Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2018

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, 31 May 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch over the course of the past month. I would have nominated it for "Good List" status, but there does not seem to be one, so my only option for advancing the article's status seems to be to go straight for featured. This is the first time I have ever nominated anything for "Featured" status, but I have, as of right now, single-handedly brought fourteen articles up to "Good Article" status on my own, and I have significantly assisted in promoting several others, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing.

This article obviously does not hope to cover every single Mesopotamian deity, but it does cover all the ones I could find entries for in reference works on the subject, as well as a few others. As you can see, all information is fastidiously cited to reliable sources. The only problems I imagine that it might face will be ones perhaps dealing with the image licensing, since, even though I am not aware of any issues in that regard, I have repeatedly found that whole process confusing, and perhaps also confusion over where the cities mentioned are located, since I doubt the modern reader is likely to know much about the geography of ancient Mesopotamia. I did try to find a map to put in the article, but I could not find one that shows all the cities and I do not think it will be that big of a deal, since all the names of the cities are wikilinked and I tried to give explanations of their locations where necessary. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very interesting topic, very different list from the usual run-of-the-mill stuff that goes on here. It's well put together, and this kind of work should be encouraged by reviewers at FLC. Great work, and ping me up if you need some future feedback on similar subjects like to this one. Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by bloodofox

Support. @Katolophyromai:, this is an impressive and challenging undertaking. My first impression: where are the attestations? But after reading above, I understand why the list is structured as it is. This list doesn't raise any red flags for me, and looks solid. I'll give it a more thorough lookover and get back to you if I see any issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I can't find any immediate fault with the list contents. However...

• You're throwing several reference template errors.

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I would be more than happy to fix the reference template errors, but, unfortunately, I cannot see them at all, nor do I know of any means of detecting them. Something similar to this happened months ago at Talk:Pythagoras/GA1, where an editor said there were "lots and lots" of reference errors, but I could not see anything, so the other editor ended up having to list all the sfns with the errors in them. I am guessing there is probably some tool somewhere for detecting them? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, I may have a script installed to warn me of these. In any case... all reference numbers as of this version, for sanity in bookkeeping. One is an easy fix. Ref 52 (McEvilly 2002) lacks a target; in the bibliography, McEvilley 2002 shows as unused. I'm not sure whether the author's name is correct with or without that extra e, but that's no problem otherwise. Ref 45 (Kramer 1983) lacks a target; I imagine that Kramer ref is intended to either point to Kramer 1963 or Wolkenstein & Kramer 1983, but you'll need to double-check which. The other errors are all references that do not have a corresponding bilbiography target at all: ref 24 (Falkenstein 1965), ref 129 (Richter 2004), and ref 239 (Dever 2003b). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have now fixed all of the errors you have listed here. If you find any others, let me know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty dubious that the "Vv.Aa."-authored reference is at all referenced correctly. That's a journal publication, for one thing, and so the actual work cited should have a title, weirdness of the claimed author notwithstanding. I poked around a little bit but couldn't conclusively determine what this is supposed to be.

That citation happens to be one of a handful that were added by a particularly helpful IP user while I was in the midst of rewriting the list. I do not know what the source is exactly, since the title of the article is not given. I do know that "Vv.Aa." is an abbreviation for "various authors," though. The article is only cited once in the entire article, so it probably will not be too difficult to find a replacement for it, I imagine. I will see what else I can find. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the improperly-formatted and unidentifiable source, along with the tiny snippet of information that was cited to it. There seems to be extensive discussion of this subject in really old, outdated sources, such as J. Norman Lockyer's 1893 The Dawn of Astronomy, but I have not found a single newer source that even mentions it. The unidentifiable source that was previously cited there is from 1951. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're allowed to use whatever citation format you so desire, but you have to be consistent. There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite}} templates in use here, and that's not okay.

Done. I have changed all the sources in the bibliography to say "citation." The ones that said "cite book" were a mistake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not technically a requirement, but it should be. You have a mix of ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s, some of which are hyphenated properly, and some which are not. Hit up an ISBN converter (like this or this).
• Web sources (like Brisch) probably need a retrieval date (the APA has dropped that requirement, but it's still best practice here).

I have added today's date, since none of the articles have changed since I last visited them as far as I can tell. I hate giving accessdates because, then, every time I reuse the same source I have to update the date. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For book-format sources, publisher locations are optional, but they're all-or-nothing. I didn't audit closely, but on quick review, Wright lacks one. I'm reaaaallly not fond of the location laundry-lists like in the George reference, but I can't find anything in the MOS expressly prohibiting it.

Fixed. I also managed to find a few others that were missing publisher locations. I believe I have now corrected all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, conditional support on the reference issues getting addressed before promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I hate to mention it, because it's an immense amount of work, but... images need WP:ALT text... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. ALT text is different from a caption. It's intended as an accessibility aid (for screen readers), and is one of those things no one ever even hears about until they hit FAC/FLC, where suddenly it's an expectation. Where a caption tells you what the image is, ALT text is a brief snippet of text telling you what the image looks like. WP:ALT has some examples. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the alt-text could be a bit more descriptive, I don't think it's a blocking issue. What is, however, is that the tables don't meet WP:ACCESS requirements- you need colscopes and rowscopes. E.g. '! Name' should be '!scope="col" | Name', etc., and the first line of each row, e.g. '| An', should be '!scope="row" | An'. --PresN 02:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I have now added colscopes and rowscopes to every single column and row respectively. That was an unbelievably monotonous task, but now it is over with. Do I have your approval? Moreover, now that they have been added, is there any particular reason why the colscopes and rowscopes are necessary, other than the obvious purpose of driving me insane? They do not seem to change very much. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's quite boring to add after the fact if your table isn't set up nicely for a quick find-replace call. And yes, it doesn't change much visually); what it does its make the table parseable by screen-reading software or text-only browsers, and therefore accessible to blind or visually-impaired readers.

Speaking of monotonous: source review revealed no problems, except that the bibliography was using a mixture of unformatted, formatted, and semi-formatted ISBN-10 and ISBN-13s. I've gone ahead and converted them all to formatted ISBN-13s. With that, source review passed, and promoting. --PresN 16:26, 29 May 2018 (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, 31 May 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My second dynamic list to be nominated following my successful nomination of List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. I think this is a very valuable source of information, and the traffic statistics would agree. Generally 5,000 hits a day, and known to peak above 100,000 on the days of certain predictions. I'm very keen to get feedback on whether this article currently meets the criteria, or what I need to do to get it there. All in all I'm very happy with how much this article has been improved since I first adopted it in 2011 after seeing how bad it was then [4]. Freikorp (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Featured lists no longer begin with "this list..." nor make any references to the list as they are considered tautological. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Can't believe I overlooked that. Thanks for pointing it out. Freikorp (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much better start, however I still caught "This list distinguishes..." which also needs similar rewording. Mattximus (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I've addressed this as I'm not fussed about the issue either way, though I will mention that both my previous successful nominations contained something like what your mentioning now later in the lead. See List of people executed by lethal injection and List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those should be fixed as well, I can probably get around to fixing those up in the future. Mattximus (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Argento Surfer

"though maintain the centuries" - I think this would read better as "while maintaining the centuries"

"the end would be cause be the Last Judgement" - This is off. Is it supposed to be caused by?

Would it be feasible to add a column for the year the prediction was made? I think the interval between the prediction and the event would be interesting, although I understand many of the ancient ones might be tough to narrow down.

"or at least completely scorching it, " - this seems informal. I suggest "either scorching or swallowing Earth"

"duotrigintillion" - until I followed the link provided, I was 78% certain this was a made up word. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Argento Surfer. I've made the three recommended copyedits. I'm not sure if you wanted me to change the 'duotrigintillion' issue or were just making a comment. I'd be happy to change it to Googol if you like. As for the column of predicted dates - this would certainly leave some fields blank as not all the dates of prediction are known (sources commenting on historical cases normally don't mention when the prediction was made) and some are complicated. As the lead states the majority of predictions are foreseen to occur within the lifetime of the person making them. I've made an effort to explain (directly or indirectly) in the prose when this is not the case. I.e "[Dixon] had also previously predicted the world would end on February 4, 1962". This lets the reader know that her 2020 prediction was most certainly not made in her lifetime. I might wait to see if anyone else thinks this is a good idea. Obviously it's going to take a lot of effort (and will leave many blank fields and approximations) and I'm not sure of how much interest it will be since the dates that are known will almost elusively be within a couple decades of the prediction's supposed occurence. Freikorp (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duotrigintillion was just a comment. I'm not sure there's any easy way to express that number for everyone to understand easily.

I suspected the date of prediction would be tricky to add for many of them, and I'm satisfied with how it's noted in the description when non-standard. I support this nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• "Predictions of apocalyptic events that would result in the extinction of humanity, a massive or total collapse of civilization, the destruction of the planet or even the entire universe, have been made since at least the beginning of the Common Era.[1]" - this is too long for a lead sentence. cut into two sentences

• I tried cutting in two, but I preferred how it read when I just shortened it. Is it acceptable now? If not, I'll go back to cutting in two.

• "Historically, it has been done for reasons such as diverting attention from actual crises like poverty and war, pushing political agendas, and promoting hatred of certain groups; antisemitism was a popular theme of apocalyptic predictions in medieval times.[5] " - while this last bit after the semicolon is important, it seems selective. Surely there were other marginalized groups associated with apocalyptic predictions besides Jews?

• Oh most definitely. The source only mentioned the antisemitism though. I'll start looking for a source that another group was been marginalised or would you rather just remove this mention?

• Found a new source and expanded accordingly Ceranthor. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " making the uncertainty of our mortality more predictable, an innate human fascination with fear, comfort in seeing a form of order in the universe, personality traits of paranoia and powerlessness and a modern romanticism involved with end-times due to its portrayal in contemporary fiction.[4][6]" - too listy

• Removed a couple of the reasons. Hopefully it reads better now.

• "It is also argued that over the centuries" - passive voice

• Gah. I've always been bad at this. I've reworded it, but let me know if I've just done the same thing again.

• "In the UK in 2015, 23% of the general public believed the apocalypse was likely to occur in their lifetime, compared to 10% of experts from the Global Challenges Foundation." - again, why is just the UK's opinion mentioned here?

• That was the only source I found that gave a quantitative measurement of the difference in opinions between the general public and scientists. But I don't think we need more than one country to make this specific kind of comparison anyway. Happy to flesh this last paragraph out a little more in general though if you think that's necessary.

More comments forthcoming. ceranthor 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Ref 56 - Schwartz 1995, p. 87., 64 - Brady, 1983 & pages182–183., 72 - Schwartz 1995, p. 101., 93 - Thompson 1999, p. 121., 108 - Alnor 1999, p. 145., 112 - Darling 2012, p. xiv., 155 - Alnor 1999, p. 121., 157 - Schwartz 1995, p. 96., and 166 - Alnor 1999, p. 98. don't actually point to the proper reference.

• Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I still dislike the inclusion of just the US and UK at the end of the lead section. Otherwise, this seems ready. ceranthor 00:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Scientific table is misleading. There won't be an explosion in year 500,000, but an event like that is likely to happen with a mean time of 500k yrs. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Several of the scientific predictions fall into a similar category, predicting an event that is likely to happen within a time frame. I don't see a problem with including them. Are you suggesting we delete them all? I'm somewhat open to the idea, I'm just pointing out this issue isn't isolated. And just to clarify is this the only issue you see with the article? Would you support it otherwise? Freikorp (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not delete them. Just find a way to list them without giving the impression to a casual reader that it will happen in the year 500,000 AD. Things like those predicted to happen in 2012 on the date of whatever are completely distinct from things that are predicted to happen based on the proton decay lifetime. Most people don't understand the difference, so don't let this list increase that confusion. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I've reworded some of them; are you happy with the changes? Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think off the top of my head for a good solution, but try to see if someone prone to looking for end-of-the-world dates would open this article, what sort of phrasing would be needed so he won't think that in the year 500k scientist X said the world will end. Nergaal (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if there is something like "an asteroid of size >X will likely hit Earth in the next Y years", are there any probabilities given for this, any likely ranges? Nergaal (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's giving the statistical probability of when it would be expected to occur. As in, within the next 500,000 years, statistically speaking, the Earth should be hit by an asteroid that is at least 1km in diameter. I don't see how we can make this any clearer to the reader than it already is, nor do I see the need for it to be made any clearer. Seems pretty straight forward to me. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great and unique list from User:Freikorp! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (minor: ISBNs were not formatted right, but I fixed that). I think the list is clear that the "500,000", etc. is statistical estimates, not exact dates. Promoting. --PresN 15:17, 30 May 2018 (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) 00:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing my attempt at standardizing all list of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will be the 18th such nomination after 17 successful runs (such as: Montana, Alabama) and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities in New Mexico.

I have modeled this list off of recently promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from past reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. The lead made need some tightening up, but nothing that can't be done in the nomination process. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The population columns sort alphabetically rather than numerically; might be because some rows have dashes instead of numbers. Each article for those three places has a value for population, so something really should be included with a note.

•  Done I couldn't make the dashes sort despite by best efforts (apparently the template sort dash does not work), so I've made it standard with the other lists with a note on each municipality that has a blank space.

• You should be able to make the columns sortable by adding |sort=on to each use of the Change template – you'd then be able to put the en dashes back in (which, personally, I think look better than the blank cells). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also love to see a map in the style this one that actually depicts cites and towns in these article, or at least one with major cities labeled. Surely there's something from a free government source that's better than the useless national state maps.

• Me too! Please let me know if you find one. I managed to find one for most states but could not find one for New Mexico.

• The forms of government should use a dash, not a hyphen. Reywas92^Talk 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Thanks for the review Reywas92! All comments addressed. Mattximus (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support; though here's a possible map to include that has cities: File:National atlas new mexico cropped.png. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - couldn't really find anything else beyond the above. @Reywas92 and A Thousand Doors: you reviewed this nomination a while back; are you satisfied with the responses/prepared to support/oppose? --PresN 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mayor‐Council system can be upgraded to a commission/manager municipality by vote if the population exceeds 3,000" Two problems, vote of the council or the population, and second, why are we calling this an "upgrade"? That's all I'm seeing. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed both, good catches. Thanks Courcelles! Mattximus (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)'[reply]

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "funding of fire protection and transit" What does transit mean? Is it USAmer for what is called public transport in the UK or maybe for road maintenance?  Done
• "office of manager with identical powers to the manager in a commission/manager municipality" There does not seem any point in saying powers are identical when you have not said what their powers are in a commission/manager municipality.  Done
• "A manager in both cases is not-elected and administers the hiring/firing of municipal employees" The hyphen is not grammatical. (I would put this explanation higher up before the identical powers comment.) Done

• Yes your way is much more logical, rearranged and reworded accordingly.

• You might take the census figures for the city of Anthony as the city website says that it is the same as the municipality. Done

• Great catch, I added the figures, but kept a note saying that the totals are for incorporated places only.

• Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dudley Miles for the excellent catches, I believe I have made them all. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:03, 29 May 2018 (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) 00:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as other FLs such as Suffolk and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Quality work. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have read it, and cannot find much in the way of corrections. The following are minor points.

Perhaps you can change "has diverse fauna and flora" to "has a diverse fauna and flora" to be consistent with other usages (same with "in diverse ground flora").

Pollarding could be linked as it is not a common word.

Volucella inanis is Latin and should thus be italicized.

Yellow horned-popies should not be capitalized.

Great work! Mattximus (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Mattximus. All done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw Another great list which follows the format used elsewhere. A few minor bits:

• There is slight variation in date format in the references ie some use "from the original on 2018-05-15" & others "from the original on 15 May 2018".

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• References 51 & 59 use sfn for Ratcliffe with page nos but ref 67 writes it out in full - any reason?

• Fixed. I missed 67 when regularising the format. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really an issue for FL criteria but I'm intrigued why the map for Haysden Country Park is not available on MAGIC?

• This is an issue which keeps coming up. NE depends of local authorities to supply details of LNRs they have designated, and they hardly ever seem able to fix errors and omissions - I suspect because there is often no longer anyone working for the local authority who know anything about LNRs. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything else to nit-pick about.— Rod ^talk 07:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Rodw. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I can now Support as meeting the FLC criteria.— Rod ^talk 09:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another quality entry in this series. Promoting. --PresN 02:15, 29 May 2018 (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, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I have expanded the referencing for the videography with 50% more inline citations and double the sources. I believe it faithfully represents the subject and meets the criteria. Looking forward to your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In my opinion, this meets FL standards. (Wish I was alive to see him play in Monterey...I'm only a 40 minute drive from there.) — Miss Sarita 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss Sarita: I've added four gold and platinum certifications that I found while searching for a replacement source for BPI. They show more of the international popularity of Hendrix's DVDs, although some of his strongholds like Germany, Netherlands, Norway, etc., don't have any listings. These should be OK, but you might want to take a look. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo: Thanks for letting me know. Just looked it over and everything still looks a-okay to me. :-) — Miss Sarita 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – My only qualm with the list is the practice of putting the table references in non-numerical order. This occurs in numerous places in the ref column and strikes me as odd-looking, but that may just be personal preference so I don't want to come down too hard on the issue. The list otherwise looks solid to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: It's an easy fix, so I made the changes. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The changes look good and that was my only concern, so I'm switching to full support now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - tweaked a couple minor things. Also, Source Review passed. --PresN 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since Giants also supported, I'm going to be bold and promote as well. --PresN 02:11, 29 May 2018 (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.

Thanks for everyone's input and support. It looks much better for it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, with the assistance of several editors, it is now a concise and informative list of notable events in the history of Scottish football, and is fully and appropriately referenced. ShugSty (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________

The most obvious thing that jumps out at me is that the list is in reverse chronological order. There is no way that a "timeline" should have the earliest events at the end. You wouldn't expect to see a timeline of the history of the universe which ended with the Big Bang........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that seems reasonable. Done! ShugSty (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a timeline of Scottish football which contains notable football-related events that have occurred both on and off the field from the mid 1800s up to the present time." - sentences like this in list leads have been deprecated for many years, remove it and bulk up the rest of the lead a bit. Also, there's not a single image in the article - surely there are some relevant ones that could be added....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for the first part of the above to be addressed.

I've now made a start on this, with a bit of spiel about the football clubs. I'm a bit unsure about how best to progress as I can't find a similar article for pointers (or to rip off :) ). I'll continue to do as best as I can over then next few days though. (ShugSty 16/3/18)

I've now come up with some paragraphs for the lead ShugSty (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that, while almost all the entries are written in the present tense, there are a handful such as "Motherwell captain Phil O'Donnell, 35, collapsed on the pitch" which are not - make sure all are consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through and made some amendments; hopefully I've now corrected all such instances of this. (ShugSty 16/3/18)

"The crowd of 122,714 that watched Rangers win over Celtic in the 1973 Scottish Cup Final is the last six-figure attendance at any match in Britain" - this is not true, the official attendance figure for the FA Cup final was 100,000 right up to 1985 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Having re-read the the source, it does actually says "100,000 +", so I'll rephrase accordingly. Thanks. ShugSty (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________

• A few questions:
  • 1907: "Celtic become the first Scottish club" to win the double. Had a non-Scottish club done it before then? If not, then do you need to specify "Scottish"? - Preston and Aston Villa both did the English "double" in the 1890s (ShugSty 9/3/18)
    • Okay, but this is a list of Scottish history, and it's referring to the Scottish double. No where else in the article is it specified anything in Scottish, I just don't think it's needed here. Nitpicky but that's what FL is for. :)
      • Yep, kind of see your point. Still felt there was a need to highlight it as a "Scottish" double, as opposed to the first ever anywhere, so I've rephrased to: "Celtic win both the league title and the Scottish Cup in the same season, becoming the first club to win the the double in Scotland" (ShugSty 10/3/18 - slightly tweaked from my first amendment the previous day)
  • Above also applies to 1947. Clubs in Northern Ireland and Egypt (!) appear to have done their domestic "treble" earlier. However, by you querying this, I came across an error - it was actually 1949 Rangers did the first treble, so I've now corrected the list to reflect this. (ShugSty 9/3/18)
  • 1931: Thomson's death. Yes, it's obviously relevant, but is that because it's the first death on the pitch? The only? Are there others? If there are, are they mentioned? If they aren't, why not? I feel like even the barest of explanation as to why that entry is there would help. This would help with the 2007 entry as well; are these the only two deaths to ever occur on the Scottish pitch? Can't say for certain if they're the only deaths in Scottish game, but they're certainly by far the most high profile (ShugSty 9/3/18)
  • 1978: What's particularly notable about the coaches switching teams? See also 1986's entry on Ferguson (the entry on Souness explains the relevance) Added info to all three entries (1978 x 2, 1986 x 1) to clarify (ShugSty 14/3/18)
  • This is an issue in 1989 (Johnston) Added info to clarify (ShugSty 9/3/18)
  • This is an issue in 1991 (Souness-Smith) Added info to clarify (ShugSty 14/3/18)
  • Otherwise, I see no major issues. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the points you raised now. ShugSty (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, never came back: Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________

• For a football list, it does absolutely not mention non-association football anywhere. Nergaal (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it? There is only one sport that is referred to in the UK as "football", and that is the sport which the list covers...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________

• Apologies for forgetting to check back here. It's nearly there now, but I've found a few minor points:
  • The purple team from Edinburgh is inconsistently referred to as "Heart of Midlothian" and "Hearts". I would prefer that the former is used throughout
  • I found at least two events described completely in the past tense whereas everything else is in the present. There's also some (e.g. 1960, 1973, 1980) which mix the two
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I've changed all the references from "Hearts" to "Heart of Midlothian". Also had a re-run through, and (hopefully) now changed all the remaining past tense phrases to present tense. ShugSty (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1883: The British Home Championship (also known as the Home International Championship) becomes an annual competition contested between the UK's four national teams, Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.[32] The current ref does not say the tournament was established in 1883. First games were played in 1884. 1977 is the last time SCO won BHC. Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The first BHC games were played in the 1883/84 season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any actual source showing that there IS a 1883/84 season for BHC and not just a 1884 one? Just because modern tournaments are centered around winter, doesn't mean that 100 years ago, when even things like referees were being standardized, that was still the case. Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the first game of the competition took place in January 1884, it's pretty obvious that the setting up of the championship would have taken place during 1883 (probably after a dozen or so meetings, committees, eyc). However none of the sources make any mention of that. I've now rejigged slightly, to tie in with the info that is provided in the sources. ShugSty (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I made a couple of minor tweaks but that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this some attention. As an aside, like TRM noted above, the use of bold comments instead of plain text+signatures, along with the floating horizontal lines instead of headings or regular indents makes this nomination really hard to read.

• "progressed further with the setting up of the Scottish Football League" - that is an awkward phrasing to my ears, consider "progressed further with the founding of the Scottish Football League" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Other clubs have enjoyed brief periods of success; Heart of Midlothian" - should be a colon, since what follows is an expansion on what "other clubs" meant, not just a related clause Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "for over the next 50 years the national side" - awkward; since you already started the sentence with "following", you can just say "for over 50 years the national side" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "due to inferior goal difference" - link goal difference Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "and longest established club Queen's Park are formed" - the convention of clubs/nations being plural nouns keeps throwing me off, but in this case the subject of the sentence is "club", not "Queen's Park", so it should be "is formed" Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Real win 7–3 in one of the best known of European finals" - known, not know of Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "and regarded by many as one of the greatest matches of all time" - "by many" is a peacock phrase It's not perhaps the best phrase. To more closely match the source(s), I've rephrased slightly. However, if that's not acceptable I'm happy to take it out. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Brechin also equalled the Scottish record" - past tense Changed to "equal" ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not doing a source review at this time, but you've got a "The Glasgiw Herald" in there, some unformatted ISBNs, and ref 19 is a self-published book. Also, "A Sporting Nation - BBC" is a combination of a work and published, and should be two fields (and you link it to BBC Sport the 3rd time it comes up, for some reason)
  • "Glasgiw" Sorted ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19 - Although a self-published book, the author worked for years as Head of Communications/Media for the SFA and is currently working for UEFA as a media officer. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unformatted ISBNs - Sorry, I don't understand. Can you clarify? Ok, now all fixed ShugSty (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Sporting Nation - Done ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The choices of what to include in this list seem pretty arbitrary at times- you have the first time each team wins a cup, sure, but then various other times a team won without explanation for why that one mattered as opposed to all the times you don't mention a winner (e.g. you call out the 1904 Scottish Cup, but not the 1905- I guess because of the hat trick?)
  • Arbitrayness - Yeah, I suppose you've got a point, but a "timeline" list is always going to be somewhat subjective ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cup wins - Yes, it's the hat trick ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• You also call out world/non-world record attendances/records... but it's not clear if those records still stand or not in all cases; maybe the non-world attendance ones do? Where a record has since been superseded, I've added a comment about it being a record "at the time", where I haven't put any such comment then the record still stands. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In 1995 you call out Meadowbank Thistle moving/being renamed, which makes sense... but you didn't mention in 1974 that they had been founded- why do they suddenly become important enough to mention only after 21 years and a name change? Given that you don't call out pretty much any club founding, it feels like they get a mention only because otherwise 1995 would be empty. Whilst common in US sports (and maybe elsewhere) for clubs/ teams to up sticks and move to a different city/town, it is very unusual in British football. MK Dons in England are the only other example I can think of. ShugSty (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not watchlisting, please ping. --PresN 18:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my only remaining concern is the inclusion criteria arbitrariness/not, but as sports lists aren't my area I'm going to take that one on faith a bit, as I see other sports editors above without concerns. Support. --PresN 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry to blow a hole here, but the lead is huge, five paras, and in contravention of WP:LEAD. We should have a couple of paras in the lead, and then probably a "History" section to encompass all the detail. No content really needs to change, just the structure. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done ShugSty (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As indicated by the capping of the comments above, I now consider the source review to be passed. Thanks for going through those issues and resolving them all. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 26 May 2018 (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) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this quite a bit and I think I found a way to be both interesting and manageable. I targeted to have a table/list of about 50 of the nearest planets to the Solar System, which ought to be of highest interest for investigations with telescopes. There is a chance that if/when the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite is launched, that this list will significantly increase in size, and thus require more trimming, but that won't be for many years.

Initially I wanted to have this list limited to a round number like 50 light-years, but there were around 120 planets in that range which made it very difficult to maintain considering that the list gets lots of updates (there were around 70 entires 4 years ago, and even those 70 had most measurement changed since). Currently, the cutoff is set at 10 parsecs, or around 32 light-years, a less intuitive but much more common unit among astronomers (think feet vs meters). Other similar astronomy lists use thresholds like 5 parsecs, but in the future simple hard cutoffs like "50-closest" could work too. Any feedback is welcome. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mfb

The introduction should be improved. Apart from grammar and style (which have been criticized in earlier nominations already...): It looks like a random accumulation of facts, especially in the second paragraph. It also uses light years everywhere while the image to the right uses parsecs, making comparisons difficult. Suggestion:

"Out of the total of 3,743 known exoplanets (as of March 8, 2018),[1] only a small fraction are located in the vicinity of the Solar System: 56 exoplanets have been discovered within 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years). Among the over 400 stars known within this distance,[b][3] only 26 had been confirmed to have planetary systems. Among the 51 stars visible with the naked eye in this range, 8 have known exoplanets."

Reduce the second paragraph to Proxima Centauri as nearest star with exoplanets and HD 219134 as system with most exoplanets in the list. Then have the third paragraph with exoplanet properties.

I reworked/trimmed the intro quite a bit. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

I like the idea of the distance/number plot, but I think the current plot is poorly drawn. The binning is too fine to show the distribution but too coarse to show individual stars (it combines YZ Ceti and Tau Ceti, for example). One point/bar per star would make much more sense I think. And, following the rest of the article, it should be in light years. Minor detail: "Count" does not need subdivisions for 1/2.

I can't easily make an image like it without using NASA's software, and that software doesn't really allow for higher resolution without becoming unreadable without zooming in. And they use parsecs, which is an abstract unit that I tried to stay away from as much as possible. The only real option is to take out the image entirely, leaving the list quite dry-bones.Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple chart with the source data easily accessible. If you want equidistant bins in a bar chart: Bins of 0.2 ly work well, HD 219134 can be moved to 21.4-21.6 to avoid collision with Gliese 625 (that bin is within the uncertainty anyway). Here is an example, put together in a spreadsheet: File:Distances to nearest confirmed exoplanets in light years.png. The formatting could be improved. A scatter plot would work as well. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, it didn't even cross my mind to use Excel (as the dataset is only 26 long). I had the full 3000+ dataset in mind when I was thinking of graphing it. Thanks for the easy solution. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut is mentioned as "directly imaged in 2013" twice, but the image refers to direct images from four different years. What is special about the 2013 image, and if it is so special why don't we show this one?

"Inclusion criteria" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the proximity of the exoplanets. Why is this needed here?

Various databases include "exoplanets" even those with masses that could sustain deuterium fusion. A paragraph explains why those are not included here, and also explains how the estimated mass might count. In addition, databases include some planets as confirmed and others as unconfirmed. The current state of the article assumes NASA's as the "highest authority" and the first para in that sections lists those that are not listed by NASA but are by others. Nergaal (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does renaming it to "excluded from the list" and moving it after the table work? Nergaal (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be better. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a section where individual planets are discussed if they have something special (e.g. Fomalhaut as one of the rare exoplanets with a direct image, complex discovery histories, ...).

A long time ago that would have made sense. But over half of the current entries did not exist 3 years ago. Having a discussion section (besides the criteria one) will mean that likely it too will have to get rewritten soon. Other planets might get directly imaged too. For example, 3 years ago, most known planets in this range were Jupiter-sized, so the discussion 3 years ago would have talked how Earth-like planets are so rare, when today they form the majority of the entires in the table. Nergaal (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can change over time, that is nothing new. List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches was at 1/3 the current size three years ago (15 launches instead of 51). A good list has recent information, if this recent information is relevant. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that it wouldn't be nice to have one, just that I am trying to reach a realistic balance with maintaining it. The F9, is a chronological, stable list, which adds on sequentially. Once you plug in a payload mass into the table it won't change. Sep 2015 the Gliese 876 system had here very different "best guesses" for inclinations and eccentricities (and mass). That's why I tried to focus on the most basic stuff. All the more notable things I had thought of I had put in the introduction (most planets, first planets, etc), as stuff like smallest planet, or most habitable might change (even planets like around Alpha Centauri was considered confirmed a while ago but now NASA doesn't list it as such). Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the use of # in the table, and in general the large number of footnotes, comments and so on is a bit unfortunate.

Great catch. It's supposed to follow the yellow-background entries (for colorblind people), but I forgot to update the # with the yellows. Nergaal (talk)

The mass numbers in the table look too accurate. I doubt we have three significant figures for them.

You are right about it. I manually trimmed down the excess sig-figures for most of the numbers and left behind enough to make the ordering listing option meaningful. For example, for Proxima Centauri b, the minimum mass is 1.27 with +0.19 to -0.17 given to it. I will try to remove most of the 3-figures numbers, but what do you suggest to do with numbers like 1.27+0.19-0.17? Nergaal (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this would be a scientific publication I would keep that number, but for Wikipedia I think 1.3 +- 0.2 is better. Rounding is advisable especially if you don't explicitly give the uncertainty. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked carefully, and the error bars on masses are relatively huge (rarely under 10% and usually around 30%). And that isn't even taking into account orbital inclination estimates. I removed everything beyond the 2nd sig fig, and even left a single sig fig for the more gigantic error bars. Nergaal (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tables, but their arrangement is chaotic with nearly every browser width.

--mfb (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by chaotic (they appear to look fine on Chrome). Thanks for all the comments; I tried to fix them as much as I could. Let me know what you think, @Mfb:. Nergaal (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better already. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: I tried to fix things further. Am I still missing anything? Nergaal (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better than before already, but I think it could be improved further. --mfb (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any specifics? Nergaal (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: I gave a few more go-throughs. I am not sure what else can I improve on. Any suggestions? Nergaal (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a lot just by going through the article and fixing grammar and so on. As long as there is an obvious grammar error in the second sentence already this list won't get featured. The second paragraph makes an exoplanet a report, and so on. The references should be formatted consistently, and YYYY-MM-DD is an uncommon date format here. The weblink check linked at the top of the page finds two issues. These are all things that should not need external review. --mfb (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed more stuff. Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a perennial issue with this list, I've just gone ahead and copyedited the prose myself. Please verify that I dind't inadvertently change something to not be true. --PresN 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Looks good. Nergaal (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have done some copy edits. Of course, change anything which is wrong.
• "In that range there are over 400 known stars,[b][4] 51 of which are visible to the naked-eye,[5][c] 26 have been confirmed to have planetary systems, and 8 have confirmed exoplanets." I do not understand this. Presumably a planetary system is a star which has one or more planets, so should not the number be smaller than the number of exoplanets?

• I believe your copyedit made this a bit confusing- the idea is 400 stars, of which 26 have planetary systems. 51 of those stars are visible to the naked eye, and there are 8 planets confirmed for those 51 stars. Although, is that even true? The statistics table for visible stars says 8 systems, not 8 planets. --PresN 20:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The original I've had a long time ago was "Among the over 400 known stars within this distance,[b][4] only 26 have been confirmed to have planetary systems. Among the 51 stars in this range that are visible the naked-eye,[5][c] only eight have confirmed exoplanets." But reviewers have consistently complained about copyediting throughout all FLCs, so I've given up on having a 'personal' edit. I would rather have reviewers be happy, so feel free to rephrase it in a correct and clear manner. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it was already ambiguous because of previous edits and I misread it. How about: "Among over 400 known stars within this distance,[b][4] 26 have been confirmed to have planetary systems; 51 stars in this range are visible to the naked-eye,[5][c] eight of which have planetary systems." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The International Astronomical Union took a public survey in 2015 about renaming some known extrasolar bodies," If you want to mention this, you should give the results of the poll.
  • The poll was a while ago and I thought it was a cool idea. But it is unclear to me if scientists (those who write papers on this stuff) actually care for the "official" names, so I was a bit reticent in pushing the non-standardized names. I will add a clarifying note about the names to mention the results better. Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is no move to actually use the names, I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear to me how much the names have been adopted. It seems to be an "official" move/name, but since it did not get wide attention like say the debate about Pluto's planetary status, there has been no additional clarification to the wider public. I am guessing a few decades from now, these names will have caught on. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It would considerably enhance the value of the list to make the columns sortable.
  • Good catch! It's always been sortable, but one of my last edits broke that. I fixed it. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• " The International Astronomical Union has detailed that "a period of at least five years since the discovery has been considered as a simple and satisfactory criterion to include exoplanets which can be considered as confirmed"." I am not sure what this means - obviously not five years without confirming evidence. Does it mean five years without anyone disputing the claim?
  • Yes. If someone says "we are confident there is a planet there, and we have evidence X, Y and Z", if nobody says X, Y and/or Z are false, or that X1 says different from X, they are assumed tacitly confirmed. It's a quote from experts in the field, so I tried to not touch it, but feel free to improve the clarity. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that it is a quote which is only explaining part of what they are saying. I suggest not quoting and saying something like "The International Astronomical Union has declared that an exoplanet should be considered confirmed if it has not been disputed for five years after its discovery." Does this seem OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks to me as if there are no problems which cannot be easily fixed this time round. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look at the list. Let me know if there is anything else I can work on. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "1 candidate and a disc" confused me for a bit; maybe make it "additional candidate(s)" in that column, or add a note to the column header that it's notes on non-confirmed planetary candidates and planetary discs
  • How is the new title? Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Dudley; the columns should be sortable. This may require dropping the "separator" column, I think.
  • Yeah, I noticed that trick I tried broke the sorting. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The table does not meet ACCESS requirements; specifically it's missing colscopes and rowscopes.
  • Does every single row require it even if no "!" is used? Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Missing accessdates on some Exoplanet.eu --PresN 21:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Weird how the bot missed those. Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking some time to look through. I think I fixed all these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good! I did the rowscopes myself (you do need the '!', which means that the first column needs to be on it's own line); note that I'm manually overriding the way rowscopes bold the first column so as to not change your preexisting formatting. If you'd prefer that, just drop the font-weight bits on each star. Support ing, pending the last few bits from Dudley Miles above. Additionally, Source Review passed. --PresN 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The alignment seems a bit off, but I don't know enough html to figure out how to center it. Any idea how to get them perfectly balanced, as all things should be? Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, it's because the rowscope tag makes it a "header" cell, and header cells for sortable tables get extra space on the right for the sorting arrows. Adjusted to remove that space. --PresN 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: You reviewed this list a while back; are you satisfied with the changes since? --PresN 17:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, I support the nomination. The graph could be improved - I made it as demonstration how a graph could look like without spending much time on its quality. --mfb (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2018 (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) 22:04, 20 May 2018 (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, 17 May 2018 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully nominated the lists for 2000-2006 inclusive (as well, rather randomly, as 1959), so I figured I might as well continue my streak....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and source review passed- there were mixed reference date styles, but I just fixed them. Going to be bold and go ahead and promote, since this is the 9th variation on this list and issues were minimal. --PresN 18:24, 16 May 2018 (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) 00:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded and referenced the list from its original incarnation to meet the FL criteria, using the four promoted international footballer lists as a guide. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - my only concern is that the photo caption "John Toshack gained 40 caps for Wales and managed the side on two occasions." makes it sound like he literally only managed the team for two individual matches. Could it be re-worded at all......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comment, I've reworded the caption to hopefully avoid any confusion. Kosack (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:53, 14 May 2018 (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) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well first came Jonah, then Bryan, now it's Shane. As ever, massive kudos to anyone who has the time and energy to contribute here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very happy to support. Great job! JennyOz (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting --PresN 21:46, 14 May 2018 (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) 00:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lee (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. I used the Kanye West albums discography and Rihanna discography as inspiration. I hope it meats the FL requirements. Lee (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed adequately and I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Lirim | T 18:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Lirim | T 18:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning through- no ref for Golden Era Tourtape, "Straße 2"; several references use "Applemusic", rather than "Apple Music" like the others; many references use "YouTube" as a work/publisher, which is incorrect- YouTube is the site it's published on, but should be used as "via=YouTube" with the actual publisher in the "Publisher" field (for example, "Majoe feat. Kollegah & Farid Bang ► BADT ◄" is by Banger Musik), as YouTube itself had no hand in putting the video on the site, writing the description, owns the rights to the video itself, etc. --PresN 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I added two sources and corrected your concerns.--Lirim | T 20:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:21, 14 May 2018 (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) 00:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id Software/Raven Software), I bring to you Epic Games and its products. Started by Tim Sweeney in his parents' house as first Potomac Computer Systems and shortly thereafter Epic MegaGames, in the mid-90s it was the main shareware developer/publisher in competition with Apogee Software (3D Realms) with Jazz Jackrabbit and a bunch of also-rans. Since then, it's made 3 major transitions: from mostly shareware publishing external titles, to retail PC game development focusing on the Unreal series, then to console game development focusing on the Gears of War series, and now is moving back to self-publishing multi-platform experimental games: extended early-access games like Fortnite, collaborative development with the player community in Unreal Tournament, collaborations with film studios in Spyjinx, etc. They can afford to do all this due to their series of successful Unreal Engines, which power tons of AAA games across the industry.

This nomination was a bit more of a collaboration than many of my previous ones: I started making this list in a sandbox in March, only for Deltasim to make a parallel version in article space 6 days later after a discussion at Talk:Epic Games. That kicked me into moving a bit faster, so I'd like to thank them, along with along with Lordtobi and Hakken, for helping get this list up to a solid state up from a small table in Epic Games. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: - I have a question. How do we know that this list is comprehensive? With many of your lists you generally have one primary reliable source that has a definitive listing of the items in the featured list, but this list is very much a labor of many sources put together. How do we evaluate it when I am not personally sure that it includes all titles Epic has had? Great work though! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: Same as any other similar list- in the case (such as this one) where the company itself does not have a comprehensive list available of the games they have worked on, that no games database (reliable or otherwise) has games for Epic in it without a reason to exclude (e.g. AllGame had a game marked as published by Epic that was actually published by Safari, which Epic later bought- see the page history for justifications on removing each game like that). This is standard for video-games-by-company lists; I've actually never had a company list with a single comprehensive source, as far as I remember, which is both the challenge and the interest of these kind of lists- it means that this list is the only one on the internet (or in books, as far as I can find) that is consolidated and comprehensive, much less sourced. --PresN 19:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent. Since standard procedures for obtaining reliable sources and ensuring completeness were followed, and well reasoned justifications are given for any exclusions or modifications, I support the nomination for this list. Another in a long chain of great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I tried to find something, but failed. Once you address Courcelles' issues above, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, same situation as Rambling. --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my FLC nomination if you've got the time. Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Source review – All of the references are well-formatted and appear to be reliable enough. The link-checker tool shows no issues. I spot-checked a few sources: references 24, 39, and 52. Ref 24 lists the title of the game, but doesn't seem to have some of the other information mentioned, in particular the developer. Refs 39 and 52 have no issues, so some better support for the game cited by ref 24 is the only thing I'd like to see. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: At first I was confused and a little embarassed... but now I just feel too clever for my own good. Check ref 24 again, specifically the picture (not the text) for the Epic Baseball section- it's the title screen, which says "By Microleague Interactive Software". I can look for a second source if you'd like, as well. --PresN 01:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't believe I missed that before. I'm so used to looking at text that I didn't think to check the photo. I'd say the source review has been passed now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 5 May 2018 (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) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]