Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2015

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 29 November 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Barrymore was an superb actor whose career ran between 1893 and his death in 1954. Part of America's "Royal Family" of actors, Barrymore is perhaps best remembered internationally for his appearance in It's a Wonderful Life, but some in the US also have fond reminiscences of his annual broadcasts in A Christmas Carol. This list has been updated and re-worked, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers comments

I would remove the reference to America's "Royal Family" from the first paragraph. It is not even mentioned in the Lionel Barrymore article. Instead, I suggest you say "Barrymore family of actors." You might consider moving the "Royal Family" nickname and the references to the Lionel Barrymore article.

You mention some biographical information that does not appear in the Lionel Barrymore article. For example, you have a lot more information about Barrymore's feelings about acting and the reasons for his move to and from Paris. It seems very strange to me that the List article should spend considerable ink on this when it is barely mentioned in the main article. I really think you need to move much of the bio information to the main article. Certainly, there should not be anything in your introduction that is *not* in the main ariticle. INSTEAD, the introduction to this article needs a paragraph identifying Barrymore's best-known/most important roles and/or most important directing achievements, and also should state the number of films he acted in. Also, perhaps mention that Grand Hotel and You Can't Take It With You won Oscars for Best Picture.

• Re-worked to include much of this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to identify what roles he played in his stage appearances. His IBDB page identifies some that you are missing: http://ibdb.com/Person/View/31143. Same with the film roles. I see that the Wikipedia articles on the blue-linked films show what roles he played, so you should be able to fill in these at least.

• IDBD isn't classed as a reliable source, as far as I'm aware, and so we can't fill in the blanks on those. Ditto the Wikipedia pages for the films. I've included the roles are they are listed in the film, either at the AFI, BFI, or the filmography sources used in biographies, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat, IBDB is absolutely a reliable source, with an editorial committee. See this and this. It is totally different from IMDB, which is NOT a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Cheers Ssilvers : I'll make a start on this tomorrow (hopefully) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All now added (and a very useful resource too!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lionel Barrymore article and yours disagree about why he was confined to a wheelchair and mentions an addiction to painkillers. If your sources are clearly better than the ones in the Lionel Barrymore article, please fix it. If not, please clarify the filmography article. In general, you need to review the Lionel Barrymore article and make sure that you make any necessary edits in it to at least harmonize with the filmography, making sure that neither article has any information that the best sources consider to be clearly wrong.

• I've stripped out much of the biographical info from this, so it should match up now, but I'll give the main LB article a spring clean soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography at the bottom of the Lionel Barrymore article is too long. It should be reduced to the most important items.

• Removed entirely and prople pointed this way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are not responsible for the Lionel Barrymore article, which is only about C-class, but if we are going to have a Featured List on him, the two articles should at least be harmonized so that they are not inconsistent; it seems like you are in a good position to do this, since you know the sources. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments Ssilvers, many thanks. I'm working through these in conjunction with the comments from Jimknut too, first on this list to get it straight and then I'll update the LB article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated in an edit summary that the intro is limited to 4 paragraphs, but I don't think that's true: this is not a WP:LEAD section; instead it is the intro to a list article. You could add subheadings, though, if the intro gets longer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still counts as a lede, so we have to limit it to four. We managed it with John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio, so the challenge is to trim out some of the superfluous biography and add the works in seamlessly. I should be able to get this sorted today or tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am now pretty happy with the intro to this, but I still think you should add a couple more mentions of which film roles were Barrymore's most famous ones. Young Dr. Kildare? The Copperhead? Wildfire? Sadie Thompson? Rasputin and the Empress? Maybe just name 2 or 3 or 4 of his most famous ones. My support does not depend on you adding this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Jimknut - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You already have another open nomination (this being the second) with no supports or comments. Do you think it's wise to have two nominations simultaneously? -- Frankie _talk 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest I'd largely forgotten the Johns list. It should be OK, given the standard of that one, and tha I haven't got anything running through FAC too at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be open and fair (bearing in mind I'm a delegate who should know better), I'm going to ping Giants2008, Crisco 1492, PresN to make a judgement on whether I should withdraw this one temporarily until the Johns list reaches a suitable level of support. I'd hate for my non-action to be used as justification for others wanting to push a second nom onto the list. Thanks for nudging me on this Frankie. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has two supports now, I don't think you need to withdraw any of the list. Thanks for taking care of my comments. -- Frankie _talk 12:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frankie. It was my error to begin with and thanks for letting me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frankie. Since the other article now has supports, and your lists tend to be in good shape to start with, I think we can let this go. Just make sure to double-check that you don't have any early-stage FLCs when preparing future noms. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good clear lead, ideal layout and doubtless comprehensive content. I wondered idly why put in all the full stops after Dr and Mr (rather quaint, but still current in AmEng, I know) and yet omit one after Capt. No other quibbles, and the page seems to me to meet the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13

• Question - do the images need Alt text, or are the highly descriptive captions enough?--Godot13 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in two minds about these: I'm not sure that ALT text would be hugely useful, given we'll probably just be repeating much of the caption info. I'm still mulling it over tho. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in excellent shape to me and anything I'd have complained about has been dealt with. This is of considerable value as I've been watching some of Lionel's films of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Doc - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• "Although he took a break from acting in 1906–1909 to train in Paris as a painter". Usually, date ranges like this have two digits for the last year. The MoS seems to back that up, although I admit that this part of the MoS has some details I'm not in love with. Still, the 1909 could probably be two digits, unless this is some form of British English I don't know about.

• Quite right— now done. (Not that there is a difference in year ranges anyway, but BrEng wouldn't apply anyway as Barrymore is American) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The publisher in reference 14 (The Guardian) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - I'd used a web template not a news one.

Cheers Giants, much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more that I didn't see before: current ref 14 needs a publisher (American Film Institute). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great - nice catch, now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Upon reading this list I had no clue to who Lionel was but I found the list of his roles on stage, screen and radio to be vastly comprehensive and the lists easily meets the required guidelines. Good work! Z105space (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Z105space - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 29 November 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Portman is an actress best known for her roles as a child assassin in Léon: The Professional (1994), Queen Padmé Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and her Oscar-winning turn as a tortured ballerina in Black Swan (2010). Here's a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her career thus far. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Ssven2 helped a lot with these. I think these comments have been sorted. Cowlibob (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This list looks great, congrats! GagaNutella^talk 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted the AMPAS source, but some roles only listed the first name. So I looked for sources that listed the role's complete name (including surname). Anyways, Happy to give it a support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks better now Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list with @MPJ-DK: because I feel it meets the criteria. MPJ and I worked on it for the last few days, merging the separate list and the main article to nominate it for FL. All issues will be addressed by MPJ and I.--WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "which effectively unified International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship" => "which effectively unified the International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship"
  • "as well as the four number one contenders to each respective championship" - there were not four number one contenders to each championship, and the word "respective" is completely unnecessary. Change to "as well as the number one contender to each championship"
  • "which was called simply Mexican Heavyweight Championship" => "which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship"
  • "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA in Antonio Peña Memorial Show" => "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA at the Antonio Peña Memorial Show"
  • The date format for the general refs is different to that used for the specific refs
  • In the lead you refer to Mesias winning the "finals" but in the bracket this match is shown as the "final". I'm not sure what the correct US usage is, but regardless they should be consistent

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle these shortly. They went by without my notice.--WillC 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All concerns addressed.--WillC 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other quick point.....when you say "it is sometimes referred to in the English press", I presume you mean the English-language press, rather than the press in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--WillC 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Everything seems to be in order, well done.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I feel bad seeing this list at the bottom of the stack, about to get archived but with two supports. So here's a review- recusing myself as a delegate to be a reviewer instead.

• "compete in direct competition." - repeated word
  • Fixed
• "In 2011, the then-AAA Mega Champion and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) founder Jeff Jarrett appeared with a redesigned version of the title on TNA programming, which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship." - difficult to parse; you seem to mean that a title match was shown on TNA with a different name (MHC), but the sentence starts off talking about stuff you've never mentioned before and then gets confusing as to what "which was" is referring to, the title match or TNA.
  • Reworded
• "The Championship belt was the Mega Championship belt with a silver hexagonal plate covering the AAA faceplate, this was done due to Spike TV not allowing TNA to refer to AAA by name." - run-on sentence
  • Reworded
• That whole section is kind of overweighted- you describe the belt, talk about the channel it was on... but don't do that for the regular match series.
  • Trying to do an overview like most titles about the only significant moments instead of all moments.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Title tournament bracket" - this is just the initial 2007 tournament of champions, yes? It's not clear in this section if that's so. Even just renaming the section to "Initial title tournament bracket" would help
  • reworded
• "Title History" - shouldn't this be three rows, with AAA Mega Championship split between the first and third?
  • What?
• The empty "Notes" fields in the big table under "Reigns" are a bit jarring- why are they empty?
  • Nothing special happened during the reigns. Just won and defended the title. No controversial finish or storyline.
• The lead says that the current champion is Alberto, but the table says that he's no longer the champion now that he's signed with WWE- lead should be updated.
  • fixed
• Dates in the references are formatted inconsistantly; standardize on either "yyyy-mm-dd" or "Month dd, yyyy"
  • Fixed
• Is the ref publisher SuperLuchas, SuperLuchas Magazine, or Súper Luchas, because you use all three in the refs
  • I think they are different publishes. I don't deal with Mexican titles much. That is an issue for MPJ to settle since I'm expanding this due to its connection to TNA.
• Ref 15- you don't need to specify the staff as the author; if no specific person is listed just leave it blank
  • Fixed.

I think this is all quite fixable. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC nomination up above. --PresN 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I'll get this as soon as I can. I'm going on a business trip for the weekend so it will be a few days before I know I'll have free time.--WillC 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: All concerns settled. Thanks for the review.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining: I fixed a couple minor things, but the SuperLuchas bit is still outstanding. Also, now I'm really confused as to what's going on with the "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" thing- I thought, especially with it called out in the "Title History" section, that the name of the AAA Mega Championship was actually changed to "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" from July 14, 2011 – March 18, 2012. But that's not true at all, is it? Nothing changed about the AAA MC; it's just that the guy who was the champion appeared on a series that didn't have licensing rights to use the name, so that (completely separate) series called it the MHC. If that's all true, you're giving that bit of trivia way too much weight in the article's lead, and it certainly shouldn't be called out as an official name change in that table in "Title History". --PresN 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuperLucas is fixed. The title change thing is rather simple but hard to explain to a non-viewer. Promotions change the name of titles all of the time. When the WWE got the WCW Championship they changed the name several times. TNA changed the name of the IWGP Tag Team Championship. The point is that SpikeTV didn't want to advertise AAA on their programming so TNA was forced to call it another name. Jarrett holding the title and advertising it on national TV under a different name is a pretty big deal. Do believe he defended it in TNA as well.--WillC 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerns addressed @PresN:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --PresN 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Don't know a whole lot about professional wrestling, but after reading through the article, I think I've got a good grasp on the AAA Mega Championship at least. Here are just a few comments:

Lead

• The championship is generally contested in professional wrestling matches, in which participants execute scripted finishes rather than in direct competition. While this is a fairly known fact by now, there still needs to be a reference for scripted finishes.
  • Done
• When mentioning the four championships that were unified, there should be a ref.
  • Ref at end of paragraph coves that.
• While Jarrett appeared in TNA with the title it was referred to as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship. I think a comma is missing after title.
  • Done
• Overall, there have been 12 reigns shared among 8 wrestlers, with one vacancy]]. If the ]] at the end was for vacancy, then it should be removed as vacant is already linked in that paragraph.
  • Forgot that when I added vacant earlier.

Inaugural Championship Tournament bracket

• Just out of curiosity, what makes the inaugural championship worthy of having a bracket, while none of the others have one? Hopefully I'm not missing anything here, but it seems kind of odd to have it.
  • Not all championships have tournaments to crown the first champion. When they do a bracket is usually added if notable. This was a bunch of champions fighting to become the main champion. Pretty notable.

Title history

• There should be a ref for AAA Mega Championship under names
  • done
• In the Reigns section, there's some overlinking of some articles, like Zapopan, Jalisco, tape delay, as well as some of the wrestlers themselves.
  • As far as I'm aware these tables are not subject to overlinking. I've never had an overlinking issue in the past.
• I know it's obvious, but to be consistent with naming conventions, it should be Mexico City, Mexico, not just Mexico City
  • Done

References

• Refs 16, 18, 19, and 23 need to say (in Spanish)
  • done

Other stuff

• No disambiguation links, that's nice.
• Both images have alt text, once again, good job.
  • Good

That's all I could see. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't know a whole lot about wrestling in general (much more of a baseball guy myself), but overall, I think a casual reader will understand this article just fine. Clean up some of the comments (or provide a explanation as to why some comments weren't addressed), and you've got yourself a support. BTW, would you mind looking at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. Thank you for the review. Once I get a chance I will review your list. @Famous Hobo:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alright, that's everything. Thanks for giving explanations. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) & Robert4565 (talk)[reply]

After 3.5 years away from Wikipedia, I'm back at FLC with another UConn-themed list: List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft. I'd like to thank User:Robert4565 for pulling together this list in 2014; I added prose I had left in my userspace from 2012 as well as new prose, and cleaned up the list with high-quality references. I based the list restructure on the existing college team in the NFL Draft featured lists, as well as List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft.

I believe this candidate fully meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree. –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. Robert4565 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the key needs to be split into three two-column tables and have column headings added to be accessible. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look and try to fix it this afternoon. –Grondemar 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  After further consideration I decided to remove the key entirely and to incorporate the full name of the positions and links directly in the main list, more similar to List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft than the previous NFL Draft FLs. This avoids the challenge of making the key table accessible; it also should make it easier for the reader to go to pages describing the positions without having to scroll up to the key. –Grondemar 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, that solves the issue. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! –Grondemar 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I quickly checked in on a commercial break during the game tonight and saw that my few piddling concerns have been resolved, so I'm happy to support now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – An engaging and well written lead section; comprehensive, well referenced, and well formatted lists; nice use and placement of images. Drdpw (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This led to a massive bidding war..." massive seems a bit POV and sensationalist, perhaps just remove it and have bidding war
• "Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2015... " comma after 2015
• "The most Connecticut players to be selected in a single NFL Draft were five" were should be was

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit:, all the above are now fixed. Thanks for your review. –Grondemar 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [5].

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being one of India's most coveted civilian awards, I think the list should be presented in the proper format and with the encyclopaedic content. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism. With the success or failure of this nomination, I would decide to work on the similar lists for Indian civilian awards in the near future. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – good work. -- Frankie _talk 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG and Pavanjandhyala: I have addressed some of your concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All my concerns were met by the nominator. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Isn't there a consensus for WP:IND articles not to have indic scripts in the lead? —Vensatry _(ping) 15:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats correct. I missed that. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – After going through all of your responses, it looks like you got everything I listed. Nice work on the list, which is unique when compared to much of the fare we normally see at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. I really appreciate your motivating words. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13

• A few of the later images are missing Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godot13: Done - Vivvt (Talk) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And here I thought I was just making a drive-by comment... On reading the list it is a very nice summary and I have certainly learned something new.
  • 
• You write Recipients whose awards have been revoked or restored, both of which require the authority of the President, are also registered in the Gazette and are required to surrender their medals when their names are struck from the register.
  • Could you explain the possible circumstances where this might occur?
    • The official statues does not mention the clauses under which this could be done. It did not happen with any of the civilian awards so far; except for the Bharat Ratna, the highest Indian civilian award, where the award was announced but not conferred so technically was not revoked.
  • Did this happen to any of the recipients in the 1955–59 list?

    • Done

• As opposed to having five separate lists by year, would you consider merging them into a single list with a column on the left for year which would cover each of the rows for that given year?--Godot13 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was curious to see what it would look like. If you think it would be an improvement, I would be happy to add it in. If not, absolutely no hard feelings at all...--Godot13 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really appreciate your efforts but I personally do not wish to club it together into one big fat list. Apologies for that! Also, when I had started working on this list initially, I came across this FL which follows the same pattern. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Godot13: Let me know if you expect any further changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been traveling. Let me give it another thorough read-through tomorrow night.--Godot13 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Succinct and interesting, nice job.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [6].

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list now that all issues have been resolved from the previous review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - — Maile (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Peacemaker67

• there is a typo in the alt text for the baseball team pic "the their"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• otherwise, toolbox checks are all green
• I assume plebe is a shortened version of wikt:plebeian, and that there would be sources to support it? Perhaps a note to that effect?

  Added a link to the Wiktionary

• an explanation that First Captain was the No. 1 cadet would help

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "grandsons as well" is unclear, does this mean they were just grandsons of graduates, or sons of graduates and grandsons of graduates? Perhaps Three members of the class were both a son and a grandson of a graduate

  Somns of graduates and grandsons of graduates. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the whole "sons" para with the semi-colons doesn't work IMO. Prose-wise, it's impenetrable, and should be a bulleted list.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "pulled some strings" is a bit colloquial

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• both commissary and post exchange should be linked, they are strange terms to everyone but Seppos.

  Probably only the ones who have lived on a base. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest moving the explanation of CGSS to immediately after fn31 for continuity

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the information provided, Bradley was the first to wear "a" star, not "stars". I know, pedantic, but...

  Well, there was one on each shoulder... but done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Van Fleet should be linked at first mention, also worth pointing out that Van Fleet commanded US and UN forces in Korea

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in the Notes section, the newspapers and websites are in shortened version as a citation and don't appear in the References section, but books are in the References section. I'd be much happier if all references were in the References section, whether books, newspapers or websites.

Otherwise, looking good. I'll allow those who have more of a clue than me about such things to pipe up about the syntax for the table, but it appears from the previous nom that issue has been addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added my support. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate in order to review this list.

• "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" - numbers (of a type) need to be consistent here, either numerals or words- this should be either "There were also 2 four-star generals, 7 three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" or "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, twenty-four two-star major generals and twenty-four one-star brigadier generals". I'd recommend the first.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only 164 graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but they were still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them." -> "Only 164 cadets graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but that was still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them."

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why an article about an American military group uses European date styling...

  Per MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's slightly confusing to call the head of the cadet battalion "highest ranking" and then talk about someone else being "ranking first" (best grades), though I'm unsure of a good solution

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the son of Major General George LeRoy Irwin a Medal of Honor winner" - comma before "a"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harmon was preceded by his two older brothers, Kenneth B. Harmon, of the class of 1910,[25] and Millard F. Harmon, Jr., of the class of 1912.[26] Hubert was ejected" - completely threw me; maybe call him "Hubert Harmon" instead of just Hubert the first time you do that, so that the reader realizes that it's the same person

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Extraordinary times produced some extraordinary individuals." - uh, editorializing much?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "While the Army's training program attracted criticism, both at the time and subsequently, and failed in some key areas" - criticized for what, and failed at what?

  Lots of things. How long do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first member of the class to wear a star was Omar Bradley, who, skipped" - no comma after who

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "He had been returned to the grade of captain on 22 January 1920, and promoted to major again on 1 July 1920, only to be returned to captain again on 4 November 1922." - tense shift, the rest of this section is "he was"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "During World War II, there was little time for class sentimentality." - editorializing again, and left completely unexplained; I'm assuming that there was some idea of preferring your classmates over other officers at the time, but that's a complete assumption on my part.

  Re-worded. Added a quote from Eisenhower. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Golden Knights should not be italicized.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Henry Aurand row in the table has the refs split onto two lines; this is the only row that does that

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 42- the publisher is just Time, not Time magazine

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 44- publisher should be italicized and linked to Smithsonian (magazine)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You link United States Military Academy as the publisher on ref 5, but the first time that publisher is used is ref 2. Link the first use or all uses, please

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's it! Overall it's quite great, gives a good sense of the careers of the generals. Amusing that the eventual ranks of the generals and their class rankings have basically no correlation. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC up above. --PresN 16:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Support. A very informative list. --PresN 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

  There's a run of a few sentences which each begin with a similar clause ("As a result, fourteen more cadets received appointments to the class, which they joined six weeks late, in August 1911. As a consequence, they were known as the "Augustines". They thereby missing out on the infamous period of hazing known as Beast Barracks), this could probably stand to be reworded.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, "they thereby missing out" should either be "thereby missing out" or "they thereby missed out".

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "In 1937, Brigadier General George C. Marshall felt that in merging instruction on command and staff duties, the Command and General Staff School had neglected former had been in favor of the latter". The last clause here seems in need of a re-write ("had neglected the former and had been", I think seems the intention)

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "Promotion was glacially slow, as promotion was by seniority". You don't need to use "promotion" twice in the same sentence here.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems strange to me that the entire "Careers" section uses no images yet we have plenty of suitable images for the article; a quick browse turned up File:EstevesWP.jpg, File:Leland Hobbs.jpg, File:John W Leonard.jpg, File:Thomas B Larkin.jpg, and File:Omarbradleywestpoint.jpg, all taken at West Point. I think the first and last of these look the best, personally, and one of them could easily break up all that text while also being pretty relevant.

  The 1915 Howitzer? Yes, I have cadet images of all of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I follow; but the new football team image is pretty nice. Might not be a bad idea to push one of the team pictures into the next section though. GRAPPLE ^X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Overall it seems interesting and well-presented. I'm leaning in its favour. GRAPPLE ^X 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Support based on the changes made. GRAPPLE ^X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:12, 17 November 2015 [7].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another country's top scorer, this time Northern Ireland's. A significant name on the international football scene, if only for the record number of goals he scored for NI duing European qualification. As always, thanks for time and energy expended on commenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

I haven't looked at this in much detail, but it looks pretty good. One issue that I did spot: the lead doesn't actually mention how many international goals he has scored. Harrias ^talk 09:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "..the only Northern Ireland player ever to have done so." The word "ever" seems redundant to me, he's either the only NI player to have done so, or he isn't, ever doesn't come into it.
• The 24 March 2007 Liechtenstein match has two of the results the wrong way around (4–1 rather than 1–4). None of the other scores look obviously wrong, but I haven't checked in depth.
• References all look sound, the image looks awful, but is appropriately licensed and captioned, which is the main thing! Harrias ^talk 15:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, thanks for the quick response, nice work. Harrias ^talk 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great, well-presented list '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support happily. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13 - Image may need Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:12, 17 November 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Is the Warmest Colour is a 2013 French romantic coming-of-age drama directed by Abdellatif Kechiche. It stars Adèle Exarchopoulos, and Léa Seydoux. This is a hopefully comprehensive run down of its accolades. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Have added see also, removed redlinks, changed to accolades. In regard to the other comments, the first comment is not grammatically correct. The sentence is about who she plays in the film, which is a teenager who falls in love with an older woman. The dates are day/month/year as this is a French not an American film so doesn't follow American convention of month/day/year in its dates. Having more information about references which include who publishes the work is encouraged on Wikipedia, having just the work or publisher is acceptable but not the only way that references should be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I understood the date format, I just said that because this is an English Wikipedia, but you are right. About the references, even I'm supporting your FLC, I think you should give a chance and use only one of them (work or publisher). Anyway, this list looks amazing. Great job!!! GagaNutella^talk 15:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: Thanks. I have made the format uniform for all refs. It is the English Wikipedia but not the American English Wikipedia so date formats can vary per WP:ENGVAR.Cowlibob (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so understanding and honest. That's amazing! GagaNutella^talk 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Nice list. When you have the time, could you kindly proofread 60th Academy Awards for my latest FLC, please?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maile

• Image - Freely licensed on Commons and has an OTRS tag. Its use in the list is captioned and has W:ALT alternative text.
• Sourcing - Those listed appear to be credible sources. Earwig's tool shows no issues of concern on copyvio or close paraphrasing.
• List format - WP:DTT Table is well formatted with scope=row and scope=column, references centered within the column.

Support - — Maile (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vivvt

• Support All of my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of accolades received by the film Silver Linings Playbook. It is a romantic comedy about a man with bipolar disorder and a "crazy slut with a dead husband". I am looking forward to comments from reviewers and would like to thank anyone who takes time to check the article against the featured list criteria. -- Frankie _talk 20:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestions which I have taken care of in its entirety. -- Frankie _talk 08:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. It's a really great article. Congrats! GagaNutella^talk 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another user has addressed your comments before me. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Frankie _talk 12:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work. GagaNutella^talk 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - — Maile (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my comments have been resolved. Good luck. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as I have put a lot of work into it and believe it now meets FL criteria. A peer review has been carried out about a month ago and all issues raised in that discussion have been resolved. This is my first Featured content nomination, so I hope it will go well ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Tintor2 Article looks pretty solid to me but there are two things that bother me: *The intro "this is a list of video games...." seems unnecessary. I would change it to "There are video games that have been selected by the Museum of Modern Art"

Other than that I think this list could quickly become FL so more opinions are needed.

• • It looks pretty good so I would Support it.

Thank you for the comment. Firstly, per WP:LEAD, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads," though I've moved three of the sources down to the table to counter clutter. "This is a list of..." versus "There are..." has always been an odd thing to me - I'm going to check on previous Featured Lists to see what the common solution is to this, but I seem to remember "This is a list..." being preferred. ~Mable (chat) 07:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists starting with "this is a list" haven't really been the preferred format, or deemed acceptable at FLC, for quite a few years now. I would start the lead with something like "A number of video games have been selected by the Museum of Modern Art...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really like that wording. Fixed! ~Mable (chat) 10:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "A number of video games have been" not "A number of video games that have been"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - should have paid more attention. ~Mable (chat) 12:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:ProtoDrake There are a couple of things that jumped out at me.

• "which according to Paola Antonelli is the desired effect of the exhibition." - While Antonelli is linked and mentioned in the lead as the museum's curator, she is not in the instance, despite this being the first time she is mentioned outside the lead. I think this should be addressed.
• "MoMA has listed a few video games which they hope to acquire at some point in the future. These include an assortment of games for the Magnavox Odyssey console, as well as the following titles, in chronological order:[16]" - This could be alright as it stands, I suppose. But I've got the feeling that dates should be mentioned.

That was all I saw really. I'll go over it again once these two have been addressed or commented on. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first point, I changed the sentence to "..which, according to the exhibit's curator Paola Antonelli, is the desired effect.." I think this is better, but if anyone has any other ideas for clarity and flow, feel free to share :) As for the wishlist: MoMA has never been specific about when they would go about acquiring these games, so neither have the reliable sources. The seven games that were introduced in wave two were on the wishlist, though. I could mention this, but didn't feel it noteworthy at the time. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this seems fine now. I'll give this my Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

I said that I would review this list when I replied to the PR, so here it is! (Obviously, recusing myself as a FLC delegate).

• Link "classic era" in "classic era of arcade machines" to Golden age of arcade video games
• The "W." created complications unnecessarily in order to save 2 characters- rename it to "Wave", and adjust the header accordingly.
• Why are the dates in the table header in European format, when the museum is in America?
• 'as a "cinematic trailer."' - period should be outside the quote mark.
• "Massively multiplayer online video game is installed" -> "The massively multiplayer online video game is installed".
• "Furthermore, MoMA offers data of the virtual economy" -> "Additionally, MoMA offers data on the virtual economy"
• Is it worth also mentioning that Katamari Damacy was previously displayed in the MoMA in the "Background" section? (I remember seeing it when I was there a few months before this display opened)
• "First generation home video game console" and "Available only as a video demonstration" should not have periods after them, as they are not full sentences
• Atari is listed as the developer for 4 games under 3 different names- it appears that all 4 should be using Atari, Inc., though I would personally pipe it as Atari.
• Developers that are people rather than companies should be using the sortname template, a la {{sortname|firstname|lastname|optionalLinkIfDifferent}}, so that they sort by last name rather than first name
• I see that the source you're using doesn't define what the Odyssey games are that are on the wishlist; I assume nowhere else lists them out?
• You have colscopes for the table but are missing rowscopes- that is, where you have | ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]'', it should be !scope="row"| ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]''. You'll note that this changes the formatting of the first column; it's revertable if you really don't like it by instead doing !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal; background:transparent; text-align:left;"| ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]'' instead.
• The Legend of Zelda (video game) is redirecting to the series article, and so should be The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game) instead
• Other redirects, if you care to fix them, are 8-bit consoles, Massively multiplayer online, Ralph Baer, Taito, Apple computer (redirecting to Apple), and Soviet-era.
• --PresN 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes suggested I quickly carried out, as they are definitely improvements! Thank you~

• About the period in "cinematic trailer.", I always understood that punctuation goes inside quotation marks? I changed it, but I don't want to make the same mistake again, so why is this situation different?
• I happened to find out that Katamari Damacy has been exhibited before, but no reliable source that discusses the current collection has ever mentioned it. I'm not sure what to write about it more than I already have either, except perhaps that the "Century of the Child" exhibit was also curated by Antonelli.
• It doesn't seem like MoMA has ever specified this, no, which puts us in a bit of an awkward situation...
• I'll look into your suggested changes of the table scopes when I have more time - probably tonight.

~Mable (chat) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MOSLQ - turns out wikipedia uses the non-american style, which is likely why you were confused. The shorthand is: Only put the period inside of the quotation if you're quoting a full sentence (and the end of the quote is also the end of your whole sentence). 'Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."' - period inside; 'Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".' - period outside. Since "cinematic trailer" isn't a full sentence, period goes outside.
• My point about KD was that you say in background that showing video games as artworks was controversial, and mention that they've done industrial design galleries before (which inspired this one), and thought that it would make sense to point out there (as the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph) that 'at least one video game, Katamary Damacy, had been displayed in some form in the MoMA as a part of a larger gallery'. Or something like that- I wouldn't expect yo to be able to find any more information than what you already have in the notes by KD.
• Well, if the information isn't there, it isn't there.
• Ping me when you're done, and I'll take another look! --PresN 00:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I really do like the way these rowscopes look - thanks for the suggestion! I'm not particularly experienced yet with table lay-outs, so this is very much appreciated ^_^ I've also included a line on Katamari Damacy's earlier exhibition in the background section. I feel like it breaks the flow a little bit, but I suppose it's fine. ~Mable (chat) 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --PresN 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the table should contain some kind of description of why the entries are on display. I remember in the museum being a small plaque with more just the name for each game. Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This information is actually online available. Take, for instance, this page on Vib Ribbon. However, no secondary sources really talk about why the specific games are there. Even when they talk in detail about specific games (such as Dwarf Fortress or Eve Online), they mostly discuss how the game is displayed and how MoMA deals with this new kind of medium.

I think this information could do great in a "Reception" or "Legacy" section of their respective articles, but would be somewhat out of place here. Of course, the list links to the respective articles in case people are interested in what the high and low points of the works are. ~Mable (chat) 18:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Nobel Awards, primary sources are ok. I don't see why primary sources would not be ok here either. Is MOMA not a RS? Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely a reliable source, which is why I suggest using them as such in articles of specific games, or the article on video games as an art form, etc. Their opinions are important. However, in the case of this article, they are also a primary source. Seeing as MoMA is the thing being discussed in this article, we cannot assume everything MoMA says is interesting for readers. Instead, we repeat what other people have said about MoMA. This is also the reason why I sourced the wishlist to a secondary source (the only one to repeat the entire wishlist, and not simply parts of it): to show that this is a topic of interest to people outside of MoMA.

Relatedly, I suppose I should note that the gallery labels as they are published online aren't particularly interesting. They explain what the game is and may give some interesting quotes from the developer, but it isn't so that it says anything about the work's place in the exhibition. For instance, I do think the article for flOw could be greatly improved with the information on the game's label (if the information isn't on the article already, that is), but I don't think it gives the reader any extra context to the game's role or purpose in the exhibition. It could potentially bloat up the article giving important facts about each and every game, while the reader should get this information by reading about the game in specific in its article.

Oh, and lastly, we don't know who wrote the labels, which makes it hard to decipher who's opinion we are reading, even if it is supposed to represents MoMA's opinion as a whole.

This all being said, if anyone else agrees or disagrees, I would like to hear more opinions on this. Should we give more information about the specific games in this list, even if this information isn't really related to MoMA's exhibition other than that they point this information out as well? ~Mable (chat) 09:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the labels add anything to this list- like you said, they just describe the game and say nice things about it, they don't say why MoMA included Flow versus, say, Flower, which is what you would actually want. I'd like to see information on why MoMA included these specific games, but I don't think they've released anything of the sort. (And yes, Flow already has the information from that label). --PresN 22:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13

• Image may need Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even know alt text was a thing you could do! I've added it here and will also apply this knowledge on other articles I have worked on :3 ~Mable (chat) 08:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [13].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W.E. Johns was a prolific English writer. He wrote over 150 books and was one of the most popular children's writer of his time. Most of Johns's work—102 books—consists of the stories of Biggles, a First World War pilot and, later, adventurer, detective and Second World War squadron leader. He also wrote science fiction stories, and two further series of war stories, featuring the characters Worrals of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) and Gimlet, a British Commando. This is a new list as we did not have a complete picture of Johns' works before this page. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few comments:

• Intro:
  • "Johns also co-wrote two radio plays, which were broadcast on BBC Radio": you could conveniently avoid the repetition of "radio" by changing "on BBC Radio" to "by the BBC" (though retaining the blue link to BBC Radio).
• Blue-links to publishers:
  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't see why the OUP isn't linked like Hamilton, Newnes et al.
  • I have my doubts whether "J. Hamilton" ought to link to Hamish Hamilton: according to WorldCat this J Hamilton is John and not Jamie/Hamish, and this site seems to confirm that the two Hamilton publishing firms were separate concerns.
• Publications in periodicals:
  • The left-hand border of the table goes wonky for the cell containing "The Oriental Touch" if viewed in Google Chrone; all is well when using Firepox and Internet Exploder. I merely mention this: I don't think any action is required, or indeed possible.

That's all from me. I wondered briefly whether the caveat at the top of "Publications in periodicals" affected the comprehensiveness of the page, but looking at the criteria, I see that 3(a) covers the present case, and all is well. Very happy to support promotion to FL. – Tim riley talk 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim for your kind attention and I've tweaked the links as suggested. No idea about the cell border, but I'll keep an eye out and see if anyone mentions it later. It may be I have to post something to the technical support people to get their input. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Certainly meets the criteria and a commendable effort considering the scope of his output. Where you say "and two children's books (on pirates and treasure hunting) were also published." I'd probably just state the book titles seems as it's only two, though it might be more difficult then to state they're about pirates or treasure hunting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Doc. I've swapped out the description and just added the titles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It's very rare that I declare my support in a nomination without making some critical comments. Top work; engaging prose and very well-sourced. I do have some comments, which are quite trivial and won't help the list in any way, I think. Great job! -- Frankie _talk 10:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Frankie - much appreciated! I always enjoy your reviews, and it's nice to know I've beaten your eye this time! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [14].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1993 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Please note that the winners are both indicated with boldface text AND double daggers. This was agreed upon based on a resolution regarding accessbility taken up at the FL nomination for the 2015 Oscars. Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from jimknut

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am not sure when was the last time I supported a nomination without comments. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references and plenty of content. However, I do have a minor comment: can you rephrase the first sentence of the ceremony information section as it reads a bit odd, especially "riding on the success". Also, it would be pretty good if you change "last year's ceremony" to something like "preceding ceremony" or previous. -- Frankie _talk 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: Done: Changed "Riding of the" to simply "After", and changed "last" to "previous". Thanks for the support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can now gladly support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: Thank you so much!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you keep not mentioning the big 5 in the intro? Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: Done: Mentioned all acting winners.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The list looks to be neatly written and covers the major aspects appropriately. Only one minor comment: with regards to the announcer, you list her as Randi Thomas in the presenters sub-section where in the ceremony information section, she is listed as Randy Thomas. Please correct this. Z105space (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z105space: Done: Changed Randi to Randy per these books covering the Oscars: The Big Show by Steve Pond and Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona. Thanks for the support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [15].

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive list of Arsenal records and notable statistics, modelled on other football lists which already been promoted. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work. Hopefully we will one day see an Arsenal F.C. featured topic! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as my comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This list is in great shape, but for two points I have. The appearances records section is a bit sparse, you could add who has the most most appearances in Europe, the FA Cup, who has made the consecutive appearances etc. Likewise the managerial records sections is a bit small. You could add most games as manager, who has won the most games, lost the most, best winning percentage, shortest managerial regign etc. That is assuming the information is available, which i think it will be more for the majority of the above. NapHit (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look at this NapHit, I've beefed up the appearances section and added some more managerial records. The manager who has won and lost the most games is Wenger; without context it's pointless hence why I've excluded it. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now that my niggles have been dealt with! NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:14, 16 November 2015 [16].

Nominator(s): Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When preparing this list, I have followed the example of the Spanish article which is already a FL. Checking the criteria:

• 1 and 2 - I suppose this is fine. May require some language tweaks, I'll be happy if you point them out.
• 3 - it is complete and cannot be presented as a part of another article, at least not in this shape.
• 4 - tables work and are sortable.
• 5 - all images except for one are on Commons, the one with Plečnik is free under the US law.
• 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.

Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is only 3+5 items long. Not sure it should be a FL, since the +5 might not happen anytime soon. I suggest get this at GAN after reformatting to have a minisection on each of the currently listed 3 sites. I also suggest to remove "list of" from the title. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however, FLs List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar and List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba are not much longer themselves. And Madagascar also has only 3 sites on the main list. Still, if this fails, GAN is an option, I agree. --Tone 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were promoted in 2010 and 2011. I am pretty sure that if they would have been nominated more recently they would have gotten more scrutiny about it. It is difficult to name something "list of 3 items" and be taken seriously. From my memory, shorts lists are delayed FL until they become somewhat longer, but in this case this "list" might never be longer than 3 entries. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I would add a slightly bigger location map to the list (similar to the one for WH in Cuba) --Smihael (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

400 -> 500 px. What do you think? I wouldn't go bigger than that. --Tone 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 400px is better, so I've restored the original size and hope that we won't go bickering about that. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: well-written, meets all the criteria. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Taking off my delegate hat to review this, with one caveat- this list is 8 items long in 2 tables, and as Nergaal mentioned that is a bit short; that said, I'm fine with it due to its status as one of a set (e.g. the "List of World Heritage sites in [country]" set). If this was a branched-off list such as a "list of accolades" list I wouldn't be okay with the length, but in this case it's cool, assuming the promoting delegate doesn't disagree. Anyways, review:

• I'd change "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992." to "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992.", just to give a little more context.
• "The first site [...] were the Škocjan Caves" -> was
• "inscribed at the 10th session in 1986" -> "inscribed at the 10th UNESCO session in 1986"
• "both of them being transnational entries" -> "both of them transnational entries"
• "pile dwellings at Ig, within the Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps in 2011, and Idrija, as Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija in 2012." -> "pile dwellings at Ig, part of the "Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps" transnational site, in 2011; and Idrija, as part of the "Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija" transnational site, in 2012."
• "Of these three sites, Škocjan Caves are a natural site" -> either "the Škocjan Caves are" or "Škocjan Caves is"
• The table key is mostly unnecessary; the name and location and description is entirely self-evident from the name. I'd change the header to "In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number, the year the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." I'd also personally put that as a note on the UNESCO column, but either way is fine.
• Comments is a bad column name, because that's not really what's in there; I'd change it to "Shared with", drop "shared with" from cells that have that, and put {{n/a}} in the empty cells
• Ig is missing a space in "iv,v"
• "Two sites in Slovenia are listed, the pile dwellings in Ig, the northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)." -> "Two sites in Slovenia are listed: the pile dwellings in Ig, northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)."
• "The area that developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising" -> "The area that was developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", or "The area developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", depending on what you meant.
• That entire description needs to be rewritten; it's two sentences jammed together and it's confusing as to subject-verb matching. I'd go with "Ždrocle Virgin Forests in the forest reserves Krokar and Snežnik represent an outstanding example of undisturbed, complex temperate forests. They demonstrate the postglacial expansion process of such forests and exhibit the most complete and comprehensive ecological patterns and processes of pure and mixed stands of European Beech across a variety of environmental conditions."
• Architectural heritage of Jože Plečnik description starts with a sentence fragment; revise into a full sentence.
• The "Shared with" bit above applies to this table too
• References are malformed; you're misusing the templates. You have UNESCO World Heritage Centre as the author of the refs, but they should be listed as the publisher, with author blank. The refs also need an accessdate. I think we can safely assume that archiving the refs is very optional for these citations, though.
• Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps is redirecting to lowercase p pile, no other redirects
• If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC above. --PresN 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I will try to go through the comments this weekend. --Tone 10:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we doing with this batch of comments? At a glance, it looks like at least some work has been done, but it would be nice to have the progress updated here. Although we can leave this FLC active for a little while longer, it is close enough to ending in a promotion that it would be a shame if things were to bog down now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was kind of busy ... I addressed all the above comments, just the references are left to be fixed. I used the script to format them, I guess I'll have to go manually through after all. Give me a couple of days, ok? ;) --Tone 08:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done with the comments (fixing the refs was easier than I thought ;) ) Please have a look and let me know if there's anything else to be improved. --Tone 20:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Support. --PresN 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry, I wanted to review your nomination but by the time I got there, it has already been promoted ... --Tone 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, like I said, completely optional! Though, I do now have another one if you want to... --PresN 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]