Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2019

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) 18:22:01 31 May 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following in the footsteps of FLs Territorial evolution of the United States and Territorial evolution of Canada, I offer Australia. Unlike the others, it includes the colonial period because, helpfully, no colonies joined it after it became a country so I avoid that complication. (and the colonial period was a lot more interesting!) Well-sourced, well-illustrated, and, at least at this time, appears comprehensive. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A longer lead would be nice, maybe summarize the major events and the difference between a state and territory.
• Along with that, the timeline overall is amazing but lacks context of what were relatively minor procedural changes and bigger ones that affected people. Some discussion about changes related the most populated areas could go in the lead.
• I recall seeing a gif somewhere, would go well at the top, especially since the images are somewhat small, with more blue sea than Australia in the maps. I know the table has all the same information but the maps are simply illegible.

Reywas92^Talk 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lede: I've tried to flesh it out a bit.
  • Context: When I originally made these articles, I wanted them to be just ... facts. No context, just say what happened and don't bother with why. But now that the initial information is in, I feel more confident going back and trying to supply context. I'll work on that today.
  • You might have seen it on Reddit, where I posted it last week? :) The maps I guess are designed to be clicked if you want to see what they say, I hadn't considered making a tiny version of the maps, without text, just showing the change in a visible form... do you think that might be worth the effort? --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that was it! Found it again at List of proposed states of Australia. I may let others comment if they think you should go through that work but honestly I think the tiny unreadable text in the thumbnails doesn't look great, and they didn't need to be extended through the sea for just two changes about uninhabited islands. They're terrific when bigger but not as good as thumbnails. Reywas92^Talk 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you're referring to about 'two changes' to 'uninhabited islands' - you mean Heard + Macdonald? Removing those only shrinks the map a little bit- all of the other corners (Nauru, Cocos, South Island) are pretty close to their edges. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that gif was made by someone else based on an earlier version of the article. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha I only read until I saw your name credited for the original file, but it looks good. I did mean Heard and MacDonald but yeah the others are out there too. I suppose as a reader I'm not as interested in the low population territories but they're certainly parts of Australia that shouldn't be left out, but most changes don't involve them. Perhaps use different maps for Australian mainland and external territories (or pre and post-independence)? I guess the maps have the same small text as in the US and Canada map and it's not that necessary to read them – maybe just increase the size to 250px like the others! I thought your test change looked good though but I don't want this to be a ridiculous amount of work. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not ridiculous, it's actually fun, but... I'm worried that if I put these up, the more detailed frames will be lost. Very few people will click through to see them... --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope you don't mind I made the images bigger and legible to match the US and Canada articles. With the longer lead now, I support. A review on my FLC below would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 06:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: comprehensive and detailed enough for my liking. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my (pedantic) issues resolved, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the vast, sparsely populated center of the country" - don't Australians spell "centre" the correct way same way as we do in Britain?
• link Letters patent on first use.
• Our article on Letters patent doesn't capitalise the P, but here you do. Not sure which is correct?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed; I coulda sworn I saw somewhere that said letters patent was always capitalized, but now I can't find it. Maybe I mixed up where our article said always pluralized. *shrug* --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:22, 31 May 2019 (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) 18:21:56 31 May 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is in a very good shape at the moment, it is well-written and sourced. I wanted to have it as a GA nomination, but it turned out it had too many tables for that. I'm very apperciative of comments. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My comments can be seen on the talk page Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of the 2016 disqualification, did Romania successfully go through the pre-selection process, only to be disqualified before the Grand Final? If so, were they then replaced by another country? Were any other countries also disqualified for this reason? What was Ovidiu Anton's reaction to all this?

They had chose their entry and assigned a semi-final to possibly qualify for the Grand Final eventually, yet they were removed from the show due to the reasons mentioned. There was no country that took their place, they were simply just removed; one country less in 2016 simply. I don't think Anton's reaction is relevant here, but I included something about the overall reaction.

The reason I ask this is that the article says that Romania qualified for every ESC Grand Final "except for 2018 and 2019". This implies that they did qualify for the Grand Final in 2016, but your comment seems to be saying that they didn't. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll have to let this as it stands right now, since saying the coutry didn't qualify in 2016 would be technically wrong. Also, a sentence about their 2016 exclusion follows directly after "except for 2018 and 2019", so the reader shouldn't be confused.Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"saying the coutry didn't qualify in 2016 would be technically wrong". Why? You said earlier that they were were assigned a place in a semi-final, but they were then removed before it went ahead. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds to me like the country didn't qualify in 2016. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: If you're a Eurovision fan, you normally use "didn't qualify" when saying that a country did not receive enough votes from the public and juries in the semi-final to pass into the Grand Final. However, this didn't happen to Romania since they didn't even participate in the voting phase in the semi-final. Thus, saying "didn't qualify in 2016" would confuse readers. Also, until 2016, the Eurovision site reported that Romania had a "100% qualification rate" to the Grand Final when they, according to you, "didn't qualify" in 2016. So, clearly the Eurovision site also doesn't see the 2016 as a non-qualification, rather as a forced withdrawal. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may sound like a pain, but given we'll be seeing Romania in, at least, qualifying in a matter of days for this year's event, I'm going to delay my review until after the dust settles on that, so ping me once the article has been updated post-contest if you would be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Romania did, again, not qualify with a masterpiece of a song :( .... Anyway, you can start commenting on the article if you wish. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's better than qualifying and finishing rock bottom... I will do my best to get to it later, having a somewhat busy day today. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The main table on the page features redundant symbols and leaves important information, such as Romania's status in 1995. More importantly, the table does not match other country's related pages, such as Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest. The page should be formatted in such as way to include crucial information and keep a uniform among the other many related pages. Furthermore, it should not have its formatting changed and information left out simply to try to get featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.45.113 (talk • contribs)

The table is meant to have those symbols and the formatting is unlike the page given, since this one is a FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look good to me. I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing statement: I'm discounting the oppose from the ip address; the inconsistency of formatting from non-FLs is a reason to adjust the other lists, not to oppose this one, and I don't think 1995 needs to be in the table for the reasons stated in the prose- it's not required that every year, even those where they did not compete, be listed. As to A Thousand Doors' concerns, I'm convinced that "did not qualify" is a term of art in this area, meaning that they competed but did not qualify to the finals, and is distinct from being disqualified as a nation prior to competition. As such, and with the source review passing, I'm promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (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) 18:21:58 31 May 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times's Most Powerful People was a series of listings created by Radio Times from January 2003 to June 2005. I have been working on this list for a while now, and I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the first sentence of the TV comedy section, comedy randomly has a capital letter when it doesn't anywhere else

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gervais, Norton, Lucas and Walliams are not linked in the prose in this section at all. I realise they were all linked in the lead, but standard practice is to link again on the first usage in the body.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Risque is usually spelt with an acute accent on the e.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• TV drama section starts with "Following the success..." - this may be pedantic, but is there any evidence that the previous polls were a success? On what basis were they a success?

• ✓ Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of May 2010, Ross keeps" - I would change "keeps" to "kept" giving that May 2010 was nearly nine years ago.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is no station listed for Chris Evans? As far as I can see from his article, he was broadcasting on Radio 2 at that point.

• Simply because that's what the sources did ([4] [5]). I'm willing to change this if it's an issue. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the last point. Maybe you could add a footnote saying something like "the poll did not identify Evans with a specific station" or something like (better-worded than) that, just because it looks a bit jarring to have it missing for one person....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Following the publication of the Most Powerful People in TV Comedy polls, in July 2004 Radio Times), I believe there should be another comma after “2004”.

• ✓ Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (was the highest new entry and the highest-placed female), I would say “woman” instead of “female”. Something about using “female” as a noun always seems off to me, but it could be a cultural/American v.s. British thing.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any information on why the Radio Times stopped doing these listings?

• None that I can find, unfortunately. They were never exactly a massive deal; I suspect that they were simply quietly retired. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is what I thought, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple thoughts from me:

• TV comedy: "The list was first published in January 2003, and was topped by Ricky Gervais. Gervais...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this, as it's not optimal prose.

•  Done Replaced with "The comedian".

• Radio: I see "forty" and "70" in close proximity, and a "40" later in the section. A particular style of spelling out the numbers or not should be chosen here. Since other numbers seem to be given in numeral form throughout the article, I'd change the "forty" into number form. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done

Thank you for the review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My couple of nit-picks have been addressed and I don't see any further issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (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) 18:21:59 31 May 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC), 2013 (FLC) and 2014 (FLC). The 1962 Tour de France article became an FA last month. BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "bowed to pressure from their team's extra" => "bowed to pressure from their teams' extra"
  • "In the beginning of February 1962" => "At the beginning..."

    Changed to "In early February 1962". BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which had 12 teams of 12 cyclists (132 total)" - pretty sure 12 x 12 is 144......?
  • "the French cyclists were outnumbered" => "French cyclists were outnumbered"
  • "the largest numbers of riders from a nation were Italians at 52" => "the largest number of riders from a nation came from Italy (52)"
  • "Of start list of 150" => "Of the start list of 150"
  • "Altig lost it the follow day" => the following day
  • "between the end of stage nine to the end of eleven" => from the end.....
  • "The follow day, British" - following day
  • Green and yellow jersey icons also need some sort of symbol, as colour-blind readers may not be able to tell them apart

    I took the background colour idea from List of Tour de France general classification winners, but I'm not too sure about it. BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  All done. BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed a couple of typos but am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a really nice piece of work, I've scanned over it twice in the past couple of weeks and struggled to find anything, but one thing did spring out to me just now, that in one of the captions you mention a very intriguing sounding "super-bad luck award". I'd be fascinated to know more about this, particularly as it's not mentioned anywhere else, nor linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks. I did think readers might wonder that. There's no article at present, but it's mentioned in the main. The only info I could find on it was in the self-published Tour de France book (see "Meeste pech"). The author has also found most of the winners and has listed them on his site. It seems to have been of equal importance to the still active combativity award, which with the unluckiest award was given after each stage and an overall one at the end of Tours. It appeared between 1952–1967 and 1977 and 1978. There have been other similar awards in the Tour around that time e.g. most elegant and most kind. Do you think a note is needed? BaldBoris 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Like TRM, I'm straining to find criticism, but I do think the third note could use a reference for Flandria–Faema–Clement winning the team time trial, as that's not mentioned anywhere else. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BaldBoris 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My only concern has been taken care of. Very good work on this list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• In the "By nationality" table, it shows France with 7 stage wins, but only 6 are accounted for in the same cell.

• Everything else is very nicely done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Fixed the above, good spot. BaldBoris 22:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it still says France won 7 stages and lists 5 riders, 1 of whom won 2 stages, for a total of 6 stages. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit didn't save. BaldBoris 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support everything looks good to me now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (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) 18:22:03 31 May 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've given it a complete overhaul in the last week or so to expand, reference and tidy the existing base. I believe this now brings into line with other similar managerial lists. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from ChrisTheDude

• "manager Jimmy Scoular reached the semi-final of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup in 1968" - the team reached the semis, not the manager
• "successive relegations to the Fourth Division under Alan Durban" - were they twice relegated to the Fourth Division (which the wording implies), or were they relegated twice and ultimately wound up in the Fourth?
• "the outbreak of World War II saw" - the outbreak of a war doesn't have eyes. I suggest using "led to"
• "Burrows moved on in 1989 after leaving" - last two words are probably redundant
• "Cardiff finished 22nd during the end of his first season" - I've lost track of which division they were in at this point so might be worth re-stating it
• In two of the notes, the word "both" is redundant
• Not a quality query, but just a query - what the heck was the Century Cup? I've never heard of it. Is it actually significant enough to mention?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the further comments, I believe I've amended all of the issues raised. Kosack (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• Lead: "In the 1960s, Cardiff began competing in European competition..." The "competing"/"competition" repetition is a little clunky. How about something like, "In the 1960s, Cardiff entered European competition..."? - Done
• Lead: Link the first instances of "caretaker managers" and "managers". - Done
• 1939–1995: "Spiers had previously been assistant manager under Frank Buckley at Wolverhampton Wanderers but his move to Cardiff was his first managerial appointment." Add a comma after "Wanderers". - Done
• 1939–1995: "Spiers had agreed to take a cut in wages during wartime but the Cardiff board refused to restore his original wages after the end of the war." Add a comma after "wartime". - Done
• 1939–1995: "The board were able to persuade Spiers to rejoin the club and he led a side built around players brought through by his youth system to the First Division in 1952." Add a comma after "club". - Done
• 1939–1995: "He left the club in 1958 to manage Swansea Town and was replaced by his assistant Bill Jones who had previously managed Barry Town and Worcester City." Place commas before and after "Bill Jones".- Done
• 1995–: "He was unable to prevent the club's relegation from the Premier League and a poor start to the following campaign led to his dismissal in September 2014." Place a comma after "League". - Done
• Table: Neil Warnock has an extraneous empty cell needing removal. - Done
• Table: Bill Jones has an honour as "runner-up". All others render this as "runners-up". - Done
• Table: Fred Stewart, Jimmy Andrews, and Eddie May need their honours changed (for example) from "2 Welsh Cup" to "2 Welsh Cups". - Done
• References: Several references use title case (ex 3, 37). Others use sentence case (4, 10, 13). The General refs all use title case. They should all use the same style.

Everything else looks good to me. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, made a start on these. Will finish the rest asap. Kosack (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:22, 31 May 2019 (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) 22:02:49 26 May 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fifth instalment in a campaign to increase the number of Australian Football League FLs (there have been four successful promotions since August 2018). The AFL Rising Star is a prestigious annual award presented to a standout young player in the league. Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "if a player is suspended during the season, they may be nominated" => "he may be nominated"
  • "as long as they still satisfy" => "as long as he still satisfies"
  • Why are the refs in a smaller font?
• Think that's all I've got......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude (as always!); these have now been fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lirim.Z

• The scope in the table should always be the fist column. I would swap the year and recipent columns and add scope=row to the recipent
• From when is the logo used in the infobox?

--Lirim | Talk 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lirim.Z, I have applied your suggestions. Allied45 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Our discerning readers should be able to tell that the picture in the infobox is the current logo without the aid of a caption.
• There seems to be too much black background around the logo. A crop might be needed.
• MOS:SMALLFONT specifies that <small> tags shouldn't be used in infoboxes.
• I'm not sure it's very useful to include the "country" parameter in the infobox. It's an Australian rules football award presented by the Australian Football League... it isn't going to be in New Zealand.
• most any club has achieved in a single season 'single' is unnecessary.
• five votes, four votes, three votes, two votes and one vote ... players they regard as the best to fifth-best during the season respectively. 'Respectively' is unnecessary, it is quite obvious the best player will poll the most votes.
• These votes are tallied, and the highest number of combined votes wins the medal. reword to 'the player with the highest total of votes wins the medal'. Again, it is quite obvious the votes will be tallied, and the medal is awarded to the player, not the number of votes.
• the maximum number of votes a player can possibly achieve is not consistent replace 'possibly achieve' with something like 'amass' or 'poll'. 'Possibly' is redundant to 'maximum' and 'achieve' is not quite the most precise verb to use.
• have achieved the maximum votes similarly, 'amassed' or 'polled'.
• satisfies the age and games played qualification rules reword to 'age and experience criteria' or similar
• As a result, there have been 'as a result' is unnecessary
• There are two Sydney players featured. Instead of Mills, what about using e.g. McGrath?
• Buckley was the inaugural AFL Rising Star winner but Riewoldt was the 2002 AFL Rising Star 'winner' is probably unnecessary, but at least ensure you're consistent.
• polled the maximum votes possible when he won the 2010 AFL Rising Star maybe reword to 'maximum votes possible in the 2010 AFL Rising Star'? A bit more concise.
• Do clubs publish their own websites? I was under the impression it was Telstra Media, same as AFL.com.au.

Excellent work as always Allied45. – Teratix ₵ 09:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Teratix, this is all done. I am not sure if my efforts at cropping the logo were successful though (it appears different in my browser...) — Allied45 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. I played around with it a bit but I'm still getting that thick black border. Ah well, it's not the worst thing in the world. Final comments: either convert the external link to use the official website template or remove it entirely since it's already linked in the infobox. Also, WP:IMAGESIZE discourages specifying image width in px except when there is a good reason, so consider converting the infobox's image_size parameter to image_upright. – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, thanks Teratix :) — Allied45 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. – Teratix ₵ 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – looks good to me. Great job on this! Can't wait to see more AFL lists in the future! – zmbro _(talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources and are well-formatted, and the link-checker tool reveals no problems. Spot-checks of refs 8, 24, and 27 showed no verifiability concerns. I'd say this source review has been passed with flying colors (or perhaps colours). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 21 May 2019 (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) 22:02, 26 May 2019 (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) 16:21:56 17 May 2019 (UTC) [9].

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing my goal to create an "encyclopedic atlas" by bringing all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (progress can be seen here for those interested). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I honestly can't suggest any improvements.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short but consistent with the others. I would suggest for this and others though a map of the municipalities like File:Los Cabos en Baja California Sur.svg. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, I made a map and added it to the page. I'm not a very good map maker though, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my (trivial) concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (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) 16:21:27 17 May 2019 (UTC) [10].

Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
• "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
• Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
• "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
• "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
• Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
• I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles has Tone fixed your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments
• "between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" It would be better to say "during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" as in the source.
• "were likely important ritual focus of a highly organized society" This is ungrammatical.
• "dating back to the Antiquity" This is both ungrammatical and vague.
• "transformed into a purely military outpost" This is an exaggeration. The citation mentions non-military structures, including the cathedral. It would be worth mentioning that the citation emphasises archaeological deposits and Baroque architecture.
• "Series of catacomb complexes, developed from simple Phoenician and Hellenistic rock-cut tombs to more complex types in Roman Empire." This is misleading. If I read the citation correctly, the site is late Roman and Byzantine (mid 3rd to 7th century).
• I have checked a selection of citations. The article is improved but still some way off FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Checked. Thanks for the eagle-eye reading :) I reworded some parts. The "purely military outpost" is from the source but I added a mention of the cathedral, makes sense. Ready for the next review, I think. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this again I still find issues:

• "was again discovered in 1902". "again" implies previous discovery, which is incorrect.
• "Pottery and stone and clay amulets". This is ambiguous. Maybe "Pottery vessels and stone and clay amulets"
• "including The Sleeping Lady". This will mean nothing to readers and needs a few words of explanation.
• "among the oldest free-standing structures in the world" This should be oldest stone free-standing structures.
• "Malta was recording seven such sites on its tentative list". This is an odd construction. How about "Malta had seven sites on its tentative list"
• I have not checked the tentative sites but the details are excessively brief considering that there are only ten in total. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. I follow the example of previous FLs where more attention is on the sites and less on the tentative ones. See Croatia for example. --Tone 18:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The details on tentative sites in Croatia are grammatical. The Malta ones are an odd mixture with the first sentence not grammatical and succeeding ones grammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have copy edited the tentative sites and trust the changes are OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is it once "UNESCO data" and in the other table "UNESCO criteria"?
2. Are there any other sources? Literally the entire article is sourced through UNESCO sources. An article should incorperate sources by different authors.

—Lirim | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Lirim.Z: Regarding the data and criteria, this is a style we have decided to use for these lists. Tentative lists often get renominated or modified while the WHS have their fixed numbers. This is why we don't have the serial number on the tentative list. As for the sources, I see your point. However, the unesco pages are considered reliable and the most accurate sources one can get on the topic - I often consider including more information in the description but ultimately stay with what is there in the nomination. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Only using one publisher to cite this article fails: WP:FLCR Comprehensiveness.--Lirim | Talk 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lirim.Z: You're right. I added two more non-UNESCO sources. Does that work? --Tone 20:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support— No other issues in my opinion.Lirim | Talk 23:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: Do you plan to continue with this nomination? --PresN 19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I was waiting to see if there were more comments to address them in a single editing session. I think I can get it fixed by next week, does that work? --Tone 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone I guess "next week" is now "last week", what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had another round of comments, I fixed all that was found to be missing. --Tone 16:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in as nobody had responded to your question. No problem, I can probably take a look at it myself tomorrow? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I have source checked the WH sites and they needed substantial changes but I am happy with them now. I have not source checked the tentative sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (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) 16:21:49 17 May 2019 (UTC) [11].

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Lennon's list is featured, it's time for my next song list, this time by the English rock band the Smiths. I believed they deserved better than this so here we are. This one was a little more challenging since out of the 74 songs they recorded, maybe 40–50 were singles, so I made separate symbols for regular singles and for B-sides. B-sides I have the compilation album they were released on and what song they were the B-side of. I did this because having both as the same color seemed to overfill the page, which I thought was too much. As always I'm open to any comments or suggestions anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "of which included 70 originals" => "which included 70 originals"
• "The Smiths' often addressed" - there should not be an apostrophe on Smiths
• A major query is how you indicate the album against some songs. You list "Oscillate Wildly" as being from "The World Won't Listen", but you list "Shoplifters of the World Unite" as simply "non-album single", even though it was on the same album. You show "Panic" as "non-album single" but with a footnote saying it was later on "The World Won't Listen", which "Shoplifters...." doesn't have. And "Rubber Ring" is shown as being from "The World Won't Listen" but also with a footnote saying it was later released on "The World Won't Listen", which makes no sense. So that's four different inconsistent ways of indicating tracks that are on that album. Similar problems occur with tracks that are on "Hatful of Hollow"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Sorry I've been away but now I'm back. I think I got everything taken care of. I must've missed the times I listed both albums in a note and in the table. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would remove note a. The songs in question were originally on an earlier album, so I don't think you need to note that they were also later on another one......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• "The band formed in Manchester in 1982" — "band was formed".

• Done

• Is there any wikilink related to one-off recording contract for readers who might not be aware of its meaning at first?

• There actually isn't

• "Despite their chart success, tensions began growing in the band, mainly between Marr and Morrissey and the band's label;" — Could there be a little more explanation as to the cause of this? Just to let readers know.

• Done. Put it into a note.

Other than that, nothing more to add from me. Neat list though, BeatlesLedTV. Address my comments and thou shall receive my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven2 Thanks again for the comments! :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, BeatlesLedTV. You have my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just have one issue. Is "YouTube Music Sucks" a RS? The rest is fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yashthepunisher Actually have no idea. Couldn't find anything about it in the pages on RSs but so I don't risk it I just removed it. Other sources already being used explain the info anyway. Thanks! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No comma after 1982 in second sentence (not followed by independent clause)
• No commas around "Hand in Glove" (it's a restrictive appositive)
• Same for the follow-up singles
• would announce -> announced
• No comma after keyboards
• In the key, "Indicates" is superfluous
• Both tables of contents includes notes and references: Remove links from the second or just hide the first.
  • Though I'm not sure the second is even needed; the list isn't that long to require it, and it doesn't work when sorted differently. Up to you.

• Removed

• Fix 1960s in note 1, but actually I don't see why a detail like that even belongs as a note. Either it's important enough to include in the main text or it's not important enough to include at all. You could add further details about anything in the summarized lead of their history, no reason why this is special or relevant to the list of songs.

• Removed note

Reywas92^Talk 07:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 All done. Thanks so much! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great! Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PresN this is good to go I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (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) 16:21:41 17 May 2019 (UTC) [12].

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bordering counties and local governments are irrelevant to SSSIs and are not needed here at all but if you're going to insist, they at least should not be the first paragraph. Start with the actual topic of the list.

• This information has been supplied in many SSSI lists by myself and others and has never previously been objected to. I prefer to stick to the generally accepted format, but I have moved the paragraph as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Banstead Downs duplicates "scrub" and "which"

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackheath: scientific names are italicized

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blindley Heath: "a rich flora"

• OED shows "a rich flora" as correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No other major issues then. Support Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed a typo and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (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) 16:21:34 17 May 2019 (UTC) [13].

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it merits recognition as a list of high quality. It is modeled on List of Nashville Sounds managers which is a FL. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This may be a dumb-ass question from someone who isn't hugely familiar with baseball (although I did once throw the opening pitch for the Peoria Chiefs), but it sounds from the second paragraph like bench coach is a pretty damn important role. If that's the case, why has the team never had one before this year? Might be worth clarifying that......
• What is a "relief corps"?
• And who are the "staff" that Dabney coached?
• What is a "roving crosschecker"?
• Think that's all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: I've explained the relatively-new-to-baseball bench coach role, reworded jargon from the second two points, and linked "crosschecker" to "Scout (sport)" which sort of explains it.) (A crosschecker is like a scout supervisor. Let me know if you think anything more is needed on these points. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed and/or resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The bit about the Sounds winning the 1982 league title in the Garland caption needs a cite, since it isn't mentioned elsewhere.
• Since being a minor league baseball coach doesn't cause a person to meet the baseball notability guidelines, I'd say it's reasonable to leave them unlinked, as there's no real way to know the active ones will be promoted in the future.
• In refs 111 and 113, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Everything looks good after the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (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 successful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 09:55:55 6 May 2019 (UTC) [14].

Nominator(s): Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because all the issues from the previous nomination in 2017 were addressed, and the article meets WP:WIAFL criterias. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Prior the Slovenian independence" => "Prior to Slovenian independence"
  • "Shortly after the independence" => "Shortly after independence"
  • "Since 1992, a total of 197 players have represented" => "Since 1992, 197 players have represented"
  • "Only the players with at least ten" => "Only players with at least ten"
  • "Prior debuting for Slovenia in 1992" => "Prior to debuting for Slovenia in 1992"
  • The last three footnotes are not complete sentences so should not have full stops
  • "Represented Yugoslavia prior Slovenian independence" => "Represented Yugoslavia prior to Slovenian independence"
• Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Allied45

• In the second paragraph of the lead, it states the "first official match" is in 1992 and "first competitive match" is in 1996. Is there a difference between official and competitive matches?
  • "Official" is any game that is recognized by FIFA as official, namely a friendly matches, while the competitive matches are World Cup/Euro qualifiers; removed the word "official" for the first game. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "and is one of the smallest nations ever to qualify for the World Cup." --> ambiguous, is it smallest by population, size etc.?
  • Fixed, now includes "by population", also changed "nations" to "countries". Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Slovenia was eliminated in the group stage of the competition on all three occasions." --> this refers to two seperate competitions, should be "Slovenia was eliminated on all three occasions in the group stage of these competitions."
  • Fixed. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Change "List" section heading to "Players"
  • Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a table caption to the players list. I would suggest something like "Table of Slovenia players, with appearance details and statistics"
  • Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, list looks good! Allied45 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to Support Allied45 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The sentence from the first comment (the one you were worried about) looks all right to me, and my concerns have all been adequately resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice work. --Tone 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 10:41:19 11 May 2019 (UTC) [15].

Nominator(s): Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young classical pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to other FLs of the discographies of other classical artists, including Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography, Oregon Symphony discography, and Kronos Quartet discography, this article has a more engaging lede and is more detailed in terms of the actual lists. This is my second nomination of this list; the first was stalled after an editor expressed concern that #3b of the criteria was violated because the main article was small. It is now more than four times as large as it was when I nominated this list for the first time, with a large bulk of further expansion pending! As such, I hope any concerns of 3b are now alleviated, at the very least... Thank you very much for your consideration in advance, Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• First off, I don't think using Vladimir Horowitz discography is a good template for this because honestly that list is very out of date in terms of discographies (promoted in 2010). It doesn't even have the discography infobox listing all the albums, nor does this one. You honestly need to have that here in this one.
  • I originally did, but then another editor removed it and rewrote the lede, which I actually like more than having an infobox and the previous lede.
• Most FL discographies start off with something like "So and so has released __ studio albums, __ compilation albums, etc." Why isn't that here as well?
  • See above.
• The tables need scope rows on the albums/singles (you have cols but not rows)
  • Argh, will fix asap.  Fixed
• Don't think Discogs is seen as a reliable source (It isn't (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC)
  • I’ll remove  Removed
• Trifonov Live should be in its own col like the rest
  • Will fix  Fixed
• Why aren't the album titles anywhere in the first paragraph?
  • Will add them  Added
• General question: Why are his albums referred to as 'CDs' when many were released as digital downloads as well? Why not just 'albums'?
  • I’ll look into that I  changed all mentions of "CDs" to albums

All I got so far. Still needs lots of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: THank you for your comments; please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• Put scope rows on the albums not the years (Lots of discographies don't even have a year col because it already says the year in the details)
  •  Done
• Separate titles on video releases
  •  Done
• Move refs to their own col at the end
  • I'm not sure I understand why that is necessary...most discographies have the refs with the album title
• "The Magics Of Music / The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" – don't need to capitalize 'of'
  •  Fixed
• Why is details in video releases table sortable when every other details section isn't? (hint: unsort it)

   Fixed

• Continuing from last statement, "The Magics Of Music" and "The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" should be italicized (not in quotes) (see MOS:ITALICTITLE)
  •  Fixed
• Gotta keep date formats consistent
  •  Fixed
• Remove the external link to Discogs (as discussed earlier)
  • Why? It's inappropriate to use it as a source for information, but I think it's fair to use it as an external link.

Still has a ways to go. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks again for comments, and please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Wanted to follow up; any further concerns? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV do you intend to return to this review? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – sorry completely forgot about this one. Looks much better now after others' inputs. Happy to support. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Lirim | Talk 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question - how do you differentiate between a studio album and a live album? The second "studio" album says it was recorded at "Concert Hall of the Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg", which clearly isn't a recording studio, and the fact that it was recorded in a concert hall implies that it is in fact a recording of a live concert. Or was it recorded at the concert hall but without an audience and therefore isn't really "live"? Could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: More often that not, concertos for piano and orchestra cannot fit in a normal recording studio. Huge solo instrument, conductor’s podium, 90-100 players in the orchestra... Piano concerto studio recordings are thus usually taken in a concert hall. Acoustically it’s still great, maybe even better, and most major concert halls already have a professional microphone system (which they use frequently for radio broadcasts). For albums of classical music, it’s quite the “norm” to label live recordings as “Live Recording” or “Recorded live at...” because of how different they can be (and always are) from studio recordings For instance, his two Rachmaninov concerto albums were also recorded in a concert hall- Verizon Hall in Philly - but watch the trailer, or even see the photo on the back cover of the Variations album - it’s on AllMusic- and you can see that it’s not a live recording. Same case for the Tchaikovsky album. Hope that clears things up! Zingarese talk · contribs 15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes perfect sense, thanks. I'll do a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Wanted to follow up vis-à-vis your full review. Regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 03:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Zingarese: - humblest apologies, I completely forgot. I am about to log off, but I promise (promise!) I will do it in the next 48 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was of a live recording from a recital" => "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was a live recording of a recital"
  • "such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus" => "such as those of Verbier and Lockenhaus"
  • "as well as Rachmaniana" => "and Rachmaniana"
  • "The first DVD included a documentary which included" - repetition of "included". If the first DVD only has this documentary, I would suggest changing the first "included" to "contained". If it has other stuff, change the second "included" to "featured"
  • "ranked on Billboard Top Classical Album charts" => "ranked on the Billboard Top Classical Album chart"
• Each album only has a ref against the release date - can you confirm that these refs also support everything else (the recording date and location and the contents)
  • "Format: CD4" - is that a typo? Never heard of a "CD4" before.........
• Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments; i have made all of the changes that you suggested. I can also confirm that the references support all other details of each album in addition to the release dates. The reason why the references are behind the release date is because it was suggested above (previously, I had put them behind the album titles). Warm regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 05:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You still had that "included.....included" thing at the end of the first paragraph, but I have fixed that for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this list, and the associated work on the main Daniil Trifonov article, are excellent. I really appreciate the effort put in to cover the 3b concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2019 (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 successful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 07:57:10 6 May 2019 (UTC) [17].

Nominator(s): — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something slightly different than my previous two nominations – one list for two conclaves only two months apart (the John Paul conclaves) and the most recent ones before the advent of the information age. The style and referencing is naturally a bit dissimilar to the other lists. Comments welcome. [PS: Due to personal commitments, I probably won't be nominating any more lists after this one for the time being.] — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have commented previously, I think you should say that the election is by secret ballot. This is far more important than some of the details you do include, such as precedence.
• Having a separate section for sources is standard Wikipedia practice. In my view it is better than putting them at the top of the references section as you have done.
• Support. Neither of these criticisms are deal breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. Regarding your comments, after some thought, I've added a brief note about the election process into the lead. The sources have also been moved into a separate sub-section underneath the main references, per MOS:NOTES. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, 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) 21:04:16 5 May 2019 (UTC) [21].

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the torpedo cruisers built for the Italian Royal Navy in the 1870s-1890s - the ships had relatively uneventful careers (largely a result of the fact that they were built during a relatively peaceful period, and they were no longer front-line ships by the time Italy fought in the Italo-Turkish War and the First World War in the 1910s). I wrote the list last year and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (link here if you're interested). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• All pictures need a year in the text
  • I've added years where they're generally known, but all but one are approximations and the rest aren't known.
• The lead needs references
  • No it doesn't, it's all repeated in the body, where the material is cited.
• Other than that I don't see any problems. I don't know much about torpedo cruisers, but I think this article is written great and understable for people who don't know much.--Lirim | Talk 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "laid down in 1875, and was one of the first torpedo cruisers built by any navy" - source for that (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body)...?
  • Good catch, added a line on her being one of the first torpedo cruisers to the body
• In the Pietro Micca section, do the two refs right at the end support everything from "By the 1870s" onwards?
  • Yes
• In the Tripoli section, do the two refs at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• In the Goito section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• Did the Folgore class actually have no armour, or is the info simply not known?
  • Yes, no armor
• In the Partenope section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• In the Argodat section, my maths teachers always told me that a 0 should always be placed before the decimal point for a number below 1, so ".8" should be "0.8"
  • This may be a UK/US thing

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The decimal point with no 0 still looks inherently wrong to me, but if it's simply another thing that's down to the ocean between us then so be it ;-) Support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it turns out, this came up in another review, and per WP:DECIMAL, the leading zero is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking displacement, laid down and commissioned in the first header.
  • In the table? I think the MoS discourages linking bold text - but I've added a link to keel laying in the lead (and the other two are linked in the table key
    • Huh, I've been using links in the ship tables in class articles for a couple of years now and nobody's complained, although I don't know how recently I sent one of them to FAC. Good enough for me though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Link knot on first use, register, gunfire support
  • Is there a link for register? We have the Naval Vessel Register, but that's a USN thing, and I'm not seeing a general article in Category:Ship registration. Other two done.
    • Navy List is equivalent, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linked (and added to that category, too). Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• By analogy to the Queen song, shouldn't it be "flat-bottomed hull"?
  • Good point
• Partenope class spent much of its career BritEng?
  • No, that's AmEng - it'd be BritEng to say the "class spent much of their careers"
    • I think you've got that backwards 'cause I wanna say "their" and "its" reads very strangely to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agordat became a gunboat without any guns?
  • They had guns, just not the 4.7-inch guns of the earlier classes - I kept the light guns out of the tables to keep things from getting too cluttered.
    • Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the missing ampersands in the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list seems comprehensive and is in great shape. I have a few comments:

• towards the end of the lead, could you add something about what type of ship replaced the torpedo cruisers in Italian service?
  • Good idea
• is it worth listing the 4.7 in gun on Tripoli given it is mentioned on Confienza and the Partenopes?
  • Yes indeed
• the service dates for Montebello don't match her article
  • Wonder what I was looking at
• same for Monzambano, I think they might have been swapped somehow?
  • Must have been
• the sources all appear reliable and of high quality and what you would expect to see for ships of this vintage, the formatting is up-to-scratch. No spotchecks done, as the nominator has a long history at FLC.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: - have I addressed your comments satisfactorily? Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt, Nate. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it me or are there a lot of imperial/US units who are primary units in the article? Oughtn't metric units be the primary?
  • I don't see why - was Italy on the metric system at the time? That the armor thicknesses are measured in obviously imperial units and not metric (for at least the first several designs - which is to say, a half-inch or three-quarter inch thickness is more obvious than 13 or 19mm, which seem rather arbitrary), which suggests the ships were designed with imperial units. Of course, it could be a rounding issue in the source, but then I don't know that I want to reverse convert from the rounded number without knowing what the actual figures are.

• @Parsecboy: This book [22] claims (p. 8) it was and started in 1861 probably due the establishment of Italy. The City of Milan even used metric as early as 1803 probably by Napoleon. So I guess yes it was. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see - but that still leaves the question of accuracy and rounding to be addressed. I would hazard a guess that the decks weren't exactly half an inch (i.e., 12.7mm), and that Gardiner simply rounded the figures, but that raises the question of how much and in what direction did he do the rounding? Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Parsecboy: Doesn't the sources say that about the accuracies of the ships? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, and the problem is, whatever sources the author used for the ships presumably were in metric, so they'd have had to have converted them to imperial. If we then convert back to metric from the rounded conversions, we'll likely end up playing the telephone game. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is indeed a problem. But I think it's not bad to convert the units to metric. Yes I know this can be described as the telephone game but that doesn't mean we should let them like they are in imperial units. I think we can convert the units and add a note which stated that the real numbers are probably unkown and are probably rounded. That's, I think the best solution I came up right now. Of course this is just an opinion of mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the ISBNs have hyphens?
  • You can do it either way, but whatever way you choose should be standardized.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (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, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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