Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2017

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) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since the last nom, which died with a whimper instead of objections. I want to try again, because I strongly believe in the quality of this article, with its 400+ citations and years of research, and am more than willing to implement any improvements that come up. And again I must give props to the others who helped with this, mainly User:Jeff in CA and User:XavierGreen. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can see you've worked really hard on this, it's an impressive list. If you could look at my nomination, I'd be grateful.  — Calvin999 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I read through this last time but it's so long I unfortunately did not have time for a review. My main concern is actually with the length; even though it's a clear table with just three columns, it's unreadable for practical purposes. Perhaps there could be some sort of color-coding (a narrow column with color and sortable symbol?) to distinguish states joining [leaving] the union, changes in borders between states, territorial gains and losses, and overseas claims, etc. While you've done an incredible job making it more comprehensive from what it used to be, the list is no longer accessible to a casual user who is not dedicated enough to sift through so many minor changes. The sections by decade were also nice, especially to get through the 64 changes of the 1860s :). Reywas92^Talk 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could still split it like before, or add anchors... as for color coding, I don't think that would really work because many entries would have multiple categories. (A quick example that comes to mind: March 2, 1861. On this day, a state seceded and also joined the CSA; two new territories were created ; one territory grew; and one territory shrank.) And sorting on that kind of abstracts a change from its history. Remove it from its context and it means much less. --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this look: [2] I found decades to be too imbalanced, with some being 20 pages and some being 2. But I figured out these few major grouping that could work? What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that works fairly well, but if anyone else has ideas of how to make this not seems so long, do consider them. In the meantime I found no issues in my read-throughs, support with some sort of sectioning. Reywas92^Talk 03:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you! And just to be clear, that was just an idea, I immediately reverted it, but I'm definitely open to discussion on this front. Decades, phases, something that might work. Just because I, very familiar with it, can get around it doesn't mean others can. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Reywas92: I've put them back, I'm much keener to the idea now. What do you think of them? --Golbez (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Support Reywas92^Talk 23:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

• As per MOS:TQ, punctuation should not be inside of direct quotes unless you're quoting a full sentence that includes that punctuation (I've made this edit for you).
  • Thanks!
• March 4, 1791 - the dispute map gains some red bits, but the text does not explain; it appears the last "dispute" map was May 12, 1784, which did not highlight those areas in red as the entire country was new/green. Some sort of reminder/note in 1791 would be helpful to mark that they're not new disputes.
  • I'm not sure what you mean; 1784 did note the areas that ... hm. Yeah, actually, they should be red, not green, because their status didn't change - they're still claimed by Great Britain. Lemme fix that.... and, fixed.
• June 1, 1796 - Reads odd to not start as "The" Southwest Territory
  • Fixed.
• February 22, 1821 - "The land exchanged in this fashion should not truly count as territory gained or lost" - the "should" is poor tone; replace with "does" or "did"
  • Removed that sentence.
• September 9, 1850 - This is the only place where I noticed it, but citations should be in number order (not [176][3], as here).
  • All out-of-order citations fixed.
• March 1, 1862 - the image here has quite different borders with the CSA than the image above it, which is because this whole span you mark different areas as disputed between the internal and external maps; it's unclear (to me) why the US map only marks the CSA states as red, and not the territories/states that the CSA itself claims in the other maps
  • The internal map marks the states red that have withdrawn or been expelled from the congress; the dispute map marks all regions claimed by a foreign country, so while Missouri was never expelled, it was claimed by the CSA. The internal maps are from the "POV" of the US, so they always have the maximal interpretation; the dispute maps show where that interpretation conflicts with others' interpretations.
• July 18, 1927 - remove external link
  • Fixed.
• September 24, 1928 - remove external link
  • Fixed.

Looks good in general! --PresN 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --PresN 13:03, 20 November 2017 (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) 23:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back at the FLC after a long hiatus. This is a complete well written/sourced list of the NFA supporting actress winners. Looking forward for constructive and helpful feedback. Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job Yashthepunisher. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ianblair23 for your comments and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great job! I got no other comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your comment and support BeatlesLedTV. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a well-made list that meets the criteria. Just one concern: there were three instances of a tie, but the lead mentions only the first occurrence. My recommendation: to avoid unnecessarily bulking up the lead, we can simply state that were three ties in the history of the awards, in the years 1999, 2012, and 2013. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk2.0: Is it okay now? Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked it a bit. Anyway, good job. I support it for promotion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support Krimuk. :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The "also known as" name isn't referenced.

  Anything on this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I couldn't find any source to support the name. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Removed, since the award's name is not "Rajat Kamal" but its the hindi translation of the silver lotus given to the winners. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " It is presented by the President of India at a ceremony held in New Delhi." that's referenced to a single event that happened in 2015, has it always been the case, and was it the case in 2016?

For the past 10 years, the event has been happening in New Delhi, per the sources.

• " the government of India has presented" I thought, more specifically, it was the DFF doing the presenting?

The DFF works under the I&B ministry, which itself is under the Government of India.

Yes, but it's the DFF who do the presenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

• Could add a couple more images, indeed I've started adding images for each recipient in some of my more recent lists where a sufficient number exist.

Added image of the first recipient. I don't think adding image of everyone of them is necessary.

• Any kind of third party coverage which puts this award into some context, i.e. how prominent an award it is?

That's all, very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Few third party sources are available. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have given it a good read and the list looks quite flawless especially after the previous reviews were resolved. I offer my Support for its promotion to FL.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments form Vedant

• "the actresses whose performances have won awards have worked in one or more of eight major languages: Bengali, English, Hindi, Meitei, Marathi, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil and Urdu." - this bit read a little awkward to me. Particularly because you say one of the eight languages but listed are nine languages. Also, in the list is a "Haryanvi" film. So that makes it ten? It's fairly confusing.

Rephrased the sentence and corrected the numbers.

• Also, the reference for the same might be problematic. Is it solely for the "films made in over 20 languages" claim? If so, does the latter claim not need a reference? I mean obviously it's very fact based and we can simply count the languages but are we sure?

The first part of the sentence is sourced and the second part about 10 languages is pretty obvious to need a source.

• The captions for Sikri and Sen's photographs can be more alike? You may want to add to Sikri's caption the other actress with the achievement?

The rest looks good. Fine work Yash, let me know if you any queries regarding my comments. NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can​ Support this list. Good luck Yash! NumerounovedantTalk 20:20, 26 November 2017 (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) 23:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket five-wicket hauls list, this time for the women's in the one day format. As always, I am happy to address any and all points raised. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• Would it be possible to put the references in their own column? If so make sure they're centered.

Other than that I got nothing. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeatlesLedTV, I have rearranged columns in the table and added a separate column for the references. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Awesome. I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The first two five-wicket hauls in women's ODIs was taken" => were taken

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Australia's Tina Macpherson and New Zealand's Glenys Page both achieved the feat as part of their team's victories" => their teams' victories

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "two of only five players to take a five-wicket haul during their ODI debut. The others being" => merge here, as the second sentence is currently not grammatically correct, so "ODI debut, the others being...."

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite taking 5/67 off her 10 overs at the County Ground in Taunton during the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup, the match was lost to Australia" => "Despite Luus taking 5/67 off her 10 overs at the County Ground in Taunton during the 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup, South Africa lost the match to Australia"

• Great improvement! Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shah is also youngest the bowler" => "Shah is also the youngest bowler"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Players from every the team that currently hold WODI status" => "Players from every team that currently holds WODI status"

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of the teams that have previously held WODI status only the Netherlands have had a player take five wickets in an innings. No players from teams that no longer play WODIs have achieved the feat" => I don't understand this bit. Is there a difference between no longer holding WODI status and no longer playing WODI matches?

• Yes there is. As per the notes after each sentence Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Scotland formerly held WODI status but still play cricket while Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Young England and the International XI also formerly held the status but they no compete. All four teams played in the 1973 World Cup and all matches were designated as WODIs. However, players from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago now play for the West Indies and Young England and the International XI are now defunct. Hope this clears it up. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for you review. I have addressed your comments above. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the last point, I note the notes (!) but still don't think the situation is made clear. I would suggest the following re-wording: "Of the teams that are still active but no longer hold WODI status only the Netherlands have had a player take five wickets in an innings.[b] No players from teams that previously competed in WODIs but are no longer active have achieved the feat" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, I have made the above change. Thanks again for your review. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see any other issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the support. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM! – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, that's some list! I only have 3 comments...

• Looking at the refs, matches 1 to 17 had various numbers of overs eg 60, 55, 54, 45, 60, 40. Did the 50 become standard around match 18 / 1998? Is it worth a tiny mention?

• Note added – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Amanda Green - needs dab

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Momoko Saito - needs dab

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All refs and player links checked. That's it! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, just right! Thanks for this maarrvelous list! Happy to sign for support, JennyOz (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, thanks for the support. Much appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2017 (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) 23:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet this one. Another Laureus World Sports Awards effort, this one a discretionary award irregularly awarded to big-hitters in the world of sport. Imagine my surprise when I saw Brits had more of these than anyone else... Yes, I know I have a couple of FLCs running, one has seven supports, the other three, so and since this one is different enough from those two, I reckon it'll all be okay!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Center the dashes in the image column.
• There's only 1 ref per year so retitle ref column "Ref.". The extra (s) is unnecessary.

Other than that everything looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BeatlesLedTV thanks, addressed those. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Love your work TRM, at this rate we will knock the entire series by the end of the month! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

• Infobox - hmmm, does it matter that Location="Monaco 2017" when they didn't present this particular category in 2017?
• "... at the annual awards ceremony held in various locations ..." an annual
• "Footballers have received more awards than any other with..." - any other sport?
• "... Bobby Charlton (2011)..." - 2012
• ..."Sebastian Coe (2012))." - 2013
• "...died in a climbing accident in South Africa a month before the 2012 ceremony - 2004

he died in January, thehindu says awards ceremony Lisbon 11 May - so 4 months before?

• "Indicates individual whose award was presented posthumously - sounds iffy, presented to who? (yeah, I know the Laureus site uses 'presented'). 'Indicates individual whose award was posthumous or 'Indicates posthumous award'
• Template matches table.

I haven't looked at table yet. Will do when Ian answers you. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz Hi Jenny, all done, thanks as always, look forward to your subsequent remarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crikeys, you're quick! All above is now fine. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to keep my tip-top review crew waiting...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• recent prose change - you swapped "seven constituent awards" for "two discretionary awards" which has introduced repetition with "it is one of a number of discretionary awards" further on in lede. And..., there are now at least three discretionary awards - "The Academy also has the power to present Discretionary Awards such as Lifetime Achievement, Spirit of Sport and Exceptional Achievement." per last sentence of existing ref. I would humbly suggest simply swapping the newly added "two discretionary" to 'inaugural'.
• Table and refs - All table columns info, sorting and refs now checked.

My only minor comment is that the 2006 Johan Cruyff BBC ref support is only in a caption. Poss alts here or here.

• Not related to my support but would it be possible to add the pic of part statuette into the infobox of each of these articles - i.e., the 5th image on this page? - or even the logo top left same page? (Or only fair use on the umbrella page Laureus World Sports Awards? Sorry to ask but I've had no experience with images yet.)

That's it. JennyOz (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz Hi Jenny, thanks again. I addressed your first points, only the statuette one left. I think since the statuette seems to be the same across all awards, it's most likely fair use would only apply at the main awards page, and that's an article which needs a lot of work (it's on my list). So it's definitely a good idea, but I don't think it applies on these sub-articles. Thanks for all your diligence, let me know if there's anything else for me to tweak. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done, another fine job! Happy to sign support. JennyOz (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the Laureus Awards ceremony is held annually, the Lifetime Achievement Award is not necessarily presented every time; it is one of a number of discretionary awards that can be given by the Laureus World Sports Academy. The award is considered highly prestigious and is frequently referred to as the sporting equivalent of an "Oscar".

The second sentence, by referring to "The award", implies that the Lifetime Achievement Award in particular is what is prestigious, rather than the Laureus Awards in general. Better as The awards are considered highly prestigious and are frequently referred to as the "Oscars of Sports"., which also better matches the source.

Tweaked somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.

• Footballers have received more awards than any other sports with five, while only Great Britain has multiple winners with three (Steve Redgrave (2001), Bobby Charlton (2012) and Sebastian Coe (2013)).

There should be commas ahead of both uses of the word with. Why are all in the latter group mentioned here but not those in the former? Might as well just leave them in the table.

Colon added. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was correct already; if you add a colon the parentheses are no longer needed. My question is why are the footballers not mentioned when the British winners are? Include both set of people or neither. Football and Great Britain are also not contrasting groups so "and" would be more appropriate than "while". Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks and reads fine to me as it stands, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you edited it to your preference. Anything else to do here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my preference is that the grammar is accurate. I see no other issues besides Oscars. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the Academy Awards page itself refers to the Oscars in such a way, and since numerous other editors have not indicated that they have any issue with it as it stands, and since I have no issue with it as it stands, then it'll stand. If that means you oppose, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It reads more naturally to write "The New Zealand yachtsmanPeter Blake..." like in the paragraph's final sentence. rather than putting it as a non-restrictive appositive. The current suggests that they had been discussed previously. Reywas92^Talk 22:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being anal, I guess you meant to add a space before Peter. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done Reywas92, thanks. Let me know if there's anything else! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "a global organisation involved in more than 150 charity projects affecting 500,000 young people." "affecting" does not sound right to me. How about "a global organisation supporting more than 150 charity projects involving 500,000 young people."
• I can't find anything else to quibble about. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles thanks, I've adjusted that (I think that was the phrase the Laureus Foundation used) and will roll out the change across all the other Laureus lists for consistency. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2017 (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) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I am nominating the Croatian list for featured list as well. The criteria as follows:

• 1 and 2 should be fine. Some language tweaks may be required but I expect them to be pointed out during the nomination.
• 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 are on Commons, I could not find anything useful for two of the tentative sites so I am leaving those blank.
• 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.

Tone 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the list looks great. Not a thorough review yet, but I do want to comment that I strongly recommend consistency. I am disappointed by the variation that already exists in FLs like List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa, and List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar: This list is closer to the latter table format, which is most common and I prefer. For one, other country lists do not have a 'Shared with' column. Because a minority of sites are shared, that info is better included in the description - it already is for the graveyards and Venetian works, so it's redundant! References also do not have to be a separate column - putting it at the end of the description, even if also sourcing the Data column, is acceptable and preferred because it reduces space used and clutter. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point. Initially, the Shared with column was introduced to Slovenia's list (which has several shared sites) after a FL discussion, the details were first listed as "comments". I am fine with following the example of Spain and merging them to the description column, also the references, if a consensus arises (I will wait for more comments before the changes). Community column is probably rather country-specific, while I am not a big fan of the Period column, which may sometimes be hard to asses and can thus be confusing - for some building that has been used for a long time and had modifications, for example. And non-applicable for natural sites. Africa's list has coordinates but those may be tricky for large sites or for sites that have several different locations, so I'd leave those out as well. The rest, I believe, is more or less consistent. Spain's list does not have a table for tentative sites, but there are many many tentative sites there ;) --Tone 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was just giving those as examples of the unfortunate lack of consistency in prior articles, not that they should be followed in particular - that's correct on Community, though some customization is fine. I don't like the Period column either! There are already coordinates built into the clickable map, it'd be smart to use those in the location column; size and sites are not major issues honestly, just so they're available. It's the unnecessary Shared column I'm concerned about at all though. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I am already looking forward whether it is possible to reasonably make all those articles more unified ;) On the other thought, in future, there will be more and more shared sites, as this is something UNESCO is aiming for instead of "a single church"-type sites (read somewhere, don't ask me for the source). But for the time being, I am fine with merging the columns. --Tone 16:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice doing work with you, I think this is now a reasonably refined template on which you can base the other lists you've mentioned before. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Center the year columns.
• Any reason in the descriptions some of the references have a space in between periods while others are next to periods? I say put them all next to periods.
• Put en dashes in image spaces that don't have images & make sure they're centered.

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Those spaces were excessive. I thought there is a command to center columns but it seems it has to be done for each field manually. --Tone 22:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yeah it sucks that it has to be manually but it is the way it is. Anyways, I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2017 (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) 22:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest for FLC, such as Essex and Northamptonshire, and is I trust of the same standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw Another excellent list but, as always a few minor quibbles:

• The first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead is incredibly long & listy. I know it has commas but is there any way to make it more manageable?

• Revised. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of Crag Pit, Aldeburgh "This is the most northern site which exposes the Pliocene Coralline Crag Formation around five million years ago." should perhaps be "exposed" or other tweak for sense.

  Changed to "Coralline Crag Formation, which dates to around five million years ago" Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of Round Hill Pit, Aldeburgh has "2.5 metre" without a conversion

• Convert added. It seems strange that the convert pluralises metres but not foot. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an expert on the convert template but have you tried "abbr=in" & "abbr=out" as well as "on" & "off". I have found often that a message on the convert template talk page will get an expert who can achieve the output you desire.— Rod ^talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have raised a query on the template talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had a reply and changed to {{convert|127|m|foot|adj=mid|-long|abbr=off}} which yields 127-metre-long (420-foot). I do not like the excessive hyphens, but there seems to be a consensus that it is grammatically correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Should all the words of " Marine Isotope Stage" be capitalised on Stoke Tunnel Cutting, Ipswich? Also are we talking about turtles or tortoises?

  As so often, Wikipedia is inconsistent. The generic Marine isotope stage is uncapitalised, but article titles on specific stages such as Marine Isotope Stage 5 and Marine Isotope Stage 11 are capitalised. My view is that it is helpful to capitalise such terms to make clear to the reader that they have a specialised meaning and are not just noun phrases. On the other point, they are turtles, but described as European pond tortoises by NE and often in scientific literature. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I'm not an expert and will go with your explanation - I was just a little confused.— Rod ^talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know next to nothing about turtles and tortoises and looked into it when you pointed out that the pipe is confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Blakenham Pit includes an unconverted "127 metre"

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 500 metres is unconverted on Horringer Court Caves

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could/should "carr fen" be wikilinked to Carr (landform)

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What are "Sandlings Heaths" (Sutton and Hollesley Heaths)?

• They are a large area of heathland in Suffolk. Would it help to specify "Suffolk Sandlings Heaths"

• Is "Sandlings" a place or area in Suffolk they are named after or is it a local term for "Sandy"?— Rod ^talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This source suggests that it is a local name for areas of sandy heath and grassland. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth mentioning that at least on the article if not on this list.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thoughts I have changed it to "formerly extensive sandy heaths of the Suffolk coast", which I think more clearly reflects the meaning of the citation, which has Sandlings heaths with no capitalisation of "heaths", unlike most other sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On Stour Estuary "Wrabness" id a different font size on my screen - others seem to have <small style="font-size:85%;"> - any reason for this difference?

• Fixed. No idea how this happened. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 184 "Frithy and Chadacre Woods citation is showing a CS1 error "CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown" as is Ref 300 " "Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes citation" & 336 "Pakefield to Easton Bavents citation" - not sure what is causing this

• I will look into this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The parameter "deadurl=bot: unknown" may be because when archived the bot couldn't identify the status of the original citation & the original URL is not shown. Using 184 as a test case if you add |url=http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001098.pdf and switch "deadurl=bot: unknown" to "deadurl=no" it may solve it.— Rod ^talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is puzzling because the bot must have found the original citation in order to archive it. I have solved the problem by just changing to deadurl=no. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these make sense and are helpful.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for dealing with my quibbles. I can now Support as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Another excellent list, I might have time to do a full review later but just a quick note, all Latin words should be italicized (see glaucous fescue, Festuca caesia). Mattximus (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Mattximus. Glaucous fescue is the common name for the Latin Festuca caesia. I left out the common name of Festuca caesia, Breckland wild thyme, in error, and I have now corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good in my hood. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• @Dudley Miles Based on your other featured lists you mentioned, I think you got a well-deserving featured list here. My only comment is do you think this list should be split? I've checked out WP:Article size and normally the readable prose size is 105 bytes while this list as is currently stands at over 300k bytes. Your other featured lists are over 105 bytes so if you don't split it it's no big deal. If you think about splitting it, I would suggest maybe A–L and M–Z or something like that. But again it's not my list so I'm not going to force you. Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your comment. As I read it, the readable prose limit applies to prose excluding lists. I do not think that people are going to read right through as they would a prose article, and it would be inconvenient for some readers to have the list split - for example, sorting by size or location would then not work correctly. I am therefore inclined to keep the article as one list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – You got it. That was my only comment and therefore have nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks BeatlesLedTV. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2017 (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) 22:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3D Realms started as Apogee Software, a garage publisher of computer games, in 1987, and was buoyed up by the success of first id Software's Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons (1990) and then Wolfenstein 3D (1992) into the lead shareware publisher of the time. Its own Duke Nukem 3D (1996) catapulted it into a major developer/publisher right as it changed its name, and from there it... pretty much collapsed. All of their development work went into two projects; Prey got spun off to another company 5 years later, and Duke Nukem Forever became the canonical definition of vaporware until the whole department ran out of money in 2009. Their publishing wing, on the other hand, wandered into various fruitless ventures, until the company was nothing but a rights-holder selling licenses to make Duke Nukem spinoff games. Last year it got bought for a pittance to be the publishing counterpart to minor developer Interceptor Entertainment... who then shut down. 3D Realms is still alive, and claims to be working as a developer/publisher on a new game... but it's quite likely that this list charts, in tabular form, the entire 20-year rise and fall of 3D Realms. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - (If you could look at mine, I'd be grateful)  — Calvin999 08:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Absolutely! Hope this support helps bring it closer to featured. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent promotion of Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor, I think this is the next list ready for nomination. It follows the format of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it is comprehensive including images where possible, with brief information about each entry and links to its official listing documents. — Rod ^talk 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The district of Taunton Deane Area covers a population of approximately 100,000 in an area of 462 square kilometres (178 sq mi)." 1. Why is "Area" capitalised? 2. [10] shows population as of 2016 as 115,500. 3. I could not see the source for the area, although I probably missed it. 4. I think that if "square kilometres" is spelled out, then sq mi should be as square miles, though that it probably a matter of taste. Maybe "Taunton Deane has an area of 462 square kilometres (178 square miles), and a population as of 2016 of 115,500."

• I tried to fiddle with the convert template but had problems with the display and have gone with your version.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "More urban properties such as those in Hammet Street and The Crescent in Taunton." This is ungrammatical.

• I've tweaked this a bit.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " Industrial sites are represented by Tonedale Mills in Wellington the largest woollen mill in South West England." I think there should be a comma after "Wellington">

• Comma added.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another first rate list. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• It's funny, I've read a number of these lists you've written and been happy with them. But when it's about the area I live in, the lead seems a bit sparse! (This isn't really an issue I don't think, just an interesting observation on perception and knowledge bias.)

• If you wanted to expand it or have specific suggestions that would be great. I have previously had comments on similar list about the lead being longer than was needed, but always happy to consider alternatives.— Rod ^talk 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The MOS has changed, so year spans should be YYYY–YYYY, rather than YYYY–YY. This needs changing a few times in the "Completed" column.

• I'm not seeing this. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges says "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources." As this is in a table I think it complies as "using a single format consistently in any given table column".— Rod ^talk 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point, I missed that bit!. Harrias ^talk 19:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this all looks pretty good. Harrias ^talk 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, apparently I couldn't find anything wrong with it! Harrias ^talk 19:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my issues resolved, and thanks for reminding me to read the other comments before commenting! Good work as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2017 (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) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (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) 19:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a nice one this, a tiny synopsis of each of each try, a link to the video, ACCESS-friendly, nicely illustrated etc. Let me know what you all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. You got it I don't blame you. And thanks I'd appreciate it! Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is presented to the scorer of the best technical or skillful try of the year in international rugby whether it is a team or individual effort." The ref just appears to be a list of winners - I cannot see anything supporting the comment.
• " for his 60 m solo effort" It is probably personal taste, but I would prefer "metre" spelled out.
• "chipping the ball over a third" No change needed, but is it the rule that if a player throws or kicks a ball forward, a team mate cannot catch it but he can himself?
• "The winner of the 2016 IRPA Try of the Year is Ireland's Jamie Heaslip" I think it would be better to keep to the past tense, as with previous awards.
• Looks good. Just a few minor nit-picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles thanks so much for your comments, all addressed. As for your third point, you can't throw the ball forwards, ever. You can kick the ball forward and catch it yourself, or someone who was behind you at the time you kicked it can also catch it. If someone who was in front someone who kicks it catches it, then they're offside. Pretty simple, eh?!! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

• Infobox - first awarded 2000 - should be 2007 - (and see note 'First year of award' below)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Andries Pretorius - change wlink to Andries Pretorius (rugby player)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The inaugural winner of the IRPA ..." - add year? (for ref/s see note 'First year of award' below)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "... described as "one the great matches" - missing 'of'

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "... receiving the ball ten yards out ..." needs conversion like others?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...against the All Blacks in 2012.", "Springbok's 21–11" - nicknames need introducion in brackets after first mention of nation?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...All Black move against..." All Blacks? (though I have heard singular and plural used) and apostrophe?

  No, I would per BritEng use singular... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Springbok's 21–11" - Springboks'?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "... who finished off a All Black move..." - an

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• try-line v tryline

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Observer - wlink? (SMH has)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Ireland and Italy are mentioned in lede without wlinks to national teams

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ruled as legitimate by the video referee,..." seems odd to mention video ref without why video needed. Was it a matter of field ref not seeing ball down or was there an offside claim?

  Yes, removed, as it isn't directly relevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Julian Savea try in prose - the score for the game NZ v France 62-13 isn't in ref - use ref 46 from 2015 Rugby World Cup?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First year of award

Is 2007 but nowhere (that I can see) do we verify inaugural was 2007.

WR website (from infobox) has first award for TotY in 2008. Is this what happened?... IRPA awarded it independently, just the once, in 2007. Then, after IRPA and IRB signed the MOU, the IRB incorporated the TotY, keeping its IRPA name, into their awards suite?

Ngwenya 2007 - Current prose ref 4 verifies that it was a great try, and table ref 19 verifies he won TotY but neither ref says it was inaugural / first nor named IRPA.

The exact phrase 'inaugural award in 2007' is confirmed at end in this.

Espn shows no TotY in what were IRPA Awards in 2006.

• Prose - all refs working and verify info

  Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Ackford - authorlink?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Table - all info inc refs (but not videos) checked

  Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure benefit of Match column being sortable but the O'Driscoll one stands out as only one where try scorer's team isn't first?

  No harm no foul imho... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job TRM - only other problem, not enough Wallabies in this list:) JennyOz (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever Jenny. Addressed all comments bar the "inaugural" comments. Need to have a think how to introduce that neatly, so once I get the kids in bed later, I'll have a go at it and ping you. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz I used that link you provided to ref the inaugural claim, is that adequate? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all good. Happy to now sign for support. JennyOz (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great job TRM! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, Giants2008 any chance of a source review on this, it looks good to go otherwise. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:21, 15 November 2017 (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) 23:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 10:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Dil Dhadakne Do is an excellent film filled with four great performances and its real portrayal of a modern Indian family and society is simply amazing. I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish | Talk 10:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For phrases like this in the table ((for song "Dil Dhadakne Do), I would imagine that a “the” should be put in front of song. It reads awkwardly without it.
• This film seemed to have receive several nominations for its songs. Do you think that should mentioned in the lead?

Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 19:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• as the family Dog Pluto - Is it really necessary to mention Aamir Khan's character name in the lead?
• Dil Dhadakne Do was released worldwide on 5 June 2015 to generally positive reviews from critics.[1][2][3] - Those are individual reviews and cannot be used to say the film's overall response was positive. Perhaps you may want to use a source that actually says the film received positive reviews, like this one. Citing three or more sources consecutively for a single sentence creates citation clutter, so you may keep the limit to two sources; one that mentions the release date (in past tense) and the other for the reviews. Or one that has both.
• It received five Filmfare nominations - We generally don't begin paragraphs with such terms. Perhaps you could write, Dil Dhadakne Do received five Filmfare nominations, winning Best Supporting Actor for Kapoor. It received nine nominations at the 2016 Screen Awards. You may also want to mention Shefali Shah and Anushka Sharma's Filmfare nominations.
• How exactly is List of Bollywood films of 2015 relevant to this article? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kailash29792: Done.Krish | Talk 19:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hope this passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• The english translation of the title should be mentioned.

I don't know of any award list article which gives an english translation of the title. So I don't think it needs that.Krish | Talk 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[13] [14] [15] Hope these are enough examples for you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an requirement. Plus, if people want to know the meaning, they can click the link to the parent article. Anyways, I think people will come to this article after reading the parent article not the other way around. Don't you think?Krish | Talk 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for jumping in on this conversation, but I agree that the English translation should be present in the first sentence. You should not assume how the reader reaches this article, and I would say that this bit of information could be presented in the list rather easily instead of making someone click to a new page. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fullstop missing from the alt text.
• "Produced by Ritesh Sidhwani and Farhan Akhtar, it features.." Replace 'it' with 'the film'.
• "while the cinematography and editing were provided by Carlos Catalan, and Anand Subaya and Manan Mehta," This sentence is quite confusing, who has done what? Please rephrase it.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Done.Krish | Talk 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, almost ready to promote, but: are notes b and c supposed to be the same? If so, it should be a named, reused note, not two separate ones. --PresN 22:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Done.Krish | Talk 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 20:53, 11 November 2017 (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) 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because M. G. Ramachandran, popularly known as MGR, is one of Tamil cinema's biggest icons (alongside Sivaji Ganesan) and a very important figure in Dravidian politics. His body of work encompasses 130-odd films. He has been in the industry for 42 years. Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• In the following sentence (In the latter he featured in dual roles, as a king and a commoner, for the first time in his career.), add a comma after “In the latter”.
• In this phrase (Also made in Tamil with the same title) in the “Films” table, I would provide a link for “Tamil”.

Great work with this list. I have only have two relatively minor comments so I will support this. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Your two comments have been resolved. Thanks again, Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• "On approaching M. Kandasamy Mudaliar, father of actor M. K. Radha, for a role in Ellis R. Dungan's 1936 film Sathi Leelavathi, Mudaliar requested the film's producer Marudachalam Chettiar to give him the role of a police inspector. Chettiar agreed and thus Ramachandran made his cinematic debut with this film." -- To be honest, this detailing is too much for a filmography list. Any specific reason for this inclusion?
• A footnote for zamindar would help non-Indian readers.
• "In 1969, he appeared as a prince who brings down a tyrant who usurps his throne and mistreats his people in K. Shankar's historical fiction film Adimaippenn, and as a government clerk who masquerades as a billionaire to bring down the corrupt trio of a doctor, a builder and a merchant in Nam Naadu (1969)." -- brings down repeats twice in the same sentence.

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely response. I support this nomination's promotion to FL. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Thank you, Pavanjandhyala. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

• Ramachandran made his cinematic debut in Ellis R. Dungan's 1936 - I would scrap 'cinematic' since film is the only thing he seems to have done (professionally).
• In addition to social dramas, Ramachandran received positive feedback and commercial success for his fantasy swashbuckler films such as Alibabavum 40 Thirudargalum (1956) - from "his" I am assuming he directed these films?

@FrB.TG: No, he starred in them.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would de-link comedy drama.
• where he featured as twins of stark opposite natures, one a coward and the other courageous - that's a little too much for a filmography.

@FrB.TG: I have removed "stark". I specified this as Enga Veettu Pillai is one of his most significant films.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• with his role in the latter also garnering him acclaim → also garnering acclaim for the latter
• I would wiki-link rickshaw. Also, if it is auto rickshaw he drives in the film, I would be more specific.
• The following year, he received the National Film Award for Best Actor for his role as a rickshaw driver in Rickshawkaran, making it the first film and him the first actor from South Indian cinema to do so - first actor from South Indian cinema to win the NFA or play a rickshaw driver? The former seems more likely but it can mean any of it the way it is phrased at the moment.
• a scientist and a Central Bureau of Investigation officer - just CBI would do, I think. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I have hopefully resolved your remaining comments, Frank.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would appreciate some comments on the FLC of Beyonce videography (which has stalled) although I appreciate that it might not be of interest to you. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Not that it wouldn't be of interest to me. I'm on a break from reviewing anything now as per my talk page statement. Hope everything pans out well with your FLC.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• My only comment or concern is I think the year column should be centered. However, most of the other filmography featured lists don't have the year column centered so if you don't want to I think you'll be just fine.

Support – My comment is very minor so I'll support now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be to reliable sources, and the link-checker shows no problems. While the references are generally well-formatted, there are a couple of minor issues that should be looked at. First, reference 15 has some improper all caps in the title that need to be fixed. Second, a couple of the full book cites have 10-digit ISBN numbers, when 13-digit numbers are the preferred style. There are ISBN converters you can search for online that will find the 13-digit numbers for you and make this easy to resolve. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thank you, Giants2008. I have resolved your queries. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this source review is a pass, in that case. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

One issue where the publisher looked like the url (DBSJeyaraj.com, not dbsjeyaraj.com), but the rest is fine and I just did it myself. Promoted. --PresN 22:10, 10 November 2017 (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) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian Tamil action film, Kaththi starring Vijay and Samantha Ruth Prabhu. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially its director AR Murugadoss, several awards and nominations. It is my ninth attempt at an accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I do not believe that “hydrology” needs to be capitalized.
• This sentence ( The film's story focuses on Kathiresan (Vijay), a thief who is mistaken for Jeevanandham (Vijay), a graduate in Hydrology who leads a rebellion by farmers from his village, Thanoothu, against Chirag (Mukesh), the owner of a soft drink company. ) is rather long. Do you think it would be better to split the sentence in two?
• In this phrase “which it lost to Sigaram Thodu (2014).”, I am not sure of “which” is the best transition. I think that “but it lost….” would be better suited for this context.

Wonderful work with this list. Once my comments (which are relatively minor) are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you, Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Mention the English translation of the title.
• I'm sure we can mention a more specific genre of this film than simply "masala film". It sounds informal.

Yeah, the wiki article of "masala film" defines such films as "those that mix genres in one work". I think action film would be fine, since that is what Kaththi mainly is. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge second and third sentence.
• The film "featured". 'Featured' or 'features'?
• Kindly trim the plot section.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of them are still unresolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: How about now, Yash?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No queries, I'm happy to Support now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krish

• Support: This list is definitely FL-worthy. Well done Ssven2.Krish | Talk 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krish!: Thank you, Krish. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Not an expert in writing, but I guess this way the plot can be rewritten in a concise way without losing the key details, something like this:

The film focuses on the attempts made by a petty thief Kathiresan, the dopplegangler of a jailed hydrology graduate Jeevanandham, to lead a rebellion by the farmers of a village Thanoothu. He helps them fight a multi national company's owner Chirag, who has exploited Thanoothu's water resources for his own profit.

• Mention that AR Murugadoss is pictured in the image
• The last line has to be referenced, especially the fact that Sigaram Thodu has won.
• The table and the refs are fine for me.
• Alt text provided, and the image is appropriately licensed.

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]