Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2016

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max: Fury Road was a welcome surprise in 2015. Stuck in development hell for many years, upon release it received widespread critical acclaim and numerous accolades which are listed here. As always, I welcome all the helpful, constructive comments to improve the list. Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Informative and well referenced list. Great work!
  • P.S. I'm also having an FLC with this nomination. — Simon (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the best films of all time, Mad Max: Fury Road's acolades list is well-written and very informative. It definitely deserves that bronze star. Well done.Krish | Talk 15:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some "stop-by" comments:

• Access dates for a lot of references are missing e.g. 15, 17.
• A lot of whitespaces. I have fixed one. You can use this script to fix the rest.
• Titles for the categories of Dorian Awards are different in the provided source. FrB.TG (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments. I think I've sorted them. Cowlibob (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No reference supports the film's nods at the Golden Trailer Awards.

@FrB.TG: I've added references, it was confusing as it was nominated at both the 2015 and 2016 Golden Trailer Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well referenced & extensive list. Dan arndt (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

Solid list. Just a few issues:

• "Tom Hardy stars as the title character Max Rockatansky who helps rebel soldier Imperator Furiosa played by Charlize Theron rescue five women from the imprisonment of despotic leader Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne)". Commas missing.
• Commas missing in the third paragraph before the use of the word "including"
• "It went on to win the most awards at the ceremony with six" Commas missing, again.
• An external links section will help. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the comments. I think I've sorted most of them. I'm not sure which external links would be appropriate, any suggestions? Cowlibob (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IMDB one should do, to be consistent with most other award lists. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: IMDb link has been added by Yash. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after these tweaks. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – References are appropriately formatted, just some minor issues:

• Missing date of publication for Ref 42
• Ref 53 needs author and publication date
• Ref 60 and 85 needs author's name
• Ref 63 needs retrival date
• Spotchecked a few sources, (6, 15, 16, 17, 28, 40, 49, 50, 61, 86), couldn't spot any cases of close paraphrasing or misleading info.
• Not an expert when it comes to image licenses; only one is used in the article, but there's a 'Personality rights warning'. Not sure how this affects the FL criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonade51: Thanks for the source review. Let me know if more is required. Cowlibob (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Len Deighton is a superlative writer. He produces books on three general areas: military history, cookery and spy/thriller novels; all are well-received by the critics and public alike, with one critic describing him as "a master of modern spy fiction and one of the most innovative writers" of the spy genre. His triple trilogy (and prequel) of Bernard Samson novels is of exceptional high-quality and standing. This bibliography has been separated from the basic (and unsourced) list in the biography, has been brought into line with MOS requirements, and is now fully sourced throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from  — Calvin999

• I think some parts of the lead are not needed, such as place of birth. It's good for his bio but we don't need to know this in his bibliography.

• Yep, trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Bernard Samson

• Thanks - I didn't even know there was an article on him! - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol. He is linked in his bio, which has a lead nearly identical to this!  — Calvin999 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1963 Deighton → Shouldn't there be a comma after the date?

• Not necessarily in BrEng (it's an American thing that is gaining ground, but certainly not needed). - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Long Past Glory be italicised as it was for TV?

• Yep - now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to avoid one line paragraphs. Tack it on to the previous to make a fuller, second paragraph.

• Agree: done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 — Calvin999 17:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  — Calvin999 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1963 Deighton wrote a television script, Long Past Glory; it was the first of two such scripts, although he also wrote a film script, Oh! What a Lovely War (1969)." Something about the "also" and rep here doesn't read well to me. I would write it as "Deighton authored two television scripts, the first of which was Long Past Glory in 1963. Six years later he penned the script to Oh! What a Lovely War. (Providing of course that was when he wrote it too), but you see what I mean.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc. I've gone along the same lines as you but slightly differently. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely looks up to FL standard!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few minor quibbles:

• In the "Miscellaneous" section, is there a reason why you omit the year for Spy Film'?
• "His long-held interest in cookery—his mother had been a professional cook and instilled a love for food and cookery in her son—led to a cookery column in the Sunday newspaper..." -- too many cooks spoil the broth. In this case, prose... Yep, I'm here all week! Three "cookery"s in close succession; four, if you include "cook".
• "He had a varied career..." before he became an author? Has he retired? He's certainly not dead, so why is this in past tense?

• Because the varied pre-author career is in the past - since '62 he has been an author. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those minor points, all good. Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mnay thanks Cass - your points adopted, aside from the final one. Much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well-organised list! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Krimuk90 - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now)

• I hate to be a negative nelly, but I'm afraid that I'm not entirely convinced at the moment. The prose portion of this article comes to, by my count, 1500 characters, which would just barely pass it at DYK. It's less than half of the prose portions of similar featured lists (e.g. Roald Dahl bibliography, Agatha Christie bibliography and Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography). Surely there must be more to say about a 50-year writing career than just nine sentences? How has Deighton's work been received critically? Has he won any awards? What about commercially? Which books sold well? He wrote a film script... then what happened? How did the film do? Was the script praised? It sounds like his output has been quite diverse – do we know what inspired him to try so many different writing styles? Writing a study on the assassination of JFK could be quite controversial – was it? What was the reaction? Why did he write it? He authored a Sherlock Holmes story - did the estate of Conan Doyle mind his character being used in this way? Why did he sometimes write under the name "Cyril Deighton"? Similar articles (e.g. Christie and Dahl) went into a bit of biographical information about the authors themselves, but there's none of that in this one. I'm afraid that all this implies to me that comprehensiveness is not as high as it should be.

• Much of what you mention deserves to be covered in the main Deighton article, but has absolutely no relevance on this page. I also have absolutely no idea why you are comparing the lead of a list (where the important information is held in the numerous tables underneath) and a DYK, where the character count is for the entire page: that's a straw man oppose as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An article must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose to meet the DYK criteria, per 2(a) of the eligibility criteria. This article just barely meets that standard. And, to me, if an article can only just meet the DYK standards, then it probably doesn't meet the FL standards, which are a lot higher.

• As above, the entire word count of a DYK has fuck all to do with the lead of a list. This is a straw man argument that has no place here. – SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as well as the lack of prose and the short paragraphs, there are zero media, there's no use of colour, and the whole thing just lacks visual appeal. I'm afraid this list just doesn't really "look" like what I'd expect to be featured on the front page. Apologies if this makes me sound like an old schoolmaster, but what disappoints me the most is that I usually really enjoy reading and reviewing your articles, SchroCat, and this one just isn't up to your usual standard at all. Frankly, I don't think it's reflective of your best work, never mind Wikipedia's as a whole, hence my oppose. Sorry. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Another straw man here. 1. There is no requirement for media to be included. 2. There are no free images of either man or his works, so shall we breach copyright restrictions just to make it look pretty, or should we accept the lack of media, like we do with Works of Keith Floyd? – SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment on any of the other issues here since I haven't looked at the list closely enough, but SchroCat is right that media usage is not required in an FL. A non-free photo could probably be justified for the main Deighton article, but not for a bibliography page. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph in the Miscellaneous section doesn't bear any relation to the table beneath it, i.e. it mentions The Ipcress File, Funeral in Berlin, Billion Dollar Brain, etc., but none of them are listed in a table. It looks like a paragraph written for a completely different section in the article. Could it just be moved up to the lead?

• No: it is where it belongs, and it does bear a relationship to the table. Much of the table is about the film and television scripts produced by Deighton; the paragraph is about the works adapted by others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but if the paragraph is a list other people's adaptations of Deighton's works, and the table is a completely different list of Deighton's works (none of which have been adapted at all), then they're completely disjointed as far as I can see, and probably belong in different sections of the page. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "A limited edition of 226 copies." No need for the full stop. Same for the note beneath it.
• The Observer needs to sort under O rather than T.
• Works by E. W. Hornung -> Works by Len Deighton (not sure how nobody else spotted this)

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The typo points all altered. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• References are formatted accordingly and consistently.
• No dead links, but always handy to archive the web pages just in case something happens. No images so no need to check licenses.
• Crosschecked the BFI sources and found no cases of close paraphrasing/misleading info.
• 'Retrieved dates' for Ref 20, 21 are needed I would think. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Lemonade51. The retrieved dates have been added, and I'll sort the archiving in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Archiving now done - thanks Lemonade 51! - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ssven2 and Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piku is one of the best Bollywood films of last year, and one of the most awarded ones. This listing of the notable awards and nominations it received is well-sourced and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I have another open FLC at the moment, but that has received 3 supports and has no outstanding comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It's a near flawless list but I have one issue. I'd suggest you to provide a source for the plot synopsis. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven2, the BH source doesn't say much about the plot. You can add a review instead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Added HT review.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All my concerns are met by the nominators. Good job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (random spotchecks included)

• All sources appear reliable and are well formatted. However, I'm a little concerned about the usage of Sulekha.com in a FL. Random spotchecks reveal no copyvio. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Is this one from Merinews ok?  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sulekha one is better than Merinews. Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this source? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Pavan!! :) Vensatry, all your comments have been addressed now. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets the standards —Vensatry _(talk) 06:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review, Vensatry. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thank you, Vensatry. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So my last FLC didn't go so well, and I'm hoping this one will even things out. There's not a whole lot to say about the list, aside from the fact that I used List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio as a role model (as you might quickly notice). It also received a  Direct nomination in it's peer review, which I didn't even know was a thing, so that's pretty cool. Anyway, that's all I have to say, so have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after an exhaustive review. Note that I have also done spot checks in the above comments. -- Frankie _talk 16:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there 2-+ sections instead of 1-2 tables? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean why is this table formatted with each award getting its own section as opposed to what List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier does? If that's the case, then that's personally how I like it. That's also how the DiCaprio list formats it, which I used as a model. If that's not what you were asking, then my apologies. I'm still "relatively" new to lists, and the formatting is still pretty annoying to understand. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 20+ sections which seems a bit much. Is there a guideline in WP:TV suggesting that this format is better than one with merged tables? At some point I worked on List of accolades received by House which has the lesser-importance awards merged. Nergaal (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Sorry for the late response. While I do agree that the section do become extreme after a while, that's just how most awards and nominations lists are formatted. For example, for actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Vidya Balan, Priyanka Chopra) and musicians (Taylor Swift, John Legend, Lady Gaga). In particular, Lady Gaga has over 75 sections. As for WP:TV, I couldn't find anything regarding formats for awards lists, but then again I may not have looked hard enough. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question. I'm not sure why personal awards lists have evolved like that - specifically actors. When I worked up List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry (nominated elsewhere) it didn't even occur to me to split the table up. Admittedly that's a much shorter table - but I have started messing around with List of awards and nominations received by William Shatner which features a much longer table (also doesn't have the military/civilian table split that the Roddenberry one does, also it's very much under development, I need to fix those red links and replace all the inherited IMDB citations). It's the same with film/TV - for some reason the lists use one big table, and the TV ones use multiple little tables. I'd say it was the multiple years, but certainly with the couple I did, the trailers and home media releases caused awards to be won in years other than the year of theatrical release. But like Famous Hobo says, I don't think there is a specific design used and it'll simply be up to what any individual editor thinks is the best representation of the information. Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going of personal preference, then I really like this style where each award is given it's own section. While it may be a nightmare for mobile users, I like this design because it specifies what each award is about, and with individual sections, a user won't have to scroll through dozens of random awards to see a specific award, like the Tony Awards or the Academy Awards. By the way Miyagawa, nice subtle promotion of your FLC, I can do a source review if you need one. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't intended to hint, but I figured what the hey, I might as well drop it in there! Miyagawa (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll now support. Good work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Perhaps invite one editor to comment? I really wouldn't want to see this archived due to lack of participation. FrB.TG (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Now that the issues above have been taken care of, I'm convinced that the list meets the FL criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Spot checks were done above
• Formatting: clean
• Anything missing: looks good!

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC) & Vensatry _(Talk) [reply]

This list was created by Vensatry. I made further required changes and now I feel it meets the criteria's. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• The lead needs some polishing.

• "She received further critical acclaim and box-office success..." - I don't think "further critical acclaim and box-office success" works here, as the article doesn't talk about any prior success

• Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her roles in films like Ajnabee, Raaz and Jism established her as a sex symbol of Hindi cinema." - The artcile never talks about "her roles", maybe a brief description of what roles she played to be deemed as the "sex symbol".

• Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Basu's next releases in 2004 like Aetbaar, Rudraksh, Rakht and Barsaat (2005) proved" - I think the phrasing doesn't work with 2004 in the begining.

• Fixed, hopefully. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She later acted in Prakash Jha's crime drama Apaharan (2005), and the multi-starrer comedy No Entry (2005), for which she received a Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress nomination. The film emerged as a financial success, grossing ₹750 million (US$11 million) at the box office." - The first sentence would work better as two separate sentences, as this here suggests that the Filmfare was for both movies, Also separating the sentences would add clarity for the box-office sentence as well.

• Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " thriller Dhoom 2. It was one..." - thriller Dhoom 2, which was one. Just a suggestion though.

• Not quite sure what you mean. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant merge the two sentences. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be okay now. —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two years later she collaborated again with Abbas-Mustan for Race (2008),..." - a reason of why the articles jumps two years might work better.

• She had just one major release in 2007. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "... and made her debut in Bengali cinema" - New sentence maybe?

• Done —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Horror queen" - "Scream queen", particularly because the article concurs with your facts, listing Basu as India's scream queen.

• Being an attributed claim, we cannot say that unless the sources claim that way. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned you can find it the Scream queens article itself with a footnote that substantiates the claim. Scream queen is the better suited term here. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's a self-proclaimed title. It's better to have the popular opinion. —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the issue rather trivial but still if you just Google Bipasha Basu Scream Queen you'll find enough reliable source to support the claim. NumerounovedantTalk 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, it seems like a made up claim. I can see many sources that say 'Scream Queen' is a self-proclaimed title. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "roles as conjoined twins, thus becoming the first actress in Bollywood to perform such a role." - I am not sure what such a role means.

• Wikilinked already. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that it sounds odd referring to conjoined twins aa "such a role". Try re-phrasing maybe? NumerounovedantTalk 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem here. 'Conjoined twins' is a role. —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " as a host of the horror show Darr Sabko Lagta Hai." - maybe mention the network where the shows airs, but again just a suggestion.

• Done —Vensatry _(Talk)

• I also feel a couple of important roles are missing from the Lead, most notably Omkara which was (one of them if not it) biggest critical success for Basu I assume? Rest the list looks good! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quite right. Added a bit about the film. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left my final comments. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! NumerounovedantTalk 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Dharmadhyaksha

Comments from Krimuk90

• "successful stint in modelling". Too informal.
• "she made her Telugu cinema debut through" ==> You don't make a debut through a film, but a debut in/with a film.
• "first commercial success through ". Again, wrong usage of "through"
• I'm sure there's a better way of talking about her role in Raaz than using "victimised wife" in quotes.
• "won her her first Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination" One doesn't win a nomination.
• "...kill her own husband" own is redundant.
• "...won her a Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Negative Role nomination". As above.
• "multi-starrer comedy". Informal. Please use "ensemble"
• "She portrayed Bianca..." No she did not. She portrayed a role based on Bianca.
• "Her frequent association with horror films has earned her the title of "Horror queen" in Bollywood" Sudden change in tense, and why is the h in horror capitalised?
• "dual roles as conjoined twins". Grammatically incorrect.
• "...thus becoming the first actress in Bollywood to perform such a role". Poor phrasing. Please tweak.
• Lack of consistency in the rows column of the table. Her dual roles in Dhoom 2 are separated by a "/" but her roles in Alone are not.
• Did she portray dual roles in Ajnabee as well, or was it one character with two names? Please specify in the footnote.
• Be consistent in using "Unknown" or "–" for roles in which she is unnamed.

The list is well-formatted and well-organised, but the prose will definitely benefit from a major copy-edit. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: The prose concerns have largely been addressed. I've not seen any of her films, so will leave the table and point #4 to Yashthepunisher. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: All fixed now. I have removed the "victimised wife" bit because even her husband was the "victim" of a ghost in the film. We don't need to mention every role specifically. Thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prose really wasn't at par with the FLC requirement, so I've given it a major copy-edit. Good luck! Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Having watched Takkari Donga, i can confidently say that it is not a drama. It can either be a western film or an action film. Choose one among the two which you find apt.

Done

• "The following year, she starred opposite John Abraham in the erotic thriller Jism, in which she played a seductive wife who indulges in an extramarital affair and plots to kill her husband". A comma is missing in this sentence.

Done.

• I think people collaborate for films, not in. Please rephrase this for Race.

Done

• Race an action thriller? I don't think so. Thrills and stunts don't make an action film a thriller. :)

I kindly disagree here. If you see the film, there is a twist in every 20 minutes. Also there is enough "action" to justify the aforementioned genre.

I've seen Race. One cannot call a Sherlock Holmes' story an action type just because chases and fights happen. Similarly, a (regular) James Bond film cannot be called a thriller because there are twists. Anyways, instead of fighting or going off-topic, let the co-nominator Vensatry answer this. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the genre. It was just my opinion. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto with Dhoom 2.

Done

• "Basu's portrayal of an escort earned her a Best Supporting Actress nomination at the 51st Filmfare Awards"—I suggest to rephrase it as a nomination for the Best Supporting Actress at the 51st Filmfare Awards ceremony.

Done

• "....earned her another Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination"—I suggest to rephrase it as another nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Actress.

Done

• "In 2015, she took on dual parts of conjoined twins—a first for an actress in a Bollywood film—in the horror film Alone"—Can you find a better way to rewrite this? close repetition of film and "she took on" sounds a bit informal.
• I don't think so that Basu's cameo had a name in Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi.

Fixed.

• Please provide a valid reliable source for the first footnote.
• Fix ref no. 65. It is now redirecting to CNN-News18.

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the three issues, I have fixed all of them. I'll leave the unresolved ones to @Vensatry:, because I can't perform them from my "not-so-smart phone". Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yash, the remaining three issues are addressed by Vensatry. Now, since all my concerns are met, i support this list's promotion to FL. Good job overall, and wish you the best! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 13:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica has well defined local governments and thus was rather easy to make a list. I completely overhauled the list to bring it up to the standards of recent lists of local municipalities. Interestingly, the list is already featured in Norwegian, and I used some of the sources from there to improve this list. I look forward to addressing any comments and concerns. Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support well-referenced for what it communicates and lavishly illustrated; good use of tables LavaBaron (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeComments
  • What is a canton? A link to Canton (country subdivision) should be added  Done
  • several county representatives - county? what county?  Done
  • The map of cantons should be paced on top to be more visible
    • Removed the map entirely, it has no labels so it serves no function at all.
  • What is the original order of cantons in the list?
    • Age of canton, I could alphabetize by province if that would be more logical?
      • Alphabetizing by canton is the most logical to me.
        • Now that I've added the dates, the order now seems a bit more logical. It is also the exact order that the statistics agency uses in Costa Rica, changing to alphabetization would make it much more difficult to update the list with new data, meaning this list will be out of date quicker if we alphabetise it. I am still willing to do this if you think it will be better, but I do have reservations thinking long term.
  • Where are the administrative centers? Norwegians have them
    • There are no administrative centres, what the Norwegian article is listing are the "head" district (cabecera), but not overly important to include. It most cases they will all be dead links as English wikipedia does not have pages for most of these districts.
  • There are some numbers in front of the cantons in Norwegian wiki? What do they mean? Why are they missing here?
    • They are numbers given by the government of Costa Rica, I believe based on the time since incorporation. It does not add anything to the list, and functionally meaningless.
  • Date founded and the number of districts in each canton should be added, as well.
    • Date founded added... as for the number of districts, since there is no link (English wiki does not have district pages), I'm not sure how meaningful this number will be... it doesn't add any information to the table. Would you still think it necessary?
    • Just to clarify: you are asking that I add 5 (!) more columns to the list? The head district, the sq mi, the government administration number, the number of districts, the date founded. Surely we can't include everything and have it still fit horizontally on the page. It may be possible to add one or two of these suggestions, but not all, the formatting won't permit. Which columns do you feel are necessary for you to strike your oppose?
      • The number of districts and the date founded are a must.
        • Took a while but I've added the dates.
  • Land area should have both numbers: km2 and sq mi  Done
    • Added it, but now the table is almost too wide, it still fits with normal resolution however.
      • No, there is no sq mi
        • Should be, maybe refresh the page?
          • I purged a couple of times, I don't see it
            • It is definitely there, I tried on multiple computers. It's in the final column, in brackets beside the sq km.
              • the population density has it, but not the land area.
                • Oops, yep I see it, working on that now.
                  • Done, all units are now converted to miles.
  • Population density sorts incorrectly  Done

Cheetah (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I have addressed all your concerns above. Please let me know what more can be done to gain a support. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – With the fixes complete, I believe this meets the FL criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "new cantons may only be created if they have at least one percent of the republic's total population" What is the population?
• "cantons in Costa Rica have approximated the same function as municipios" approximately would be better than approximated.
• "Each municipality president produces a number of working commissions that deal with issues specific to the municipality." A president producing a commission sounds odd - maybe "appoints".
• No change needed but is there a reason Costa Rica had censuses 11 years apart? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I have made all changes. As for the census, I have no idea. Costa Rica is not the most prolific census takers, they have only had 10 censuses in the past 150 years (1864, 1883, 1892, 1927, 1950, 1963, 1973, 1984, 2000, 2011). To be honest, even the 2011 data I've put into this table is getting to be a bit out of date, but it's the best we have right now. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Imzadi1979:

Stumbling here from my FLC, I thought that I'd go over the sources used in the article. Each source appears reliable, so no issues there. However, there are a few formatting comments.

• Can you provide translated titles? The various citation templates offer |trans-title= and that would allow those of us who don't speak Spanish to better evaluate the sources without running the titles through a translator.
• Footnote 6 doesn't need "www.tse.go.cr" listed as the website name.
• Footnotes 7 and 8 have "p. s. 6." and "p. s. 11." I'm unaware of what the "s." is supposed to mean, but the "p." means page. Perhaps you should be using |at= to manually format the in-source location being cited? The standard symbol for a section, for instance is "§", so if that's supposed to be section 6, |at=§ 6 would be more appropriate.

Another comment, but there's a huge block of white space above the table to the left of the photos. I'd suggest using <gallery>...</gallery> formatting to hold the photos, either above or below the table, to eliminate that unattractive blank space. Otherwise, things look good at this point. Imzadi 1979 → 05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over! I made the first two changes will get to the others shortly. As for the images, I believe this is a screen resolution issue, you must be on a small screen? Is there way that I can shrink the column widths so that even users on small screens can view properly? Otherwise I'll take your suggestion of a gallery. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fixed all your suggestions. Just the small screen/white space formatting issue remains. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a widescreen display, but I do not use my web browser at full width. Using a gallery above or below the table is still the best solution. You have a group of photos in one place, so you should treat them as such, which is a gallery. I get the same issue on my phone and tablet when I'm not using the Wikipedia app. Imzadi 1979 → 08:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, does it look better now? Mattximus (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. :-) Imzadi 1979 → 13:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: it looks like Crzycheetah edits only sporadically, and is unlikely to return to formally support or oppose this nomination, though all of their concerns were addressed. I've looked over the list, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 03:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as to match ongoing work to get the Guitar Hero Good Topic back in line with this new release (which I thought we had not have to worry about again after 2013... :) The format follows previous GH song lists, but addresses the complication of the GHTV not-DLC model this game uses. The game and GHTV aspects have been out long enough to know how to approach the lists correctly. MASEM (t) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list.

• Not totally convinced that we need these lists, but 11 FLs later the point is a bit moot
• "the first game in the series to support the 8th generation video game consoles, the PlayStation 4, Wii U, and XBox One" - should be a colon, not a comma
• "The game was released worldwide on 20 October 2015." - you use month-day-year in the tables
• "Guitar Hero Live will not use traditional downloadable content to expand the game" - "does" not use
• "playing songs currently presented on the channel in curated fashion" - in "a" curated fashion
• "overlaid atop live-action footage" - redundant; "shown atop" or "overlaid on"
• "watching the reaction to the crowd and their bandmates" - "the reaction of"
• "...used in previous Guitar Hero games, Guitar Hero Live adds songs to the game via Guitar Hero TV" - game name needs italicization, and earlier you only italicized the Guitar Hero and not TV; be consistent
• "The week after their introduction, these songs are then added to the on-demand playlist, and then after another week, enter into the GHTV's rotation of songs." -> "The week after their introduction, these songs are added to the on-demand playlist, and after another week enter into the GHTV's rotation of songs."
• "The on-disc soundtrack for Guitar Hero Live considered weak." - fragment
• "Griffin McElroy of Polygon found most of the songs were from 2000 or later" - found? That implies a bit more investigation than was really required; maybe "noted"
• "The GHTV mode has mixed opinions" - Don't think the mode is the one with the opinions
• "The GHTV mode has mixed opinions, with most reviewers praising the concept, with the presentation of the channels were highlighted as hearkening to the heyday of MTV, and giving the player the ability to explore new music, but critical of the use of microtransactions and premium shows, disallowing players to play specific tracks at any time they wanted without cost." - two phrases in a row starting with "with", and 6 clauses in total, not all grammatically aligned. Maybe "The GHTV mode has resulted in mixed opinions, with most reviewers praising the concept. The presentation of the channels was highlighted as hearkening to the heyday of MTV, and they were praised for giving the player the ability to explore new music. Some reviewers, however, were critical of the use of microtransactions and premium shows for disallowing players to play specific tracks at any time they wanted without cost."
• Redirects that don't seem intentional: 8th Generation, XBox One, and First-person perspective in the lead; Bangarang, Kellin Quinn in the first table; Chop Suey!, Higher Ground, and I Have a Problem in the second table; Stache, Atreyu, Alice In Chains, Undone - The Sweater Song, The Cowboy's Christmas Ball, Dragonforce, and The Day I Tried To Live in the third table; Games Radar in reception; Gamespot in references.
• Rowscopes are missing on tables, and colscopes fro tables 2 and 3
• Table 3: Nasty" is missing the opening quote, The Bots is sorting under The, N/A is sorting under 'N', The Champions is sorting under The
• Shouldn't this be in the "Guitar Hero soundtracks" cat like the other song lists, not the parent "Guitar Hero" one?
• Did not review references, as that's now a separate review type
• That's it! If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: reminding you of this. --PresN 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Many of the above were taken care of by @Harryhenry1: in this diff but I've gone through clean up the rest (dates are all now dmy, fixing the table sorting, etc.) The only question I have is about the rowscope, if this is needed here. As each row its its own entry, and the rows don't have header cells to them, it's not like the example given in the MOS, so I don't think it's needed here. (Colscopes have been added though). --MASEM (t) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at the tables again, the reason it doesn't seem like the rows have headers is because the "header" cell is actually the second one- the song title. The year shouldn't be first; the original year the recording is from certainly isn't the most important item about the track release. It should really be after the artist column.

That said, I don't know what MOS example you're looking at, but my understanding is that rowscopes are needed even on basic tables- @RexxS: as an ACCESS member, what is your opinion? Are rowscopes appropriate on the tables in this list? --PresN 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did relook and I think I misread something, so I would agree that rowscope is probably needed and that means that the song name should be first (the most unique ID on the list). I just want to make sure before flipping the column orders around. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I think that adding rowscopes and marking cells as headers for the song titles would improve this list. That would allow a screen reader to navigate down the column "Band", for example, and hear: "45, Band, Broken Tide"; "The Anthem, Band, Yearbook Ghosts"; etc. At present, they are likely to hear: "2012, Band, Broken Tide"; "2002, Band, Yearbook Ghosts", etc. which seems less informative to me as 2012 is by no means unique to identify the song described on that row. If you changed:

• | 2012 || "[[45 (The Gaslight Anthem song)|45]]" || {{sort|Gaslight Anthem|[[The Gaslight Anthem]]}} || Alternative || Sounddial: Castle Stage || Broken Tide

to:

• | 2012
• ! scope="row" | "[[45 (The Gaslight Anthem song)|45]]"
• | {{sort|Gaslight Anthem|[[The Gaslight Anthem]]}} || Alternative || Sounddial: Castle Stage || Broken Tide

(which would be needed to mark up the row headers, while leaving the rows in the same order - I'd prefer song title first, of course), that would result in the song titles becoming boldface and the background darkening slightly as we do for headers by default.

I can't comment on whether that change in display would concern the principal editors, but I do think the improved accessibility is worthwhile. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead, moved the Year columns to after Song and Artist, and then subsequently added rowscopes for the song name. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an improvement and would work for screen readers, so that's much better. The only quibble is that Wikipedia is supposed to produce HTML5. Unfortunately in HTML5, the data cell (td) (| in wiki-markup) doesn't possess the rowscope attribute, so we no longer have valid HTML5. As I indicated earlier, the correct markup would use an exclamation mark: ! scope="row" | ... which produces a header cell (th), but I guess you don't like the bold effect it produces. Anyway, it will be years before the invalid HTML catches up with us, so I won't quarrel over it. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could use the "!" markup and then add style to "revert" the box to bg-less and boldless - would that be a problem MOS wise? --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with the MOS or for accessibility - just the sheer effort of making the changes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be regexing this sometime today, tomorrow or the day after, once I figure out the right CSS to do so. I've got a script that enables regexing in the normal WP editor that I used today to do the rowscopes. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard background-color for wikitable.table is #F9F9F9, so you'll probably want something like ! scope="row" style="background-color:#F9F9F9; font-weight:normal;" | ... - HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, that should be it. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now Support. --PresN 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Consistent with the rest of the series. (must confess that I helped fix some of the requests above, and even added an image to fit the 5b criteria). igordebraga ≠ 04:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at this list, if you wouldn't mind reviewing my FLC.

Lead

• Link backwards compatible
• The lead is completely unsorced, but it appears as though all the unsorced statements are sourced later in the list
• I haven't looked at any of the other Guitar Hero song lists, but it feels as though the lead doesn't go too in depth about the songs themselves, and instead is about the features of the game. Were the developers looking for specific types of songs going into this game? And since this list includes a reception section, shouldn't that also be in the lead? If those aren't standards for these types of lists, then ignore this comment

Actual songs

• No real comments here, moving on

Reception

• Again, no real comments, though were those really the only reviews that discussed what they thought of the songlist? That's one of the biggest parts of a music game, so I feel this section could be increased. However, if those were the only reviews that talked about the songlist, then so be it.

References

• Ref 6 is missing the date
• Ref 8 is missing the author and date

Overall, a solid list. Once my issues are addressed, I'll support. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get to these in the next day or so. A couple points: I think I can find a handful of sources about on-disc song selection, if I remember correctly, so can address that. On the reception for GHTV, I didn't see much about the actual song selection (they were dissatisfied on the model itself), but I can relook for those. Part of the issue is that since you can't really pick and chose songs like the main game, it's hard to judge those. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: I have fixed the points above, and added some language and references that describe the developers' ideas on selecting songs for both parts of the game, and adding some comments from reviewers on song selection in the GHTV part of the game. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I thought I watchlisted this page. Guess I didn't, my apologies. Anyway, I like the additions, it was nice to finally learn why they decided to include a Katy Perry song in this game. Alright, I'll give my long overdue Support. I can also do a source review if you need it. Famous Hobo (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: --PresN 21:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review from MPJ-US

Trying to drum up some reviews for my own Featured List Candidate (NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship) and I figured the best way to get it to give.

General comments

• Okay so the article needs to decide if the first part of the article is a lead in the WP:LEAD sense or not - it has no references at all which would be okay for a lead section, but it also has several facts that are not listed elsewhere, which not okay.
• "went into a hiatus" should be "went on hiatus"
• "songs on disc" should be "songs on the disc", that's a mistake that's repeated several times
• "expand the game, and is not" does not need the comma
• I would assume that "Guitar Hero TV" is an online, web based option? the article does not actually state that, making it sound like you turn to channel 4775 on your cable box?
• "In game, the songs" does not need a comma and sounds like it's missing something? just sounds incomplete
• "from first-person perspective" should be "from the first-person perspective"
• "In game, the songs are arranged into sets of 3 to 5 songs to be played as part of a concert performance. During these songs, the game shows an on-screen fretboard which represents the notes the player should play, shown atop live-action footage taken from first-person perspective of the lead guitar player of one of several fictional bands, performing on stage and watching the reaction of the crowd and their bandmates." that is one massive sentence, one. and it reads like a run-on sentence. Can you possibly revise that?
• "The player then unlocks the ability to play the individual songs outside of sets.[2]" already stated in the previous sentence isn't it??
• "determining of those songs which they could license" should be "determining which of those songs they could license"
• "note highways" - term has not been defined? what exactly is that?
• "marking-up" does that need the hypen?
• "According to designer Jim Norris, their selection process included identifying songs that would be expected by players to be on a Guitar Hero title, determining of those songs which they could license, marking-up the song for the note highways and determining how much fun those songs would be to play, and then balancing the song selection in the game to give players a combination of songs they know and those they may not recognize but would be fun to play." - another long, run-on sentence that does not read well.
• "a video from a live concert footage of the band playing" simplify "footage from the band playing a live concert"
• "Activision announced that at least 70 new songs will be added to GHTV before the end of 2015." since 2015 is now in the past perhaps state how many were actually added?
• "these are based on songs and footage taken live from the respective band's current tour" - "were based on live performances for the respective band's ongoing tours"
• If this is a "list of songs" why is there a reception section? that's a game review section, it even has a "see also" setion but really is not relevant to a "list of songs" IMO

Table specifics

• First two table sort okay, look okay.
• "Added Songs" table - looks like the primary sort is the "release date", what is the secondary short? so how are the songs released on 20 October 2015 sorted?

Source review

• If I am generous and consider the reference right before the table I get a specific reference for song/artist but the rest of the table is not sourced at all?
• Most reflist templates uses the 30em split, is that not normal for these types of articles?
• Is "Kotaku.com" a reliable source?
• When I click on Reference 1 I get an error?
• Reference 3 does not seem to mention what it is supposed to reference??
• References 6-7-8-9 are all lumped together, spread them out to match up to what they source
• Same cluster has [8] listed twice.
• Reference 10 is dead
• Reference 11 does not state anything about the 1980s and 1990s??
• Reference cluster 12-13-14 does not actually cover everything in the preceding statements? like the fretboard and player card decorations?

• More notes that I initially thought I would find, but digging into some of the sources revealed issues so did some of the prose.  MPJ-US  23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will get to these in next few days, thanks for the feedback. a couple notes:
    • We have traditionally included a reception on the song selections in these games to show that there is notable interest in what songs the games present (which can make or break some of these games) - it's not just a random game soundtrack which rarely gains a standalone article.
    • The references should also give release dates and the Premium show names. The only data not from the sources is going to be the genre, and that it something one has to look in-game to acquire (eg going to the song in the game, and checking how they catalog it).
    • Kotaku is a reliable source as determined by the video games project.
    • I'll double check on some of those references - many are pulled from the relevant sections in the main game article but here may not be doing what I thought, but I will recheck those. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MPJ-DK: I believe I have addressed all issues but one: using a 30em reflist causes the GHTV setlist to stick in one column which creates massive whitespace. I am thinking of actually breaking that apart and using individual references which would avoid that issue, so just need a nod if this makes sense. A few additional notes: As of working on this right now, all links are active save those from Gamespot, and that looks to be temporary thing (their entire site is down, I was browsing it earlier today). I've also addressed to change or replace references to make sure these are sourcing what they are being attached too. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Masem: - Had to see for myself and I agree that looks weird, better to leave it the way it is. I get the same Gamespot error so fingers crossed it's temporary.  MPJ-US  22:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With the updates I can go with Support  MPJ-US  22:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it majorly seems to fit the criteria and with comments from other editors it can easily pass. The list is based on the current FL List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–59). Looking forward for constructive comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the minor issues raised by me were resolved. A very well written list. Yash! 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yash! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a list that serves the project quite well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this doesn't mean anything, but I noticed that this one-line support was preceded by a review request on the reviewer's talk page that ended with a winking face. With reports of talk page spamming at another FLC, can we please refrain from symbols like that, which may lead sketical outsiders to presume canvassing? It just doesn't look good, even though I don't believe that was the intention. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh! Didn't think that it could be interpreted as canvassing. The wink was only for the play of words and the popular film's title The Usual Suspects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vivvt

- Vivvt (Talk) 09:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nvvchar

• This sentence "It is ranked fifth in the order of precedence of wearing of medals and decorations." could probably be qualified.

Sorry @Nvvchar:! I didn't understand your comment. What do you mean by "could be qualified"?

• I mean "of the civilian and military awards". Nvvchar. 07:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Nvvchar:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Red link names for which there no WP articles so that some one else can write these articles.

Red links were asked to be avoided at the 1954-59 FLC. I have noticed that Tachs is doing a good job of writing articles on many of them and then linking them here.

• Consider putting all the imgs in a gallery, though they have been fitted before the tables to the right in the FLC list approved for 1950-59.

We have been following similar format on many other FLs, not just Padma, where images of all/majority of the individuals are not present.

Even without these changes the list is supported for approval.Nvvchar. 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

• With my comments being resolved, I am now willing support to this FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNF for your comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. However, in the first paragraph, there is a sentence: The Padma Bhushan award recipients are announced every year on Republic Day and registered in The Gazette of India, a publication released weekly by the Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development, used for official government notices. I opine that this sentence can be comfortably split into two. I also suggest you to rephrase that a list of recipients are announced and registered in the gazette. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Have rephrased and trimmed the sentence. Thanks for the comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very well done list. The reference number 5 for Note (a) regarding the order of precedence could be updated to the latest No. 106-Pres/2004 notification that supersedes No. 75-Pres/2001 linked to the Indian Army website. The latest one can be found here. Does not change anything, purely cosmetic. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @The Masked Man of Mega Might: Have replaced with the link you provided. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All appears to be good (after I made two minor tweaks) - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is well written and reliable. I also followed the style and structure from Alexandra Stan's discography. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

• "certified" should wikilink to Music recording sales certification instead of Certification.

 Done

• I have no much experience with song related list. So please check this point with others too.
  How important and encyclopaedic is Youtube hit count in any article? Youtube is known for click frauds and the number of times the video is clicked on (not even fully seen) is immaterial. I think that bit in the lead and from the very first para should go away. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first one, but I will for now not remove the YouTube paragraph until another experienced user thinks so. I think it's something very notably for her career, and it also further shows that her songs are successful. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My support give my minor comment is incorporated and good work done after that. I won't be capping the comments so the second point is visible to other editors who wish to comment on it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from shaidar cuebiyar

With my issues resolved, I am now willing to support this FLC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

• I now support in the nomination of this article after my comments were resolved. Best, – jona ✉ 13:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dan_arndt

• The studio album table states that Hot was released 1 January 2010 however the article for Hot states it was released "in Poland on August 4, 2009 and in Russia on September 22, 2009." In either case the release date is not backed up with a cited reference.

 Done

I'm confused you now state it was released 1 January 2010 yet it charted in the Polish charts in September 2009 ??

 Done

• Similarly I Am the Club Rocker states it was released 7 November 2011, whilst the article for I am the Club Rocker states it was released "September 19, 2011". Needs cited reference clarifying correct release date.

 Done

iTunes shows the electronic release on iTunes and I think that you're reliance on this as the official release date is flawed. Allmusic clearly confirms that the album was released in September 2011 not November 2011.