Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2015

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

The list was promoted by SchroCattalk 20:53, 29 October 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC), Calvin999, GagaNutella, IndianBio, SNUGGUMS[reply]

We've been working on the list for a while. However, we never came up with the conclusion as to who should be the one to nominate it. Anyway, the list is pretty comprehensive, listing down all of her notable songs. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Hoping for the best. -- Frankie _talk 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I have no more reservations preventing me from supporting this list. Well done.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: thank you so much for your support! GagaNutella^talk 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the list looks great and the prose is very well-written. The only issue that I have is one dead url. Erick (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Magiciandude. Turns out it is a working link and that there was a typo at the end of the URL. Fixed now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job guys! Erick (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your review was most definitely not sub-par, WikiRedactor! All addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delayed response! I am happy with the changes, and am confident in giving my support for the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Thank you, WikiRedactor!

• Thank you for supporting :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks very much for GagaNutella for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank YOU Cirt for your support. It means a lot to all of us. I'm very grateful. Bye. GagaNutella^talk 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're most welcome, GagaNutella, thank you for your Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, and doing so while comporting yourself so politely. You're a rare find. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We learn from our own mistakes, Cirt. Again, thank you. GagaNutella^talk 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're definitely correct. — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much appreciated, Cirt. Thank you for supporting! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: any comments over at my FLC would also be greatly appreciated. Azealia911 _talk 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Azealia911: Thanks for supporting. I confess I'm not very good with discographies, but I might give a look. By the way, I love her, this month I attended to Perry's concert and she was the opening act, she is really great!!! GagaNutella^talk 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks indeed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted PresN 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one FLC nomination of the national nature reserves in Somerset, which has three supports and I believe "reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". This is a companion list covering all of the local nature reserves in the county.— Rod ^talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "The smallest at just 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) is Wellington Basins where a series of small ponds and surrounding grassland and woodland which provide a habitat for grey wagtail, dipper and reed bunting." This sentence does not seem grammatical.
  • Reworded.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are adjacent to each other in Uphill and are sometimes treated as a single site covering 38.14 hectares (94.2 acres)." Uphill Hill and Walborough Common should be linked. Also the sentence is not referenced (here and in the descriptions of the sites). Who treats it as a single site?
  • As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod ^talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod ^talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "This reserve covers unimproved neutral grassland" No change needed but I wish someone competent would create an article on neutral grassland. There is even a category for neutral grassland SSSIs!
• "The dunes, west of the village of Berrow, has a golf course, and is a noted site". "has" and "is" do not agree in number with "dunes"
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk
• " A 200 hectares (490 acres) area was designated in 1952 as a SSSI." Presumably the 16.7 hectare LNR is part of the SSSI, but this should be spelled out.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The site includes beech trees up to 200 years old. There are also oak and hazel. It provides a habitat for birds including blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws and small mammals." This reads a bit awkwardly. How about "The site has beech trees up to 200 years old, oaks and hazels. Birds include blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws, and there are small mammals such as badgers and foxes."
  • Thanks - I have used your suggested wording.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "It includes the bath asparagus". This does not sound right to me. Maybe "Plants include bath asparagus."
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Chard Reservoir. Ref 19 appears to be a dead link as it goes to the Keep Britain Tidy home page. I would add that Chard Canal closed in 1868 to make clear that the reservoir has not been active for 150 years.
  • Archiveurl used. Closure of canal added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "This reserve includes a hill fort dating from the Iron Age on Wain's Hill and Church Hill. It includes calcareous grassland, coastal scrub and woodland" Repetition of "includes". The second one could be changed to "has".
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The lakes are the centrepiece of the one mile long[44] nature reserve which includes dry woodland which has a ground flora including common bluebell, dogs mercury and twayblade." This is awkward with the repetition of "which". I would split the sentence into two.
  • Split.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "rhyne" should be linked.
  • Wikilinked.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would add the list of Somerset SSSIs to 'See also'.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your comments. I think they are dealt with apart from the issue with Uphill Hill and Walborough Common on which I would welcome your thoughts.— Rod ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakec

• "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir"...should be "36.97-hectare (91.4-acre) reservoir". Use the adj=on parameter in the convert template.
  • Done.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had missed a "|" within the convert template.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in the Chard Reservoir section, three consecutive sentences begin with "it". Perhaps rephrase and/or merge a couple of the shorter sentences?
  • Reworded.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be a comma after "Following the route of the Cheddar Valley Line" and also "Alongside the River Tone"
  • Commas added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Woodland and grassland support a range of bird species" isn't grammatically correct; should be "supporting" or "that supports".
  • Changed to "that supports".— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The grassy plateau of the hill fort is owned and managed by Yatton and Congresbury Parish Councils." should be referenced.
  • Ref added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• About half of the Berrow Dunes section is unreferenced.
  • Refs added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Last sentence of the Street Heath section needs a period.
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "There are a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." - try maybe adding an "also".
  • Added.— Rod ^talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarification - got it now.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I notice that four entries don't have articles of their own. Can this be rectified?
  • Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. As long as there aren't that many, and they do link somewhere, it's not a 5a violation. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6 is dead
  • Linkrot fixed.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Archiveurl & archivedate added.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 14 appears to come from Geocities. Is it an RS?
  • I can't find another source for this so removed - not vital to the nature reserve.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 20 looks like a personal site. Is it an RS?
  • I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replaced with a site from the local council.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting list, and I look forward to supporting once these are addressed. Would you by any chance have time to review Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. I will try to take a look at Shamokin Creek.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support by the looks of it, the previous reviewers have covered everything; I can't find anything to fault. This has also reminded me that I still owe you a photo for Silk Mills, I'll jot that down! Harrias ^talk 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ytfc23 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket-related list, Ian Bell is one of only two English cricketers since the Second World War to have won five Ashes series and this list details his 26 international centuries. The list resembles a similar style to numerous other list of centuries by international cricketers, I would like to thank The Rambling Man for the help in tidying up the list and its a pleasure to co-nominate this list, and look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve the list. Ytfc23 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support entry #17 is still irritatingly on two lines on my screen, even though I have quite a large screen, but I don't have any significant objections, nice work, both. Harrias ^talk 10:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: you closed your comments here a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another cricket list. This is my first attempt at a cricket-related article. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – good work. -- Frankie _talk 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks again, Frankie. As always, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: Thanks, NapHit. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nice work. Fancy taking a look at one for me? (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1) Harrias ^talk 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for the support and for the offer, Harrias. I'm currently abstaining from reviewing anything (GAN, PR, FAC and FLC) at the moment (studies being a factor). Best of luck with your FLC though!  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry and The Rambling Man: You two closed your comments a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's mandatory to offer "supports" as a part of the review, isn't it? —Vensatry _(ping) 08:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – looks good

• Lead image needs alt text. In other images, alt text should simply name the ground.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table, you could add the actual dates instead of "no other matches to date".
  • The previous three such articles I've got to FL status all used this format, I'd rather stay consistent.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The footnotes are unsourced.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    

—Vensatry _(ping) 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Relentlessly

• "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship, representing the historic county of Gloucestershire." Two separate things there. How about "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship. It represents the historic county of Gloucestershire."
  • Altered, although in a different way to how you suggested to avoid too many short sentences. What do you think.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "It has since played host to first-class cricket from 1870, List A cricket from 1963 and Twenty20 cricket from 2003." Clubs don't "play host". They "play".
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The club's debut home match" Journalese. "The club's first home match" is better.
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bristol has been considered an independent county since 1373, though it was officially part of the county of Avon from 1974 until 1996.[9] Somerset have played first-class matches at other venues in the city." These are odd sentences, coming right at the end of a totally unrelated paragraph. They need to stand alone or move somewhere else.
  • Not really unrelated, as it comes right after extensive stuff about the club playing at Bristol and clarifies that Bristol isn't technically in Gloucestershire. I think it is relevant at that point.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "before its use was discontinued in 1992." You mean "until".
  • Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it odd that our article is at Trowbridge Cricket Club Ground but you call the ground "County Ground".
  • Cricket Archive calls it the County Ground, as does The Cricketer magazine and, most tellingly, Trowbridge Cricket Club themselves. I think this article is right and the article on the ground is titled wrongly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this looks good, though. Relentlessly (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images review

Durdham Down (750px).jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Clifton College - geograph.org.uk - 147399.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Gymnasium and cricket field, Cheltenham College - geograph.org.uk - 194667.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Bristol County Ground.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Swindon Cricket Club.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Trowbridge Cricket Club - geograph.org.uk - 556029.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons

Buildings in the images are covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama United Kingdom

• Support - If this review was helpful, please consider optionally reviewing my List of Alamo defenders — Maile (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nothing to fault in this, meets all the criteria, nice work. Harrias ^talk 10:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rooney and Bobby Charlton are getting their highlights highlighted here, so why not good old Terry Henry? An absolute legend of French football, top scorer and second-highest appearances, this geezer needs to be recognised for his international goal-scoring prowess. Hence the list. Thanks, as ever, to those who contribute to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• • The caption doesn't need the word "has", given that he's never going to score any more
  • "He surpassed the previous record, held by Michel Platini" - I would make 100% clear that this is the goalscoring record, as the most recent stat mentioned was his number of caps
  • "He has scored more times against Malta" => "He scored more times against Malta"
  • "More than half of Henry's goals have come" => "More than half of Henry's goals came"
  • "More than half of Henry's goals have come in home matches, having scored 31 of his 51 goals in France" - the grammar is a bit mangled here, the subject of the sentence is his goals, so "having scored" isn't correct. I would suggest (also taking into account my last point ;-)) "More than half of Henry's goals came in home matches, 31 of his 51 goals being scored in France"
  • "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, have come" => "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, came
  • "Four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup saw Henry" - goals can't see. I would suggest "A tally of four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup made Henry the tournament's top scorer and led to his being voted the "tournament's most outstanding player".
  • Nowhere do you explain what the score column means, or the significance of the bolding therein. I understand it, but others might not......

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for those comments, each of which I have hopefully addressed to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider having a stats table with "by competition" as at List_of_international_goals_scored_by_Wayne_Rooney. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intro seems fine, but it feels like it is missing mentioning his last international goal in 2009. Also, this might be trivia-ish, but he seems to have scored only once when France lost. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the first of your comments, the second I don't find particularly helpful since France were at their best during the time he played for them, so it would be seen as to attribute too much of that success to Henry himself to frame it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the case. Just noticed that 123 and 51 do not have actual references. I am sure there is some FIFA website referencing the totals. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the sentence "During his international career he played 123 games for France in which he scored 51 goals. " Nergaal (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 9 and 38 are missing dates and 42 seems to need "work=AFP". Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  ref 9 has no explicit publication date that I can see, other two addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link has "Last updated: 27/06/2012 11:57 CET" which seemed to me to be the date, but I might be wrong. Spot-checking other refs seemed to be fine to me so support for FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do me a favor and merge (use row-width=) the rows with multiple goals per game as was done in List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's little point as the row merges disappear once the table is sorted in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it looks much better/cleaner. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you think to be the point. I disagree. This isn't a process where I have to follow every single one of your aesthetic suggestions, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking that me choosing to be pleasant and constructive to you would generate the same type of attitude from you. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing other than to say thank you but I disagree and that I won't be taking up every single personal aesthetic preference of your's. I think our positions are clear, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Happy to support this now. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Certainly not my area of expertise but looks good. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nice work. Harrias ^talk 10:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 18 October 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, video game list time rather than another sci-fi/fantasy awards list. This one's a bit unique- most game companies out there can't support a list composed of just the franchises they develop/publish, rather than the games, but Square Enix is a unique beast. And that's reflected in this list: the franchises are divided up between franchises developed by Square Enix (or formerly Square/Enix), those developed by companies that they've bought (like Eidos Interactive and Taito), and those that any of those parts published but didn't develop. Except that's a simplification- what do you call a franchise that was published by Eidos, who then bought the developer, and then more games were developed after Square Enix then bought Eidos? (Deus Ex) Or a franchise developed by an external company but published by Eidos, where Eidos owned the franchise rights, only to sell them off to the original developer? (Carmaggedon) And that's ignoring franchises where Taito publishes a manga, which then has an anime, and then has spinoff games- I've elided those, for all our sanities. Those will be in another list when I feel like shooting myself via google searches again. The point is that this list is an approximation of something we can't know for sure- what franchises does Square Enix actually own the rights to, as oppose to exclusive publishing rights to, as opposed to just having happened to have published every game in the series. Since we can't know, this list doesn't answer that question, but instead covers all franchises that Square Enix develops or publishes, past or present.

Those of you who don't spend time in video game articles won't realize how much of a surprise the "sales" column is: getting sales numbers in video game land, unlike movies and music, is like pulling teeth from a rhinoceros who only speaks Japanese- it's all scattered non-English sources that you have to dig for and pull together to get a number that even remotely approximates reality. If a franchise here is missing sales data, no sources exist anywhere that I could find for that data. Before ending this nomination, I'd like to thank Misconceptions2, who created the initial list and the first (slightly premature) nomination a month ago- I would never have willingly subjected myself to making this list, but they made it happen. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I'll be back later. But please look at reference 87 that has an error message (at least what I see) "External link in |title= (help)". — Maile (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Gaming is not my area of knowledge, so I'll say this looks good as far as what I can see. Except for WP:DTT - I don't see scope="col" and scope="row", and that seems to be stressed on FLC reviews. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:: Fixed the reference error, seemed to confuse the wikilink with an external link. Also put in row/col scopes- knew I was forgetting something. --PresN 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Happy to give you my support. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support First of all I would like to express my admiration for your efforts in sourcing the list. I have only a couple of suggestions:

• You should format reference 87.
• In note 1 I would suggest to specify as of when are the most recent numbers: "Sales numbers are based on the most recent available sourced numbers as of .......; actual total sales numbers...". --Gligan (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Did both, though I'm on the fence about the "as of" bit. --PresN 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, vast improvement on the previous. All of my concerns from that one have been met. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 18 October 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie was a truly prodigious writer who turned out 73 novels and 28 short story collections, alongside plays, poems and autobiographical works. Best known for her crime stories, she invented a string of colourful and eccentric characters, including Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Parker Pyne, Harley Quin and Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. This list has been extensively re-worked to make it MoS compliant, fully sourced throughout and ready for FLC. Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – A model of its kind. I have tried to find something to quibble at, but can't. Meets the FL criteria, in my view. (I bet I'm the only reviewer you get here who has been running longer than The Mousetrap.) Tim riley talk 19:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim for your time and efforts in going through this - all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, quite well done and well cited. Just too bad we couldn't get an interview with the Tenth Doctor about his impression of her works. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, Cirt! Your thoughts and comment are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks very well researched and compiled. One could say though that the infobox bibliography consists of a "string of colourful and eccentric colours" too though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Doc, for your time and comments - much appreciated! – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job, you certainly used your "little grey cells" on this one. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cowlibob: good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Overall, an excellent job, but I have a few nits to pick:

• I think the garish infobox should be removed (leaving the picture). It has multiple problems (see my comments here), one of which is that the numbers are often wrong; and indeed, the number for broadcast works is wrong unless the two works with coauthors are discounted for some reason.

• The IB is fine being there: it is used in several other FLs and many users have previusly commented that they find it an advantage. I've tweaked the number of broadcast works, which negates the problem of the number. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the three sources cited at the top of most of the tables, two (Dalby and Morgan) are very obscure. The Dalby reference is a bit confusing; it's an article in a sort of journal, but no page numbers are provided in the entry under Sources. No version can be accessed online, so I guessed that the entire article spans pages 32-38. Also, I was a bit mystified by the gray number 243 that seemed to float at the end of the citation, so I tried changing the field to volume. It was hard to find the Morgan reference until I discovered that it was volume 77, so I added that information. There are 69 novels in Contemporary authors online, but 73 in the table, so the sourcing implies that the other four are listed in the two sources I can't read. Aren't there more authoritative and accessible overall sources for the list?

• The two sources are not too obscure (certainly not obscure enough to warrant exclusion and they have been used in several other FLs). I've reverted your alteration to their description as they are issues, not volumes. The sources contan a biography, publication history and then a bibliography of first editions, and the page numbers are for the bibliography only, not the full article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I can't find The Book and Magazine Collector in OCLC WorldCat, and all I can find on the web is a picture of the cover for this issue. That's pretty obscure. It means that, for most people, it will be next to impossible to verify any statement using that source. I'm not saying that you need to exclude them - but are there any more accessible sources? As for the issue/volume question, that is just how they are identified in the template. What matters is whether the entry makes sense to readers. Compare these two versions:

• Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector (243). Diamond Publishing Group. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector. 243. Diamond Publishing Group: 32–38. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In the first one, the reader will probably wonder what that number in parentheses means, but they will have no trouble interpreting the second. Also, the first one leaves the reader with the impression that Richard Dalby wrote the whole issue, not just one article in it. The entries in Agatha Christie bibliography#Sources should make sense by themselves, since they are not the actual citations. You could put the page numbers for the entire article there and leave the more specific page numbers in the inline citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this above. Just because you are unable to obtain the publication does not make this an invalid source. As to the formatting, this has been done correctly, but if you don't like it, I suggest you start a discussion at MoS level to determine how we do this on a project-wide basis. – SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hall source needs page numbers.

• The page numbers are inthe individual references and are not needed in the source list. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because of the table format, for some window sizes the pictures won't fit beside the tables so there is a large white gap. I don't know if there is any solution for this.

• Not as far as I am aware. The images have been shrunk as they are, so unless they are reduced to a ridiculously small size then there is a problem for very small screens. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RockMagnetist(talk) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, but there are a number of statements that are either unsourced or don't agree with the sources:

1. the number of detective novels is given as 66 in the lead but ref #1 in Contemporary Authors has 69 (which I had to determine by counting the entries).
2. The infobox says there are 73 novels total, which agrees with the first section, but if you include the 6 novels published under other names in ref #1, there are 75.
3. The infobox says that there are 28 collections, but there are 34 short story collections in Ref #1.
4. The infobox says there are 3 collections of poems, ref #1 only identifies two.
5. The infobox says there are 7 broadcast works, but only two are identified in ref #1.