Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2018

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've made sure that only the most reliable sources are used in this list, and it is modeled after Taylor Swift discography, which is also an important FL about one of Trainor's peers as a singer-songwriter. One of the primary reasons this list's first FL failed was because Trainor was a new artist and I was blocked. Both the problems are clearly fixed now.--NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lirim.Z

Comments from The Rambling Man

• See MOS:NUM re: cats and dogs for your intro sentence, all numbers or all words, but not a mixture.
• Trainor is mentioned four times in four sentences, mix it up a little, sometimes with "she" or similar.
• " When Trainor signed with...", "After signing with Epic, Trainor's..." repetitive.
• "one of the best-selling singles of all-time ." remove space before full stop.
• "All About That Bass" was certified diamond ... why start a new para when this song and its sales were being discussed in the previous para?
• And link "certified" appropriately.
• ""Dear Future Husband" and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which featured American singer John Legend." did they both feature Legend, that's how this could be read.
• "reached the pole position " no thanks, just "number one" or something less tabloidy.
• " It was certified double platinum by the RIAA.", " It was certified triple platinum by the RIAA.", "The album was certified platinum by the RIAA. "... repetitive and needless small sentences, could be creatively merged with each preceding sentence.
• Which territory is the release date of each album relevant to?
• According to her MySpace page, all three of her independent releases came out a day before what you have in the table.
• What's referencing all the various singles which didn't chart?
• Notes in the Writing credits section do not need the bullets.
• Avoid spaced hyphens per MOS:DASH, I count 13 in the ref titles etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. All her albums were released on the same day in every territory so the release dates refer to all of them. As for the independent albums, pardon me if I misunderstood something but the release dates are all correct according to her Myspace? Thank you so much for weighing in, I hope to have your support for this FL in the near future!--NØ 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this link then, from your reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe its the same link. The release dates for Meghan Trainor, I'll Sing with You, and Only 17 are respectively given as December 25, 2009, January 31, 2011, and September 14, 2011 on her MySpace page. These are the ones that are currently listed in the article.--NØ 19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:The release date for her albums are also confirmed here, here and here if you prefer this website!--NØ 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I meant her current MySpace page, not that archive you have. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I wouldn't trust the current page tbh, because it only has Only 17 listed on it with no mention of her first 2 albums. We have the archive as reliable proof of when the albums were actually released. After her major-label debut, her new label tried to cover up all mentions of her independent albums to market Title as her debut, but the new information thats currently being shown on the page is inaccurate (as also proved by discogs). This is one of those rare cases where archived information is more reliable than what it has been changed to by her new management.--NØ 19:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if this is gonna be a dealbreaker for the FL then we can just remove the dates and keep the release years (which can be sourced by NRJ as well as Forbes).--NØ 19:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, The Rambling Man Hate to bother you again and again but can you indicate if you would prefer to keep release dates that are currently in the article (aka in the archive of her Myspace page) or remove them to just keep the years (which are sourced by reliable, secondary sources)? Your opinion is very important for me.--NØ 05:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would acknowledge the issue with a footnote, i.e. a note to say although her official MySpace page gives slightly different date, most sources give the release dates as you have them in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added hatnote.--NØ 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• I would revise this sentence (When the singer-songwriter signed with Epic Records in February 2014, her three self-produced albums were pulled from circulation.) to (These self-produced albums were pulled from circulation after she signed with Epic Records in February 2014) as I believe it would improve the wording.
• For this part (She initially released three independent albums:…), I would revise it to something like (She self-released the albums:…) as saying “three independent albums” is slightly repetitive with the previous sentence and makes the prose less engaging. I also think it is important to emphasize that she self-released them as I was initially uncertain if she did that or did with a small record label when I first read the lead.
• I would revise this sentence (The lead single from Trainor's second major-label studio album, Thank You, called "No" was released on March 4, 2016, and charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification from the RIAA.) to (On March 4, 2016, Trainor released “No” as the lead single from her second major-label studio album, Thank You. The song charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification on the RIAA.) as I think the original sentence would benefit from being split in two.

Great work with the list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented all the changes.--NØ 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BeatlesLedTV

Support – Looks good. Great job! Quick question: The sales from her albums are over 2 years old now; should they be updated? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've tried looking for newer sales figures but reliable industry sources like Billboard and Forbes never updated Title's numbers since 2015.--NØ 06:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose This has been open for over a month, has several supports and no opposes. Do we have enough consensus for closure?--NØ 11:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Giants2008 since Ian seems to be inactive.--NØ 11:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian is active, but doesn't do any work at the featured list process. However, as with FAC, this article will require a source review before it can be promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for the Deccan Chargers and I would like it to become a featured list. This was already nominated and got rejected twice in 2012. I hope all those issues were answered now. Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fix this one green link.

Replaced with another link.

• Full stop missing from Gilchrist's alt text.

Corrected

• In ref 9, DNA India --> Daily News and Analysis.

Corrected

Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the above issues. Sagavaj (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. Sa Ga Vaj 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. Sa Ga Vaj 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this list differs from my previous works on Wikipedia. Even though most of my contributions have been focused on Latin pop, tropical, and special Latin music awards, I wanted to do something different. As someone who is also fan of jazz, I wanted to contribute to a jazz-related article so I have chose to work on an award that used to be presented by Billboard. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion, but was there ever a reason given for the discontinuation for the category after 2008?
• For this part (a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that shapes Billboard's weekly charts.”), I believe the period is supposed to go on the outside of the quotation marks, unless you are citing full sentences.
• This is another clarification question, but how can an album, like Latin Soul, be nominated two years in a row. I would imagine for award ceremonies, like this one, there is a cut-off period to be considered for a nomination. Has anyone ever talked about this or explained how it was allowed to happened?
• Something about this sentence (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House(1998), are both winners of the category that are also recipients of the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.) reads awkwardly to me. I am not sure if the transition to the Grammy Award is fully working here. Maybe something like (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House (1998), are both winners of the category, and also received the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.)?

Wonderful work with this list. The prose for the lead is well-done, and the two images have appropriate ALT text. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FLC. Either way, I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've looked through pretty every Billboard magazine issue from 2009 and couldn't find their rationale for the removal. Only thing I could find was an article saying they added 13 new categories. According to Leila Cobo in the 2001 awards, it continued to do well on the Jazz Albums chart even though it was released in late 1999. A similar case happened where Lo Mejor de Mí (song) by Cristian Castro won the award for Latin Pop Song of the Year by Billboard in 1998 and was nominated again in 1999 because it continued to do well in the Latin Pop Songs chart. I think the opening paragraph about how Billboard determines the nominees by charts and sales probably helps with this bit. Anyways, I've addressed everything else, thanks for your input! Erick (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed, cheers for the patience! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets or surpasses the criteria for a Wikipedia featured list, and for inclusion in a print encyclopedia. The article is useful, comprehensive, and extensively researched. I put a lot of effort into editing and organizing the page several years ago (under IP addresses), including writing most of the body text, finding sources, and pruning unsourced and unreliable speculation. (Scouring Google Books for instances of astronomical glyphs in their OCRed scans of nineteenth-century print matter was fun.)

Regarding FL criterion 3b, I note that some of the scope and content of this article overlaps Astrological symbols, an article created in 2006 as a fork of this one. Astronomical symbols, the nominee, meets the criteria of WP:SUBPOV, and therefore I believe it should not be disqualified as a featured list.

Thank you for your consideration. W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking quickly I noticed that some sentences in the "represents" column start with a capital letter, where others do not. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Fixed. The seven rogue capital letters have been lowercased. I also removed stray punctuation marks and made tiny fixes to the wording of a couple of entries. Thank you! W559 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." I am not clear what you are saying here. Do you mean that the papyrus texts were neither preserved nor copied, and only survive by their incorporation in Byzantine codices?
• "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when?
• The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced.
• monogram should be linked.
• The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've reviewed your comments:

• "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." – Replaced "the" with "many" to avoid the implication that Greek papyri survived only as copies in Byzantine codices. Is this better?
• "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when? – Per MOS:LEAD, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". I believe that specific details about when different symbols fell into disuse among professional astronomers are best left for the article.
• The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced. – Source citations in the lead are not strictly necessary; see WP:WHENNOTCITE. I tried to limit sources in the lead while still citing sources for any claims that might reasonably be challenged. The sentence beginning "New symbols were further invented..." is a one-sentence summary of the Symbols for minor planets section, which introduces 34 sources and uses more. The section "with some exceptions..." briefly alludes to sourced material in bits and pieces throughout the body of the article. If you think the lead would work better with more or fewer source citations, let me know.

• My understanding is that list articles are an exception to the rule that leads do not require referencing because they generally contain information which is not referenced below, but I see that you have repeated and referenced below, so I agree that more referencing is not necessary in this case. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• monogram should be linked. – Agreed. The first occurrence of monogram (in the Symbols for the planets section) is now linked.
• The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. – Not done. The article is about "astronomical symbols", which is what reliable English-language sources call the symbols described in the article. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:CONCISE. An article about "astronomical notation", a different topic, would properly cover modern notation in more depth, and would reasonably be expected to include more information about Arabic, Indian, and Chinese astronomy, but this isn't that article.

Let me know what you think. W559 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough regarding modern symbols as they are often referred to as notation, although I would like to see a comment or note explaining why they are not covered. I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols. Just because sources are Eurocentric does not justify Wikipedia in following their example. There are for example off-wiki sources about Maya astronomical symbols, and I would expect at least brief coverage in a generic article about the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I'm not convinced that the characters used in the Maya calendar belong in this article any more than, for example, the written names of the planets and zodiac signs in Hindi and Chinese, both because the article is about "astronomical symbols" as opposed to normal written language (and, come to think of it, numerals and mathematical operators), and, of course, because English-language sources do not generally group them with the symbols that make up the content of this article. However, a link to the Maya characters in the "See also" section would be appropriate. Here's what I've done:

• "a comment or note explaining why they are not covered": Added some text to the first sentence of the lead further clarifying the scope of the article.
• coverage about Maya astronomical symbols: Added a link to the relevant page in the "See also" section of the article.

How's this? W559 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See [6] for a discussion about non-European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read what you linked; Google Books gives me the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." If the source you linked has content that would improve the page, feel free to be bold and incorporate it into the article. Edit: I switched browsers and went incognito, and Google Books is serving up the page for me now. The page you linked doesn't seem relevant at all to this article other than being a search result for the words "Chinese", "astronomical", and "symbols". The section of that book discusses the "Chaco supernova pictograph" (see Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Archaeoastronomy, reviews several theories about the image, and then concludes that the drawing marks a Zuni sun-watching station. The page specifically discusses the star next to the crescent in the petroglyph, compares it with the Islamic star-and-crescent symbol, and mentions the theory that the symbols together originally depicted a conjunction of the moon and Venus.

Regarding your previous comment, "I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols", we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I note in passing that the equivalent pages on the Chinese and Hindi Wikipediae, zh:天文符號 and hi:खगोलीय चिन्ह respectively, both have "general titles" while also being about the same set of "European symbols" that the astronomical symbols page discusses. W559 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles just a quick question, are you complete with your comments here? The nomination has been stalled for about six weeks now, so it would be great if you'd be prepared to offer some guidance on your current view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I do not have a problem with the article text but I do with its title so I prefer to neither support or oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; I'm fine with the title, but think that it would be helpful to have something in the lead explicitly discussing that the symbols are part of the European astronomical tradition, and other traditions use(d) words or logograms instead of non-language-based symbols. I'm not going to hold this nomination up for it, though. Promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a break from editing and FLC's for a while, I'm back. My return to FLC is another song list, this time by the rock band Talking Heads. I will also return to commenting on other FLCs like I used to earlier this year. As always, comments are appreciated and welcomed. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Talking Heads were an American new wave band" - I am not American but my understanding is that American English would say "Talking Heads was an American new wave band". This applies in a number of other places eg "their debut", so probably worth confirming with someone American :-)
  • That's how it's worded on their main page so I worded it the same here.
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "12 of which weren't officially released" => "12 of which were not officially released" – Done
• "live recordings of songs from their four albums (at the time)" => "live recordings of songs from their four albums to date" – Done
• "only Top ten hit" - no need for capital T on Top – thought so
• "a song that the English rock band of the same name named themselves after" => "a song from which the English rock band of the same name took its name" – Done
  • You haven't used the wording I suggested, and what you have put in doesn't make grammatical sense - you need to say "song from which", not "song that" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude Sorry about that. All fixed :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album marked a return the experimentation" - think the word "to" is missing – yes it is
• "After Naked, the band went on a "hiatus"" - can't see why hiatus is in quote marks
  • It's in quotes because that's how it was perceived by the public. They really broke up in 1988 but didn't officially announce it until 1991, so to the public they were on "hiatus"
    • • Then you need to clarify that with actual wording. Simply putting the word in quote marks doesn't convey that at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed the quotes. I mainly used them because AllMusic & their main page puts the word in quotes as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "12 previously unreleased songs have seen official release" => "12 previously unreleased songs have been officially released" (songs don't have eyes and therefore can't see anything) – Done
• "Non-album single, B-side to "Psycho Killer"" - if it was the B-side then it wasn't a single, so change to "non-album song"
  • That's how I've had it for my other featured song lists so I think it's fine
• ""Take Me to the River" - (Al Green) cover" - closing bracket is in the wrong place – yes it is
• They released 22 singles as far as I can see. Was there really only one non-album song on all those B-sides?
  • The song "New Feeling" was originally a B-side but was later released on their debut later the same year. I have that fact in a note on the song. Yeah unlike the Smiths, Talking Heads never really had many non-album B-sides

Hope this helps - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • ChrisTheDude Thanks for your comments! I'll be sure to check out your FLCs if I haven't already! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan

• The only thing different I noticed about this list compared to other FLs of the same type is single releases being indicated separately. But its helpful to readers so no need to remove them.

The prose is great. This list has my support for FL promotion!--NØ 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beginning as former art school students" This sounds a bit clumsy to me. Maybe "After leaving art school"?

• Fixed

• "but suffered from David Byrne's "lyrical pretensions"" This is editorialising and should be attributed inline.

• Yeah I never liked that because it seems biased and non-encyclopedic. I just removed it.

• Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much Dudley Miles! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• Ref 14 has a bit of all caps (TIME) that should be taken out. Otherwise, all of the references are well-formatted and the link-checker tool shows that the links are all in working order.
• Given that Discogs is generally considered an unreliable source because it has user-generated content, we can do without the links in refs 3, 19, and 35. The liner notes themselves are perfectly fine sources, and it's not worth it to include an unreliable source even if they are just convenience links.
• Spot-checks of refs 14 and 17 turned up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008 All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With those comments resolved, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "musical transition". What does Ruhlmann believe the band were transitioning from and to?

Basically Remain in Light built upon Fear of Music in its use of African polyrhythms and things like that. Ruhlmann just talks about how Fear of Music was basically the precursor to Remain in Light and showed what was yet to come. Make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. But, looking now at what the source says, Ruhlmann actually describes it as a "transitional album", rather than a "musical transition". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhlmann actually used "musical transition" in his review of Remain in Light so I added that ref to that sentence.

I still think it might be worth very briefly expanding on what he meant by "musical transition", though. So Fear of Music was the band's transition from their more straightforward first two albums, to the musical experimentation of Remain in Light? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors Affirmative :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this needs to be (briefly) explained in the article, then. "Musical transition" isn't really a common enough phrase that it can be just dropped into the lead without further clarification. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors I decided to remove the "musical transition" part and instead put "The style and sound of Fear of Music was expanded upon on their final Eno collaboration, Remain in Light (1980)". As Remain in Light built upon Fear of Music this is correct and I believe better explains the "transition". BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing my project of standardizing all lists of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will follow 20 (!) successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama). This one may need some copyediting and rewording in the lead for readability, but nothing that can't be tweaked during the review process. I have modeled this list off of other promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard but there are always improvements. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. As usual, I think the numerical values are overly precise per MOS:UNCERTAINTY.

   This is different from the Mexican area figures which had 3 decimal places (all were cut down to 2 decimal places). The US Census publishes accurate area figures to the precision of 2 decimal places, and this is the standard for all US articles and lists as far as I can tell. Also you wouldn't be able to tell which cities are bigger since many will now show the same area if the 2 decimals are reduced to 1 decimal, also screwing up the sorting button since it will default to alphabetical.

2. I'd try not to place "waste management" and "water management" next to each other. It sort of becomes a stumbling block when reading. I'd suggest "waste and water management".  Done
3. One instance of "mayor" is written with a capital "M", and the rest are written with a minuscule "m".  Done
4. providean is a typo and should be two words.  Done
5. I have to say that the descriptions of the three forms of government are mostly confusing.

   Based on the second reviewer below, I've made changes to the descriptions. I think it reads better now, but perhaps more can be done to improve readability? Any suggestions?

   I wish I could help, but since I don't really understand the differences, I can't say how to make the differences clearer. Sorry about that. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. There are a couple of references preceded by spaces in the WP:LEAD.  Done
7. The symbols should be inside the coloured fields in the legend. Use the |text= parameter. Done
8. There should be no empty cells in the table. They should replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The ones that say "NA" should also use the template.

   Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot that this was discussed before and the conclusion was to use the Template: ntsh instead of NA since it retains it's sortability. I've made all the changes so it is now consistent.

9. The town incorporated on 2012 should either give the full date or say "in 2012".  Done
10. The town incorporated on March 6, 2008 and is thus not represented in the 2010 census. – that should be the 2000 census, right?  Done

TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great catches! Thanks for taking the time to review, will finish up with the rest of the comments later. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• " seven or nine members including the mayor all elected " - needs commas round "all elected" Done
• "and the has power to levy taxes to match the budget" - word order is a bit mangled here  Done
• "Under the council-manager form of government the council composed of a mayor and four" - missing word? Done
• "and for a general survey of municipal business" - doesn't seem to make sense - is there a word missing? Done
• Don't need to link Columbia twice in consecutive sentences Done
• Can't spot anything in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I know the prose does not read as smoothly as it could, but I've made all your changes and think it sounds better already. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would include ALT text for the top image.  Done
• Why break up the following phrases (the Southern United States) into two links when it could be done with a single link (i.e. Southern United States)?

• This link was left in since it's the only link the the USA in the entire article.

• For this sentence (According to the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina is the 24th most populous state with 4,625,401 inhabitants but the 40th largest by land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land.), I would put a comma after the word "residents". Done
• Would it be helpful to include a more up-close image of the state along with the image of the state in the context of the country as a whole (i.e. as done in List of municipalities in Florida)?

• Absolutely yes! I've been searching for a map just like this but could not find one anywhere....

Great work with this list. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly any feedback on my current FLC. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I will try to get to yours by next weekend. Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Lirim | Talk 23:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The mayor's responsibilities include:" Using commas both within and to separate responsibilities is unclear. I think a semi-colon would be better to separate the different responsibilities.

• I agree, anything that can make these sentences flow better is worth a try. I've made your suggestion.

• "staffing of all municipal employees". This sounds odd to me. Is it USAmer?

• I believe it is so, the language was taken from the source itself.

• "voting as other councilmen" I do not understand this - does it mean that the mayor votes as a councilman as well as presiding and having a casting vote?

• Good point. I think I clarified the first point by removing "as other councilmen" as redundant.

• I am not clear about the differences between the systems. In the first the mayor has executive power but is he or she directly elected or by the councilmen? In the second and third presumably the mayor only presides at meetings and is chosen by the councilmen?

• In the second and third possibility the mayor retains the vote, however this is mentioned I believe. Otherwise the roles differ simply in the responsibilities of the various titles. It's a bit silly to be honest, but this is the best summary I can make from the source material. If there is any more clarification please let me know, I'm *very* happy to make all changes here, I'm not 100% happy about the wording, but it's the best I can do right now.

• Four columns for two notes looks odd. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean by four columns. Are you referring to the formatting of the notes section?

• Yes. The 30em spreads the two notes across four columns on my screen. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange it spreads it out to 2 on mine, but either way you are correct. I've fixed it.

Thanks for your review! I've made changes but a few require some feedback. Mattximus (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• All of the references are reliable.
• The link-checker tool says that ref 1 (the most cited source) is a "crufty url". I clicked on it and it works, but it's showing me data from Alabama. There seems to be a drop-down menu, but I'm not getting it to work. If it works for you, it might be worth noting in the cite what you need to select for the cited info to appear. If it doesn't work for you, we'll need a link that does work.

• I get the same thing, for some reason all the links I try default to Alabama. If you scroll to South Carolina, all the data is there, but I can't seem to have a direct link to South Carolina...

• In that case, I suggest adding a note to the end of the cite saying "Select South Carolina from drop-down menu" or similar, to inform the reader how to access the cited information. You could even put it outside the cite template if necessary, although there is a format= parameter you can try. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Found a postscript field in the citation template.  Done

• The only formatting issue I see is that the date formatting is inconsistent. It should be one style throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know how I missed that one. All fixed. Thanks Giants2008! Mattximus (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: Looks like we still have one unaddressed issue above. If you're not going to add a note there, it's not the end of the world, but I don't want to finish this source review without at least getting a yea or nay there. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Change made, all comments addressed. Thanks for the source review! Mattximus (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With that last comment taken care of, this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " in the Southern United States" is a SEAOFBLUE, especially in this case when Southern links to Southern United States. I don't think a link to United States is needed.  Done
• "24th most populous state" is piped to a redirect. Done
• "land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land" firstly not sure you need "of land" and secondly, one assumes this would include the area of lakes within the state as well in any case?

• Nice find, but actually there are data for "area", "land area", and "water area". I've chosen to use the land area stat since it doesn't make sense to include a big lake as part of your city.

• I'm the last person to get too PC about everything, but do you still call women "councilmen"?

• This is completely ridiculous, I agree. But that is actually what they call them in this state...

• James Island - don't like blank cells, could we put N/A to mean "not available"? Should probably sort in the middle for "change" (i.e. it's not lower than -36.8%, probably should be 0%)

• I've had a heck of a time trying to get the N/A to sort properly, and just gave up. It's the same as other featured lists like List of municipalities in New Mexico, so I just left those blank too. It still passed, but if you know the code for N/A that still sorts properly I'm happy to change all these lists to that format.

• Any way you can use the {{hs}} template alongside the {{na}} template? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried using the {{sdash}}, what do you think?

• "63.3/sq mi (24.5/km2)" vs "63.3/sq mi (24.4/km2)"... (and they sort out of order).

  Very interesting catch! I've already posted a request for this error on the template talk page found here: Template_talk:Pop_density#Strange_rounding_error. I've found that these requests are often answered rather quickly. Mattximus (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And it's fixed. Done Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Half a dozen of the km2 are down to two decimal places, I wouldn't do that. Done
• Why is government type over-capitalised in the table, e.g. "Council-Manager" when the prose just uses sentence case, i.e. "council-manager". Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus some comments here for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and your excellent comments. I've addressed half, but I will have to do the other few in a couple of days. Mattximus (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed! Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above is a list of the awards and nominations received by actress Megan Fox, well known for her role in the Transformers film franchise. I used the List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey as a model for this nomination. For those interested, this is what the list looked like prior to my expansion. I had withdrawn a previous FLC for this to take a wikibreak, but I believe that this is ready for the FLC process and should be pretty uncontroversial. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:@MaranoFan:: Pinging the two reviewers involved in the last FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan

• I'm gonna support this FLC since nothing much has changed since the last one. I just have one question (which doesn't hinder my support vote because I know you'll address it quickly), but there's an award from the Austin Film Critics Association in the infobox but not in the main table, perhaps is this in error? Would also appreciate your comments on my new FL nom [10], have a great day!--NØ 05:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support. I have removed the reference to the Austin Film Critics Association. I had used the same model from the McConaughey list, and I must have overlooked that part. I will get to your FLC by the end of tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - happy to re-support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Glad to see you're back! Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I am glad to be back. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Went through the archive bot and only two references were given links in case the site ever goes down so it is well done. I checked all the 26 references and they all seem reliable due to how most of them have links to their own articles. The ones that don't have links are derivative from other publishers like Nick while I'm pretty sure Cinemablend qualifies. Dates and authors are also available when needed so I think this article passes the source review. Good work Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

• @Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: I believe that this should be ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like Aoba47 is taking a Wikibreak. If there are any outstanding issues, I would be happy to take care of them in the mean time. ceranthor 13:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I can still check in periodically, but I would still appreciate any of your help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The instructions call for FLCs to last at least 10 days, so that we allow enough time for interested reviewers to comment. Given that this has only now been at FLC for 10 days, I think it should be left open for a few more days. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest list in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis), we have a developer/publisher whose history has been a swift rise to the top of the industry. Unlike many of the other companies I've done, Blizzard Entertainment hasn't had a rise and fall, but instead has gone from a small company doing ports of older games to the successful developer of computer RTS games to the creator of some of the biggest games in the world, including the genre-defining World of Warcraft, and some of the games that are the roots of the concept of eSports. Despite all this, it didn't have a standalone games list, so now it does. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. The current logo of Blizzard Entertainment – I'd write since when.
2. and in 1996 Condor – I'd add a word or two for clarity, e.g. "and in 1996 the company Condor".
3. As was the case with the nomination for the corresponding Civilization list, I'm not a fan of the table layout. The more information an entry contains, the more the readability suffers.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done, and yes, I'm still using the same layout as at that prior FLC. --PresN 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only found a couple of things:

• I found this sentence in the lead a bit confusing: "The company originally concentrated on the creation of computer ports of other studios' games, released in 1992 and 1993..." as it goes on to say the company released original games also in 1992 and 1993, indicating they weren't only concentrating on ports.
• In the note "Heliotrope Studios took on the project", I would write "Heliotrope Studios assumed development of the project".

That's all! – Allied45 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Allied45: Adjusted both; the idea with the first one is that Silicon & Synapse was founded in early 1991 and initially made ports of games, but within a year was using the money from those ports to fund original projects; the ports/remakes were all released in 1991 through 1993, and the original games were released starting in 1992- once they started making enough money on original games, they stopped doing ports. Let me know if its still unclear in the text. --PresN 17:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a lot clearer for me! I am happy to support – Allied45 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! Quick question, should you add Diablo Immortal to the list? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Yes I should; added. --PresN 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Just FYI, since I nominated this and TRM supported up above, you're the only potential closer, whenever you think it's ready. --PresN 03:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FLC regulars know the drill by now - 17 of these lists have been promoted by now. So here's #18........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Link chart...
• " but remained in " no need for "but", just "which remained in" or "remaining in"
• "who spent a total of five weeks at number one with "Blue Clear Sky" " I think there's no need to repeat "spent a total of five weeks at number one" so reword to tighten this up substantially.
• Bryan White is overlinked.
• LeAnn Rimes first number one in the US, she'd previously topped in Canada...
• " prove to be the only country chart-topper for Rimes" probably "prove to be her only country chart-topper" to avoid repeating her name so quickly.
• Wild Angels is piped to a redirect (in the table only).

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done apart for item 6 - without repeating Rimes' name I can't think how to connect that part of the sentence to the "whose career has fluctuated between country and pop" clause, which I think is relevant. Don't know if you have any suggestions...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I hadn't thought that bit through. Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issues, Support.-Lirim | Talk 19:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good with me. Great job as always! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references all appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows that the links all work properly. No issues here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy, White Shadows

This is a list of the ironclad warships built by the Austrian, and later Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1860s-1880s. Many of these ships participated in the Battle of Lissa, which was the first engagement between multiple armored warship in history. Others however had largely uninteresting careers as a result of Austrian indifference to naval affairs in the years after Lissa, though some of them remained in service or in possession of the Navy through the end of World War I. After the war ended, the ships were divided up among the Allied powers and mostly scrapped in the years immediately after the war, though one of them survived until the year 1950! The list serves as the capstone for this good topic. Thanks for all who take the time to review the list, as well as Parsec for his amazing work on this project.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is in great shape. I did a minor c/e, rv if I've changed meaning.
• perhaps mention the attempted sale to Uruguay under Tegetthoff when it should come up first in this list?

• Either I'm not following what you're suggesting, or someone has added it in there already because the attempted sale to Uruguay is mentioned in the Tegetthoff section.

• I'm seeing it in the Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf section, but not under Tegetthoff, which is the first ship from the proposed sale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That should be fixed now.

• "Foreign Items" and Warship International need locations and publishers.

• Done

• toolkit checks are all OK.

Great work on putting this together! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Peacemaker!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are of high quality and reliable, although a few are quite old. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I went ahead and made a few edits myself, and I now consider this up to WP:Featured list standard. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Didn't spot any problems with this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The county is bounded Cambridgeshire" - word "by" seems to be missing
• "These conditions have led to unusual plants communities" - "plants communities" doesn't sound right
• "This is mixture of grassland and wet fen" - word "a" missing?

Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Many thanks for the review ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

• Should the numbers below 10 in the lead be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL?

Support – Because it's a quick question I'll give my support now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks BeatlesLedTV. I am never sure how to deal with numbers but I have changed them all in the first paragraph to spelled out apart from the number of members. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube Awards was an annual promotion that was run twice by YouTube. I have been working on this list for the last few months, and I hope that it now meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this would be, as far as I can tell, the first featured list about an awards ceremony recognising online content (the Appy Awards is probably be the nearest so far), so I hope that it sets some sort of a precedent. I have ignored one or two rules while writing the article, and I welcome any feedback about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I personally think we can make an WP:IAR exception to WP:ELLIST, but I'm not comfortable with making that judgment call on my own, and would therefore like input on this from other reviewers (ideally ones who are experienced when it comes to WP:External links matters). TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. I didn't even know these existed, but it's a good list.--Lirim | Talk 01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Can't see any issue here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support conditional on the source review passing, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The formatting of the references looks fine.
• What makes refs 33 and 34 reliable sources? Number 33 looks like a blog, while 34 appears to be somebody's personal website. All of the rest appear to be reliable enough.

• Like Wumbolo mentions below, my thinking was that both Gannes and Dodge seem to be experts within the field, so citing their blog/personal website would be okay. Dodge's post on the awards was specifically referenced by Mashable. I'll remove if this doesn't work, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like an acceptable explanation, especially since the cites are for their own opinions. I still wouldn't use those sites for verifying anything questionable, but for such viewpoints they should just pass muster. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For the quote citing ref 47, since the punctuation appears inside the quotation mark in the source, it should be presented that way in the article per the Manual of Style. That was all I found worth mentioning in spot-checks of that cite and refs 14 and 19.

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The link-checker tool shows no dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gigaom article's author works at Google, or shares the same first and last name as this woman affiliated with Google. I think that we should accept the article as written by an expert in the field, and it's not promotional because she joined Google much later than she worked at Gigaom. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the source review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With the explanation and the fix, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! --PresN 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 13:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work on this list I can say that all of the entries on it currently are reliably-sourced and the lead section is also good in my opinion. It meets the FL criteria I think. Considering the fact that Trainor's career has also seen a commercial nosedive, it is very likely that the list will stay stable in the near future.--NØ 13:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• Do you think this image (File:150426 Meghan Trainor.jpg) as it is a little higher quality and is a clearer image of her face (i.e. without the microphone in her face)?
• You will need a reference for this part (Trainor signed a record deal with Epic Records in 2014).
• For this part (which earned her Grammy nominations for both Record of the Year, and Song of the Year.), I do no think that "both" is necessary.
• You use "earned" three times in a close proximity in the first paragraph so I would vary the language to avoid repetition.
• This sentence (Trainor released her major-label debut album Title the following year.) needs a reference. The same comment (Trainor's second major-label studio album Thank You was preceded by its lead single "No".) applies for this sentence.
• Trainer received a few nominations in 2018; should they be mentioned in the lead?
• Each of the individual sections need citations for the descriptions of the awards. The following are a few examples that require citations (ARIA Music Awards, Hollywood Music in Media Awards, Japan Gold Disc Award, Juno Awards, and Latin American Music Awards)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope you found this review to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe I addressed all of your concerns, please tell me if I do something more.--NØ 10:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this based on the prose. I do not have an issue with the formatting as it is consistent and well-formatted for this particular article. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions for my current FLC. It is a similar type of a list (i.e. awards and nominations) by someone who's career has taken a much larger nosedive than Trainor's lol. Either way, have a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BeatlesLedTV

• You got scope cols but still need scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
• Made this edit for you (fixed dashes per MOS:DASH)

Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added the scope rows here!--NØ 18:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support − All good for me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Rambling Man

• Nice work on reformatting the list to the new and improved standard! One standout issue: if Wikipedia doesn't consider ASCAP Pop Music Awards to be notable, why are they included in this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the ASCAP Pop Music Awards are notable tbh. I found coverage in many reliable sources: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. They’re also included in prestigious FLs List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry and List of awards and nominations received by Madonna so I left them in! Edit: I added wikilinks to the ASCAP page like in the FLs I used as examples.—NØ 21:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, don't cap my comments again without my permission, that's bad form.
• Secondly, good work on fixing up the format to be really much better than the previous.
• Thirdly, thank you for addressing the corollary issues I noted.
• Fourthly, SUPPORT this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, added archivelinks to references, promoting. --PresN 21:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]