it in 1989; shortly there afterwards, he started pursuing a solo career" or something along those lines?
• I'm not loving the photo of Daddy Yankee, only because all the other pictures are clear and have a good resolution and show the artists face well and then his looks out of place and looks blurry and has a small resolution.

That's all I could find that I'd change, I support past that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow thank you Lady Lotus. I copy-edited the sentence per your suggestion and replaced the Yankee picture with the only other one of his available on Wikipedia. I hope it's better. Cheers! — Tom^(T2ME) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better! Good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding accessibility, just using colours to delineate between language versions contravenes ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does that contravene accessibility please tell me? It only helps the list to be honest, especially when we have an artist that records in various languages and not only in English or Spanish or etc. Plus, the colors are nice and not like ones which are used to indicate that the song was a single release, as in this case. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:COLOR. The list you linked gets it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That list is certainly not right. But okay, clearly I have to make a consensus per this rule. What do you suggest? How should I distinguish the language of the songs? Symbols maybe? — Tom^(T2ME) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list you linked certainly gets ACCESS right. That's the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

o.O Nevermind with that list. What do you want me to do with my list? Lorde sings only in English, Martin sings in 4 languages, I certainly want to stress that in the table, what is the point you're making, you sound vague... — Tom^(T2ME) 12:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to familiarise yourself with WP:COLOR. It's really straightforward, the Lorde list is done correctly, using colour and another method of denoting (e.g. symbols), per COLOR. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support  — Calvin999 09:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really do not like the usage of arrows for the Spanish or Portuguese-language records. How about an asterisk (*) for the Spanish recordings and maybe this (^) for the Portuguese recordings? Erick (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the below link, the full name of the composer is Julio Reyes Copello. Fix this, and I'll give you my support. Erick (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment Caption for the Christina Aguilera image reads: "... was remixed with an additional vocals from Christina Aguilera." HĐ (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magiciandude, HĐ; Erick I replaced the {{up-arrow}} with an {{asterisk}} and the {{down-arrow}} with a {{section-sign}}, I hope it's better now. HD, I c/e the caption. Thanks for the input! — Tom^(T2ME) 09:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. This list looks awesome! HĐ (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. The lead is much, much, much too long. Martin has had a very lengthy career, which makes writing a short introduction a challenge, but we have to try and be more succinct. Right now this list has 5480 characters of prose in the lead, which is 2500 characters more than any of our current FLs for songs recorded. Here's a hint: we don't need to name all of his albums in the lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco 1492 -Sighs- I knew someone would come with this request, even though he has a career of thirty long years. Okay, so I trimmed the lead down and I don't know how much characters it has now, but I hope is better. — Tom^(T2ME) 07:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the difficulty... Chrisye had a career of forty years, and 200 songs in his list (21 albums).... I'll give this a copyedit, see if I can trim some more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a couple suggestions: rather than increase verbiage by saying Xth studio album or Yth English album, I'd rework it so that it flows well without including the order of the albums. See if you can't highlight trends, rather than individual songs. "La Vida Loca" obviously has to be mentioned individually (and I'm sure there are a couple which are inseparable from his oeuvre), but I get the impression that there are several trends (in genre or language) that you could mention in lieu of naming individual songs or giving a detailed chronological retelling of his career; the latter thing is handled better in the article on the artist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 With all due respect about mentioning the order of the albums, his discography is complex and can make people easily confuse with it. He transitioned with albums from different languages and I think that should be stressed. Tbh, if we talk about WW trends, apart of "Livin' la Vida Loca", Ricky Martin (1999), "She Bangs" and Sound Loaded I can't find anything other to stress, that's the reason that third paragraph is the biggest. And at the end of the day it's not same as you would write in the biography, here I mention the songs which were part of the release and who wrote them. In a biography, u would usually also add the commercial and critical performance, awards and impact so it makes it kinda different. Also I don't see the lead being any different from other list of songs by artist X/Y/Z. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it's not the same as writing a biography; hence why I said "a detailed chronological retelling of his career ... is handled better in the article on the artist." The problem is that this list's lead is still a thousand characters longer than anything else previously promoted, and without an MOS that actually talks about lead length for lists (WP:LEADLENGTH is only for standard articles), that's all we have to refer to. Several of the songs articles are for singers with one, two, or three albums; someone with Martin's lengthy career needs a different approach. If you insist on using this approach, it's feasible that you can knock it back another 400 or 500 characters. Just removing the songs which don't have articles will save another 200, and less name-dropping of languages (not saying you shouldn't state the languages at all, but ten mentions of "Spanish" and six of English" is a bit much) will save more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've disambiguated Julio Reyes to Julio Reyes (singer); Julio Reyes leads to an article on a baseball player. You may want to check other links to see if there are any further such issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the disambiguation. I cut the language word and I don't know what more should I cut. How many characters are there so far? — Tom^(T2ME) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've stricken my oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2015 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (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 06:32, 11 May 2015 [14].

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian crime-drama film Haider, starring Shahid Kapoor and Tabu. My other open FLC has no outstanding concerns. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bhardwaj and Basharat Peer wrote the film" — maybe "Bhardwaj co-wrote the film with Basharat Peer". By the way, did they write the film's script or dialogues or both? if any of them, please mention it in the sentence.

Tweaked.

• "Haider won a leading five awards" — "Haider won five awards" should suffice.

I think it's important to know that it won the most awards at the ceremony, hence the "leading".

@Krimuk90: That's all from me. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Ssven. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thank you for addressing them. The list looks great. Keep up the good work! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job. But, was it necessary to use "was" at "Haider was released on 2 October 2014, and grossed....."? Please do clarify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) It's perfectly fine to say "was released", yes, because we are talking about it in the past tense. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent list once again.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great list. --Carioca (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2015 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2015 (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 06:32, 11 May 2015 [15].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams is an actress known for films as Junebug (2005), Enchanted (2007), Doubt (2008), The Master (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Big Eyes (2014). She has been nominated five times for an Academy Award and received two Golden Globes. As always I look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just was looking at this list, not realizing it was a FLC and wondered why it wasn't an FL already. I would however take out the "Network" column in the telvision section, I don't find it necessary and it's not uniform with the film table as it doesn't have the production company or anything. Past that, I support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Done. Thanks for the review. Cowlibob (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the notes column should briefly mention the notable awards/noms for the roles. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: The consensus at WikiProject film is to not include awards in the tables for filmographies if there is a separate article devoted to awards which Amy Adams has but I've mentioned the key ones in the lead anyway like Oscar/ Golden Globes. Cowlibob (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, now meets FL criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good list

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is well-sourced and meets FL criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I love her and her work. Initially, I had planned to take her filmography to FL, but @Cowlibob: already started writing. Anyway, this list has my Support. Great job Cowlibob. By the way, she is also known for The Fighter. No?—Prashant 14:35, 9 May 2015 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (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 23:07, 5 May 2015 [16].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list that I first worked on a few years ago that I have now brought up to scratch for FL. It is loosely based off a few other featured lists for awards. As always, all critique will be welcomed. I currently have a nomination open, FLC, but this has no outstanding concerns, and has garnered significant support. Harrias ^talk 14:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues, although I don't think the template at the bottom is needed on this particular page given that it just duplicates the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Oh man, even cricket award names are complicated.
• "the 2014 winner, Adam Lyth exemplified this claiming, "It’s a very..."" - awkward. Easiest fix is "exemplified this by claiming that "it's a very..."" - note the lowercase i, and the curly apostrophe being turned into a regular one
• "but just Sir Richard Hadlee" - but only Sir Richard Hadlee
• "that season, while in 2005, Flintoff won the award in the same year" - "while" implies a simultaneous relationship in time that doesn't exist here, no comma after 2005, and "the award" is ambiguous grammatically, though it's a safe assumption to be referring to the PCA award. Change to "that season, and in 2005 Flintoff won the PCA award in the same year"
• Winners of the Cricket Writers' Club County Championship Player of the Year are called out in the table, but not the lead- bit odd, since it's the only such award you don't call out in the lead.
• Please add the publisher (ESPN) to the espncricinfo reference.
• Consider archiving your online references with a service such as archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removal of content from your referenced sites don't affect the article. It may seem unlikely, but it's entirely possible for a site like espncricinfo to change their article format, drop old articles, and leave you with nothing but a deadlink- it happens more often than you'd think.

--PresN 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: All done I think. Harrias ^talk 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as my first as an FLC delegate instead of a normal reviewer. --PresN 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on prose, and the table set-up. Overall I can't see any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2015 (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) 23:32, 5 May 2015 (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 23:07, 5 May 2015 [17].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list becauseI have worked on the list for several weeks to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Academy Award for Best Actor list and Daytime Emmy Award acting lists were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As expected a great list. A few minor points:

• Julianne Moore is referred to as "his" in the lead.
• In the caption for Helen Hunt's win, the year is missing for As Good as It Gets
• Monster's Ball needs to be italicized in the caption
• In the multiple wins and nominations section, it incorrectly says "Best Actor awards".
• Meryl Streep is missing from the most nominations received table. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I fixed everything you listed above. Thanks for spotting those errors.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All good. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well everyone is aware that Katharine Hepburn has received the most awards with four wins. But,the lead says she has received three. Please correct the mistake.—Prashant 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prashant!: Please apologise to Birdie. This is not how you review other lists "very silly mistake, don't you think?". Point out what's wrong and be nice about it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Birdie for my previous words. My intension was not to hurt.—Prashant 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prashant!:: I was not really offended by your remarks, but next time, please be considerate about your comments. Other Wikipedians may not take such statements so well as I do.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob:: Thanks for making the corrections. I was busy at church; I could not respond quickly until now.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A well-written and informative list.—Prashant 06:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to have a thorough look at the lead.

• I think we should aim to use photos of the actresses of the age when they won their respective awards especially for the older ones. Also some screen legends are missing. Here are some image suggestions:

• For Bette Davis: Here's a photo of her in her award winning role in Jezebel: [[18]]
• Ginger Rogers image: [[19]]
• Grace Kelly image: [[20]]
• Sophia Loren in 1959 [[21]]
• Jane Fonda in 1963 [[22]]
• Sally Field in 1971 [[23]]

Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Added or replaced images using pictures listed above complete with captions and alt text.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Another fine list. Keep it up.--Jagarin 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Great list, it is well-sourced and well-written. --Carioca (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, again!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (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) 23:37, 5 May 2015 (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 09:43, 5 May 2015 [25].

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a recent content split from Gene Roddenberry, which I've been working up over the past few weeks. As the article was approaching 100kb, it seemed the logical thing to do (no Vulcan pun intended!). I have not included the awards recieved by Roddenberry in this list, as I'm anticipating locating them in the main article (surprisingly he didn't recieve many). This is my first time creating a filmography, so I've based it off of previous FLs. The most unusual point about the layout is the inclusion of "executive consultant" in the movies table - but I figured it was better to include it there than have it added as a note for all six films. Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Harrias ^talk 14

41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Why "9 episodes" etc, but "Five seasons" etc in the Television table? Harrias ^talk 14:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The ones with the seasons were the ones where Roddenberry was series creator - while the ones with the episode numbers were the only episodes of that production he was involved with. Miyagawa (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't explain my point at all; why use figures for one set of numbers and words for the other? Harrias ^talk 18:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha - I've fixed it per the style guide, so words for numbers one through nine, and then actual numbers for 10+. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with that change, and those made below, I'm happy that this list meets the FL criteria. Good work. (Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Player of the Year/archive1?) Harrias ^talk 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support—based on my user name, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am a Star Trek fan. I did make some changes to correct and simplify the citations: using {{harvp}} for the shortened footnotes, correcting the capitalization of Mr. DeCandido's last name and un-curling the single quotes per the MOS. I also merged two sets of duplicate footnotes together

  There are some minor quibbles left to be fixed, like spelling out the number in "five seasons", but using the numeral in "9 episodes". Most style guides would only use a numeral for numbers 10 and higher, and they would spell out nine and lower, although some also move the line to encompass the teens. I'm sure that will be cleared up to satisfy Harrias in short order.

  I can see is that the heading above the table on the films is "Filmography" while the other heading is "Television". I would think that since both media make up part of the filmography, that the former one should be "Films" or "Motion pictures" to pair with "Television".

  Lastly, I don't know why you didn't just put the note about "Unification" into the Notes column of the TV table rather than using a footnote.

  All in all, it's good work and I think that it should be promoted in due course. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for those fixed - I've corrected the numbers as mentioned above. I've also changed the films and television sections to subsections under a general filmography section. As for the Unification bit, I just thought the text would be a bit long in the notes section and so thought it'd work better as a footnote. Plus it didn't directly to Roddenberry's work on the series but I thought was worth mentioning. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for the delay. I added a bit of clarification about the LAPD second job thing. I'm sure your bio ref would cover that. Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll double check it tonight to make sure it's the right page. Its in there somewhere, but I'm not 100% certain it's the same cite. I'll confirm here once I've checked it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I've sorted out that citation now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]