Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third list of Sites of Special Scientific Interest I have nominated after Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and I believe is it is also of FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Cheetah (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw

Another excellent list. Just a few minor questions/nitpicks:

• The "Map all..." link works in OSM & Bing but doesn't work properly in Google for me - I can't see any reason in the code & may be a temporary blip on Google maps.

I think it is a blip. I have checked the link in three other articles and they all have the same problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK perhaps worth checking in a few days or asking those knowledgeable about the template map links.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The title "Inner Thames Marshes" redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve. The RSPB ref uses one name & Natural England uses the other are they synonymous?

This is a difficult one. There are very few details on the RSPB's own site, and I cannot find any map of Rainham Marshes or reference to the SSSI. An old BBC article at [2] says that Rainham Marshes is 77% of the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI, but I doubt whether this can be considered an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the local knowledge or sources to help with this one - I see on Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve the top of the infobox says "Inner Thames Marshes" not sure about this but consistency is generally good. Might be worth a comment in the description within the list, but minor.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised to make clear that Rainham Marshes is only part of the SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Anglian glaciation is wikilinked in the description of Holland-on-Sea Cliff & Wivenhow Gravel Pit but not in Hall's Quarry - any particular reason?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Harwich Foreshore "London clay" doesn't have a capitalised "C" but the article London Clay does - any reason?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 195 has WIVENHOE capitalised - any reason?

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 94 and 110 (Ratcliffe) seem to point to the same page in the same book - it could just be reused

Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are useful.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments Rod. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks good, just a few points for the lead, will look at table next.

• Is the first "and" in the second sentence needed? Reads strange with two "ands".

• I do not think it works deleting it, but I have deleted the whole clause, which is not needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has an area of 1,426 square miles" could not find this number in the citation... also the citation uses km? Which is standard in the UK?

• I put in the wrong url, and I cannot find the source now, so I have replaced it (with a source which gives a slightly different figure). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "fit back together" -> "reconstruct" or "recreate"?

• This does not work. You can fit back together pieces of flint, not reconstruct them - just as you can reconstruct a jigsaw but not the pieces of the jigsaw. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " Red Data Book invertebrates." should probably be "invertebrates on the IUCN Red List". Similar change would be good for "Canvey Wick", "Crouch and Roach Estuaries", "Epping Forest", and other references.

• Changed to " IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "two unusual moths" are there wikipages of those two moths? If so it would be good to link to them.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Brachythecium mildeanum needs to be italicised

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook, and these have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species, such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge." -> "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook. These ditches have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Inner Thames Marshes, all Latin species names must be italicised.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• xanthandrus comtus italicised.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The woodland it mainly ancient, and there are more than a thousand species of moths and butterflies, and nearly seventy of breeding birds" This sentence does not make sense.

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great list! Look forward to support with these few changes. Mattximus (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all the changes were met and it looks good. Just one minor quibble, there is still one reference to "red book species" which I think can be better termed "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" or even just "species on the IUCN Red list" if you want it less verbose. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think on reflection that it is worth spelling out what the red list is, as some readers will not know. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've met all my concerns and I keep my support from before, great work! (I'm not sure if you have time but I do have a nomination up above that could really use a quick once over) 10:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do in the next few days - and I have another Essex list above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I saw, was hoping to get to it on the weekend. Mattximus (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality and level of detail similar to 13 other Featured Lists I have promoted on the topic of CMLL championships. This is the main topic for a potential Featured Topic and every FLC I have been through has helped improve my work, with this being the ultimate result of everything I have learned so far.  MPJ-DK  21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I moved the article to a new location List of current champions in CMLL and I will move this nomination as well and update the FAC page with the new name.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that "....currently promotes 23 different championships; 12 championships designated as World Champions in various divisions, 5 championships on a national level and 7 championship on a regional level" doesn't add up....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Woops, poor math skills. They dropped a championship after I started working on the article but before I posted it and I did not get that number adjusted.  MPJ-DK  07:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The second sentence in the second paragraph still needs adjusting......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted and spelled out.  MPJ-DK  21:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A proper review from me now......
  • "which is also the oldest, still active championship in professional wrestling" => "which is also the oldest championship in professional wrestling still active"
  • "The titles branded as "World" level can or have been defended outside of Mexico, the Mexican National championships" => needs a conjunction in the middle, I suggest "whereas the Mexican National...."
  • "The regional championships are not promoted outside the area they belong to such as a specific Mexican state, and in the case of the CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship not normally defended except in Arena Coliseo in Mexico City until 2016 where it was defended in Japan" - this a very long run-on sentence, I suggest breaking it up, thus: "The regional championships are not promoted outside the area they belong to, such as a specific Mexican state. The CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship was not normally defended except in Arena Coliseo in Mexico City until 2016 when it was defended in Japan"
  • "One example of was Mephisto holding" - missing word here
  • "The Occidente ("Western") championship are" - missing S on championships
  • In the tables, "house show" sometimes has a capital H and other times not
  • My only other queries would be why the title does not follow the same pattern as List of current champions in WWE. Calling it List of current champions in CMLL would technically be more accurate, as while Atlantis, Electrico, etc, are champions in CMLL, they don't hold CMLL championships per se. Does that make sense?
• Hope this all helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Article name - the way I saw it is that they're all "CMLL Championships" as in CMLL controls them, no different than the other list having NXT champions on them so that thought never really entered my mind. As for if it should be "Championships" or "Champions" I have no strong feelings either way, they'd both be correct. Since these are probably the only two "list of current" on Wikipedia it would probably be a good idea for them both to be consistent, I will move it to List of current champions in CMLL and adjust the nomination links. I will address the rest of the issues later today.  MPJ-DK  16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the following are not groundbreaking comments, but the ones I'd like to see implemented
  • Each section has to have a "As of..." line first.
    • These used to be standard for all championship lists but have been removed a couple of years back. The challege for that is two fold 1) If you put in a static date (as of October 10) then the automatic counters for length of reign is actually wrong because they are always as of "today" 2) if you put in a paramter "As of today's date" then the second someone loses a championship that's actually wrong too, making it seem like it's up to date when it's not. I would prefer to not have that in the list to be consistent with the general professional wrestling championship articles.
      • Well, the reign date can become wrong the second someone loses the title, too. What are you going to do about that?
        • Well I figured that since neither option is ideal I would stick to the general formatting for similar lists, which is not to have the "As of" section. It's not perfect, but it is consistent.
  • Footnotes 2, 3, 4 need references
    • They are in the text next to the note, I cannot figure out hoe to get it inside the note
      • Crzycheetah Thank you for updating the notes to the other format, it allowed me to get the citation inside the notes. I did not know of that format but I'll make sure to use it from now on.  MPJ-DK  23:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete and referenced, and it is modeled after the FL Academy Award for Best Director. The Ariel Award is the most important film award in Mexico, known as the Mexican equivalent to the Oscars. Thanks for your comments and input.Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Cheetah (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @FLC director and delegates: This list had one support in the previous nomination and one more support in this one. I suggest one of you does a review and then the other can archive it.--Cheetah (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I think the list meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support would have been nice to know why two events were held in one year, but can't fault the list quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:14, 29 October 2016 (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) 23:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Square Enix Europe, Eidos-that-was, got bought by Japanese video game developer/publisher Square Enix back in 2009, and shortly thereafter merged with their European distribution wing into its present form. And since then it's... just continued on; they still run the development studios Eidos used to directly, they still publish the distinctly Western series instead of handing them off to Square Enix proper, and don't publisher the Japanese titles directly that SE handles. So, this summer Czar decided to break out their titles into a list of its own given their distinctive nature, Zntrip added some more work, and I finished it off to push it here. The format is set to match my prior FLs List of Square Enix video games and List of Square Enix mobile games, and everything should be good to go. So here it is: the 35 games published by Eidos after it stopped being its own independent entity. --PresN 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I do love a good PresN list. Sumptuously sourced and representative of the quality that we've come to expect. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Cheetah (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good! No issues, all games are reliably sourced. Great job as usual. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review –
  • There were a bunch of ref titles without en dashes. I fixed them for you, but be aware of this for the future.
  • Ref 49 looks to have a different citation template than the other sources. This should probably be made consistent with the others. Other than this issue and the one below, the reference formatting looked fine.
    • Fixed, it was missing the "web" in cite web.
  • Ref 102 doesn't have a listed publisher. While I'm here, does the video game project consider Hardcore Gamer a reliable source?
    • Cleaned up; and according to WP:VG/RS, yes.
  • Ref 117 is to Arohart, which sounds like some guy's personal website. Is Arthur Rohart a notable video game writer? If not, I'd have a difficult time considering this site reliable. The other sources appear reliable enough for the purpose.
    • Arthur Rohart was a level designer for the cancelled game in question, but I've replaced it with a Eurogamer ref anyway
  • Does "GO" need to be capitalized in refs 81 and 82?
    • Nope, fixed
  • I spot-checked refs 5, 15, 35, 63, 83, and 114, and found no verifiability concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Fixed the problems; thanks! --PresN 16:32, 20 October 2016 (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) 20:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. It is one of the most important lists in the scope of India. It provides all the information regarding the destroyers in service with the Indian Navy. Passes A-class review on 8 September 2016. Also addressed the tags placed by the copy-editor. The list is comprehensive with required images. Please voice your opinion, and thoughts that would help in getting the list featured. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Article has a great lead and the tables and images are fantastic. After a quick skimming I saw no glaring spelling or punctuation errors and it appears to be formatted correctly. Fritzmann2002 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the opening sentence of the lead which started with "This is a list of ..." which has been removed from featured lists for, oh, about five years now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Please suggest me the correction,if any. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good examples of what a lead should be like at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Watercraft. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Please take a look. I removed the sentence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: It's been ten days, please have a look and reply with any improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support heres some comments on what you may want to change:

• "During the 1980s, India signed an agreement with the Soviet Union for five guided-missile destroyers." This leads into a talk about classes, are the classes mentioned after this the ones ordered? if not what classes were they?
• "The Kolkata class (Project 15A) is a class of stealth guided missile destroyers." maybe reword it to guided missile destroyers with stealth technology?
• "Kolkata class to incorporate even higher levels of technology (including modern stealth characteristics) and in May of that year, approval for the construction was given" Maybe improve technology not incorporate higher levels?
• "The Indian Navy is planning to upgrade the propulsion of Rajput-class ships with an indigenously-developed Kaveri marine gas turbine (KMGT) engine." do we know when it is supposed to happen?

When these will be upgraded is unknown, as per the report they will as soon the engine is tested successfully. The same was mentioned in the following sentence.

• "The Rajput-class destroyers, built in the Soviet Union, entered service during 1980s and are currently active.[4][5]" I feel like this shouldn't be part of the paragraph.

Thats the end of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Done Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but however I have suggestions Rajput class sections table width can be increased and column heading height of Hunt class reduced? VarunFEB2003 08:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: Done the first one. For Hunt class the column height can't be reduced as the information demands it and the information can't be removed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for that but I have more suggestions. I am not at all expert (forget expert I am not even good enough to draw a pretty table) in tables but is it possible to keep a uniform table width for all tables? Column width for many columns like origin, commission date, displacement, fate can be reduced and those for armaments increased. The column width for pictures should be exactly equal to image width (maybe a pixel more) and image size should be same (visually). Probably a GOCE request will do more good! Thanks a lot VarunFEB2003 12:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: What you say is good, but it is not necessary. You are suggesting this in the view of the look so that all the tables look uniform throughout the article, and looks good. But this completely unnecessary as per Wikipedia guidelines. We must try to represent the information with valid citations but not keeping in the mind how the output looks. The GOCE request was already done by Miniapolis (Member GOCE hall of fame), I think she has taken care of all that. In this context, I would like to ping Miniapolis that she suggests some solution for this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no problem I didn't see that! VarunFEB2003 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I can't add anything to what I've already done; table syntax is not my specialty, and beyond the scope of the GOCE—whoever creates a table is expected to know how to format it in accordance with MOS:TABLE. We're good, but we haven't memorized the entire MOS :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to promote, but a couple issues:

• Tables need rowscopes (they have colscopes already)

• Please explain, I can't get what you mean by rowscopes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking the Kolkata table as an example: you see how, for each cell in the top row, there is a "scope=col"? You need a "scope=row" for each cell in the first column (i.e. the cell with the name of the ship) - so, "| INS Kolkata (D63)" would be "!scope="row"| INS Kolkata (D63)". Note that this bolds the name; if you hate that you can add a "style="font-weight:normal;"" after "row", but it's there because it honestly makes it stand out more. --PresN 04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Chennai has it's status as... a date? And one in the past, so if that was the commision date, it's no longer a future ship

• Corrected Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Visakhapatnam is listed as "launched in april", and yet still under construction? Shouldn't it be "pending commission" or something?

• In naval terminology, launched doesn't mean that the ship is comepletely constructed. A ship is said to be laucned when it is first put into the water, that is the bottom part, mostly the hull is complete. There is lot of work to be done before it is commissioned, such as the armamemnt, engine, all the work and sea trials etc. For your reference here are the examples images of ships that were launched but not commissioned — File:Launching of INS Visakhapatnam - 3.JPG, File:Launching of INS Visakhapatnam - 4.JPG, File:വിക്രാന്ത്_02.jpg. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, I (without knowledge) presumed that it would be such a pain to do construction on a floating ship that they wouldn't bother "launching" it until it was done; or do they take it back to dry dock after launching? I don't really know anything about ship construction. That does explain the gap between "launch" and "commission" - I figured that was for testing, not additional construction. --PresN 04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't the status of the Porbandar be under construction, not planned, as per the text?

• No, the keel of the ship was not still laid, so it is still in planning phase. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this is a milship thing; I don't understand how something could be under construction (e.g. planning is done, work is under way) but not "under construction". Mainly because the text clearly states that "Of the four Visakhapatnam-class ships, two (INS Visakhapatnam and INS Porbandar) are under construction"? And if something is being built, I don't see how the status of the keel makes a difference- if the plans are done, and the keel is being physically constructed, then how is it still "planned"? --PresN 04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is actually Mormugao that was launched. Corrected the table and text. Thank you very much for catching this point. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, source review while I'm at it:

• ref 1 should not be "www.oxforddictionaries.com" - the work's name is Oxford Dictionaries (regardless of the location of the article), and the publisher if added is Oxford University Press. This is a running problem in a lot of these refs- you frequently use the website address instead of the name of the work. E.g. GlobalSecurity.org, not www.globalsecurity.org, Indian Navy, not www.indiannavy.nic.in, etc.

• Corrected Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going to need to justify the use of gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru; it really looks like some guys ship fansite. Actually, several of these look like that (globalsecurity.org, uboat.net) - does the MilHist project have an RS page I can use to verify against?

• I have replaced the use of "gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru". But uboat.net is a reliable source, it is the most uded source vide Wiki thoughout the articles relating to World War II ships, perphaps it is only basic source available, the site confirms that they do verify the information provided, see this. Globalsecurity too is same case, see this, this and this. It is not a fan site, but presents the information collected and confirmed by experts. It is also widely used for defence related articles on Wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I really don't want to be a jerk about this- I don't at all know what the MILHIST standards are for sourcing lists like these. But I'm really not fine with "a bunch of articles use this site" as a basis for if something is an RS. The uboat.net link you gave me just says which books they pull from- that doesn't tell me that they are an RS themselves. I can read a book and post on tumblr, but you couldn't cite me. The globalsecurity.org links- the first one just says "people wrote this because they cared", which, yeah; the second says they're not affiliated with any government; and the third is a list of names. None of them say that "everything on here is edited by credentialed experts". It's possible that it is! But the links you gave me don't say that. Honestly, though, this can't be the first FLC to use these sites if they're valid, just link me the page where people thought it was a good reference, or get someone else from MILHIST to validate it. Even the video games project has a page of reliable sources with links to the discussions where they were agreed upon; the milhist project is so over-coordinated that I can't image they don't. --PresN 04:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the list has passed an A-class review from the project. However, I would like ping my most obliging editor from MILHIS who also happens to be project's lead coordinator — AustralianRupert, and also Parsecboy, who is also a coordinator and an expert in the naval stuff, especially the naval bite related to World War I and II, to help me in sorting out this issue. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the links is flagged as dead

• Link removed Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 00:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all your concerns except the first one, because I did not get what do you mean by row scopes. I will do that after you further elaborate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: All comments addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Rupert has also voted his support. He also mentioned that there is concern with Uboat [dot] net. Please have a look at the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, lists aren't my strong suit, and nor are naval topics, so apologies if I can't add much here. Anyway, I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the title seems pretty clunky to me, what was the reason behind moving it from "List of Indian Navy destroyers"?
• in the lead: "with the Hunt-class INS Godavari[7] the last." Can you confirm what the citation is actually covering here? Is there a ref for Godavari actually being the last?
• this looks like a forum site, so I would suggest replacing it as a ref: [7]
• I haven't noticed any major concerns with Helgason's work (Uboat.net) in the past, but as I said naval history isn't my area of expertise, so I will defer to others in this area (Parsecboy and Sturmvogel are probably best placed to offer an opinion here)
• some of the tables do not appear to be fully referenced. For instance, in the Future ships section does ref 11 cover all the information in the table?
• same as above for the laid down and commissioned dates in the Kolkata class table
• similar issues with the other tables

@AustralianRupert: The title is changed following the discussion at the MILHIS project's A-class review, per the standard naming of ship lists. Regarding you second concern I have added more references so that the de-commissioning dates can be known and Godavari becomes the last of them. Removed [8]. Added up references to dates in the tables wherever found needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name, no worries, I see there is precedent for it. It just seems strange to me due to the repeated word "of". Anyway, continuing the review below. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• some of the statistics are a little hard on the eye, for instance "2 30 mm AK-630 rotary cannons" (there are a few instances, e.g. 2 16-cell VLS etc). Possibly something like this would work "2 × 30 mm". The recently promoted SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse article uses this method
• this seems inconsistent: "The ships have a quadruple 533 mm torpedo launcher..." v. "5 533-millimetre (21 in) torpedo tubes"
• for a clearer illustration of what I am referring to in regards to citations for the tables, please see the standard employed here: List of battleships of Germany, where it is instantly clear where each statistic in the tables comes from.

@AustralianRupert: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, promoting. --PresN 00:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Milano is an American actor who had a successful music career in Japan in the 1980s and 1990s. A lot of people are unaware of her music career, so I thought it would be fun to make this article and get it to the level of a featured list. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. This is my first time working on a list, and putting something up for FLC so I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• In the "Contents" box, remove the links to 1, 2, 4, 7, A, F, J, M, and Z

• Done.

• "The Best in The World" --> "The Best in the World"

• Done.

• "Let My Love Show You"/"Kimi Wa Sunshine Boy" is not alphabetized correctly

• Done. That was embarrassing lol

• "Talk To Me" --> "Talk to Me"

• Done.

• Do singles have to be marked?

• I looked to a few FLCs on "Songs recorded by X" and they used this structured, notably List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus, List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey, List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson, etc. so I think it is a pretty common practice.

• Can you add the IDs or barcodes to the references of liner notes? I know some of them may be promos and therefore do not have them, but you should add the ones that do have them

• Done. Thank you for the reminder! I used the albums' ASIN consider where it was released. I even found it for the exercise video lol. Surprisingly enough, The Very Best of Alyssa Milano is the only one that is a promo and that I could not find an ID/ASIN to reference it.

• I feel like two photos is a bit small; could you perhaps have four?

• I agree with you, but I am not sure what other photos to add. Unfortunately, a majority of the songwriters and producers do not have images. I am open to suggestions if you have any ideas. I am going to add the images of the two artists she covered songs from in her first two albums (The Ronettes and The Crystals, but I was a little uncertain about that as I have not seen an FLC that had done that for cover songs. Let me know what you think.

Carbrera (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: Thank you very much for your comments! I think I have covered everything, at least I think I did. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be clarified or fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: Do you have any further comments for this? Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Thanks for clearing up my concerns. Carbrera (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well done.. looks great. AffeL (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @AffeL: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hpesoj00

• I made some edits to the article, as it's easier to do than to leave comments here. I accidentally didn't leave an edit summary, but it was mostly fixing grammatical errors and attempting to improve the flow of the prose. Notably, I removed "in October" because it was affecting the flow and seemed unimportant, and also added some extra context to the bit about her not returning to Japan, as we do not know whether she has returned to Japan since she gave that interview.

• Thank you! You improved the list so I greatly appreciate your input.

• The contents box does not work for me (I'm using Firefox if that is pertinent). Fix this and I will support!

• I have fixed the contents box. I forgot to set it up (this is my first list so I still have a lot to learn about doing it correctly).

Hpesoj00 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hpesoj00: Thank you for your comments! I have addressed them. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents seems to work now. However, I'm not sure about the title you added to the table. It seems redundant, as the reader can figure out the contents from the table header. I don't think it is necessary. Hpesoj00 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hpesoj00: Good idea, I removed the title. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me now. Hpesoj00 (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hpesoj00: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: Quick question: How many votes are required for promotion? This is my first FLC, so I am still trying to familiarize myself with the FLC system and criteria and I apologize for the silly question. I currently have four support votes for this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a set amount. "Enough that we're satisfied that everything's been looked at" (so... supports without any other comment sometimes don't count, because it doesn't instill confidence that a full review was actually done). Also, a source review, though a lot of the time the closing delegate does it. Right now there's not enough reviewers going around, or enough delegates (It's just me and Giants now) so... it might take a bit longer than usual for this nomination to finish. --PresN 01:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thank you for your response! This nomination is still fairly new so I expected to wait longer to attract more comments/review. I am still new to the whole FLC process (and Wikipedia in general) so I just wanted to clarify this issue. I agree that the "Enough that we're satisfied that everything's been looked at" comments is the best way to go with determining if a list is truly read for promotion or not. I hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a couple minor edits and support the promotion of this list, assuming all concerns by other reviewers are addressed. I did not check the accuracy of the content and simply looked at formatting and prose, which I believe provides an appropriate overview of her career. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Another Believer: Thank you very much! I will double-check the actual content to make sure it is accurate and concise. This is my first list that I have worked on, and I very much enjoyed the process (especially on a part of a person's career that not a lot of people have known about before the creation of this article). Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• "the fear of people laughing at her work" -> what does that mean? why would people laugh?

• This sentence was pulled from information found directly from the cited source. I have revised this sentence, and included Milano's quote directly to avoid any confusion.

• "her music in America" -> United States

• Changed.

• "their work being compared to" -> being compared? you mean was compared? or am I not understading the structure in this sentence? or maybe add "with" before "their"

• Revised.

• "In May 2013, Milano said that she had not returned to Japan since the end of her music career" -> What is the purpose of this sentence? She could've not released records there without actually physcially being there? Or that she hasn't had any intentions of releasing music there since the last album?

• I felt that it was an appropriate way of ending the lead. I thought it would be nice to end the lead on Milano looking back at her music career, rather than just stopping with the information on the release of her last album. Just for clarification, she never officially "announced" the end of her music career; she just quietly let it die to focus on her acting career instead. I can remove it if you feel that it is unnecessary.

• "end of her music career" -> When was that? Maybe add, "ending her music career" after the previous sentence

• I am not certain if there is an exact date in which Milano "announced" the end of her music career, so I am not sure if I could add anything about that. I am not sure where you are advising to put the phrase "ending her music career" exactly, but I do not believe that it is necessary. If the final sentence is removed, then I believe the paragraph would still make sense without adding that phrase. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote makes it way better. You have my support; good luck! Mymis (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Almost ready to promote: --PresN 01:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accessdate= shouldn't be used on citations that don't have an explicit url parameter (e.g. the albums you're referencing). Which brings me to...

• Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You shouldn't be using ASIN in cite AV media. I know it's not contraindicated on the template, but it's really bad form- ASIN is the Amazon Standard Identification Number, and it is only used at that one online store. It's not a real ID number- if you want one, there are multiple options listed at the template, and every album has it's own publisher catalog number as a backup (e.g. Look in my Heart is D25Y0273). If you want to link to the Amazon detail page for the album, put the url in url= and keep the accessdate.

• @PresN: Thank you for your review! I completely understand this, and will change it accordingly, but I have a quick question. If I want to use the publisher catalog number, how would I put it in the template? I know that it is probably very obvious, so I apologize for not knowing this. >< Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "id=" is the parameter for non-globally-standard ids, like publisher catalog number. Don't feel bad, it took me a while while looking at the template documentation to realize that it was... actually just the first parameter listed under "Identifiers". --PresN 02:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Thank you for your help and patience. I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides all that, the "ASIN" for Teen Steam is actually an ISBN.

• Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 02:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the set of Arsenal lists, this is a comprehensive account of the football seasons played by the club. It's the second time I've nominated this here, the first nomination stagnated and reviewers raised issues with sourcing. Since then I've expanded the lead and history sections, sorted out the table and tided up the referencing. A big thanks goes to club historian Andy Kelly who helped out with the line-ups in the smaller cup competitions. As ever feedback would be most appreciated. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• "by munition workers" -> link "munition"
• "The club later that year resigned from amateur governing bodies, the Kent County and London Football Association and voted to turn professional" -> I believe the comma is missing somewhere?
• En-dash (–) = An en-dash indicates that Arsenal did not participate -> maybe just "En-dash (–) = Arsenal did not participate"
• when you click on "Joy (1952)", it does not go the the full ref
• The Daily Telegraph, The Times, BBC Sport, The Independent nowhere linked
• www.rsssf.com is not needed
• UEFA.com -> UEFA
• ESPN FC -> ESPN FC
• theguardian.com -> The Guardian

• Article was published on the Guardian website, not in the newspaper. I've wikilinked the site now.

Mymis (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look @Mymis:, have made changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support, great work! Mymis (talk)

Comments by Struway2

An interesting article: I do approve of informative footnotes.

• Can anything be done to narrow the unduly wide Community Shield column?

• Can't seem to do anything...

• Pity. Don't know what it looks like to the rest of you, but on my browser/screensize it's almost as wide as the Other comps column, in which Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy wraps to one word per row. Leaving comment open just in case anyone has suggestions: not something I'd oppose on

• @Lemonade51: One more (sorry for the bitty nature of this review, I juat haven't got the concentration span I once had). Can you sort the top goalscorers column such that the "n/a" cells don't come between the real names beginning with M and N. If it helps, once you've done this I will come back and support (and if I then notice anything else, I'll fix it myself if I can). Thank you for your patience. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Thanks again for taking the time to review. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This version of the list is much improved on the first nomination, both the prose and the referencing. As far as I can tell, the list does now satisfy the FL criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good list from Lemonade51. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Flickerd (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the Melbourne Football Club is the oldest Australian rules football club and their best and fairest award is their preeminent player award for the club. The list has been significantly expanded and I believe it meets the quality of Wikipedia's best lists. In addition, there are currently no FL in WP:AFL and I am trying to improve this, so the outcome of this will be a good gauge for the rest of the AFL lists. Flickerd (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support This looks like a featured list already, great job! I just think I am missing something. I'll try to clear my head and come back to take a second look.--Cheetah (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crzycheetah: Thank you for your support, if there's anything else that needs to be fixed, please comment and I'll fix it :) Flickerd (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice article. As an Aussie, it is nice to see some Aussie rules content getting featured (touch wood). Well done Flickerd. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yellow Dingo: Thank you for your support :) Flickerd (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good to me. The expression "foundation member" sounds odd to me (in the UK we would say "founder member") but as it is used multiple times I am going to assume that it is a valid expression in Australian English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the support, foundation club/member etc. is commonly used in Australian rules football for describing the founding clubs in the league (small example, [12]). Flickerd (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review:

• What on earth is the general reference to "Demonwiki"? (I can't even see it, it won't load). Wikis aren't reliable sources, so that would be an external link at best.
  • It's just a collation of the winners and runners up and the votes, the website has been down for the last couple of days, so that's why it can't be viewed. I'll move it to the external links section.
• I'm not comfortable with the first 3 references (all for the Melbourne FC founding date? Surely you'd only need 1...) all being a book/magazine with no author or publisher or page number.
  • There's a bit of back story with this one.. there was a court case a few years ago regarding the foundation date, and the person who filed the lawsuit is actually on Wikipedia and kept changing the establishment date on the main club page. About 2 years ago, the constant changing of the date on the Wiki club page was finally settled as those three references were used in the court case by the club to support the foundation date of 1858, and then it was used on the Wikipedia club page to support the statement as the foundation date was considered contentious. Basically it's a copy and paste of the refs from the club page, I may be able to expand them a bit. The first one is not really enough by itself as that is the original letter by Tom Wills and it is considered the foundation date of the club, the next two refs are supporting this letter as the foundation of the club. I guess one of the support refs is enough for this page. Flickerd (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The rest looks fine. --PresN 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, passing, closing, promoting. --PresN 16:12, 4 October 2016 (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.