Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2017

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I discovered it in a good state thanks to the great work of Holiday56 a few years back, and suggested we co-nom because it's an interesting list and a niche topic. It's been brought up to current standards (that didn't take much) and looks good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Interesting list. Great job TRM and Holiday56. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• I mean, I'll be honest, I'm disappointed not to see Chaos 2 or Razer in there...
• "..were selected by a selected panel of jurists.." – not keen on the repetition of "selected".

Other than that, there is little to fault, so to be honest, I'm happy to support. Harrias ^talk 14:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, I've replaced the first "selected" with "chosen" so that's nice. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw This is an interesting list on a topic I know very little about.

• I had to think about the meaning of "existent" in "both existent and fictional". Would "real" be an alternative term?

  Yes, I don't see why not, so I've swapped per your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The image File:Robot 501585 fh000026.jpg seems to have two different CC licences (one specific to France) - I have not seen this before and I'm not expert enough to know whether that is OK.

  I think it should be one or the other personally, but since they're both CC, it's not an issue to use the image here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we were supposed to add "+" & give a title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.

  Yes, we often do, especially if it's not directly following a section heading (as in this case) but it does little harm and adds benefit to our ACCESS-readers, so I've added one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• George Lucas is credited as creator of the Star Wars franchise, but didn't Ralph McQuarrie get credit for a lot of the design work?

  That's most certainly true, but the information here is following the citations provided by the HoF website which only mentions Lucas in each case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those queries, I'm finding it difficult to raise any issues.— Rod ^talk 18:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodw, thanks for getting the time to do this, much appreciated. I've responded to your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses & edits. I can now Support this lst as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rodw. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, PresN, here's another off the production line, needs a source review I think but otherwise good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit odd that the lead talks about the 2012 rules change as if it's an on-going affair, when in fact that was the only year like that and no robots have been entered into the Hall in the 5 years since. Can you find a way to work into it that 2012 is the latest year to add robots? --PresN 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN fair point, I've adjusted the tense a little and added a note regarding the last entry being 2012. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one was a little out of my comfort zone, and while it's been declared as of "high" importance to the Olympics project, surprisingly little information is available about it. Everything I could reasonably gather is in the list. Let me know how you feel about it, with thanks in advance for time spent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some random thoughts: seems slightly premature to say that two trophies have been presented at every Olympics since 2016, when there's only been the 2016 Olympics; a mention of when women's boxing was introduced into the Olympics might not go amiss in this context (to show that there was a gap between its introduction and the second trophy being awarded); any redirect or piped link possibilities for the redlinked 1972 to 1984 Olympics e.g. Boxing at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Heavyweight (+ 81 kg)?; should Gold Silver Bronze sort in that order, rather than alphabetical? Nothing immediately jumps out otherwise. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - I would say something like "In 2016, two Val Barker Trophies were presented for the first time......" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Also, done medal sorting. As for redlinks, no problem with them at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree about the piping, the redlinks to nonexistent stats pages is ugly and unnecessary. Not convinced the content and subject warrent Featured List status. The level of information is minimal.PRehse (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any more information you can provide? Featured lists aren't prevented because there's not much information available on a topic. I'd be delighted to see you provide more "information". Also, redlinks are perfectly permissible per WP:REDLINK, just because someone hasn't written the topic on specific boxing weights at specific Olympic Games yet, it shouldn't stop us from linking to them. Also, please use an edit summary when making drastic content changes to an article, it helps the rest of us understand why you've made such edtis. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Supoort – Another great job TRM, keep 'em coming! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – Just one from me: in the Claressa Shields photo caption, "the" should probably be placed before "trophy". Everything else looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Giants2008 done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Looks good, but it seems awfully short for your average FL. Is this really all we can cover on the subject? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but please see the response I gave to the right honourable gentleman at the top of the article some moments ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are well-formatted and appear reliable. Spot-checks of refs 4, 6, 7, and 15 revealed no problems. This is a pass from my vantage point. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN I guess you're the only available FLCer to deal with this now, any comments need addressing or are we good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good to go, lets sneak this one in this month. --PresN 01:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the necessary criteria as a comprehensive list of Vera Farmiga's film, television and stage credits, in the same vein as other filmographies that have been given featured list status. RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a non-controversial move of the article's title to "Vera Farmiga on screen and stage" since Farmiga has had theatre credits in Broadway. Further, I don't see any coverage of her theatre appearances in the lede. You know the deal.
• Please fill in those blanks with reliable, high-quality sources.

• User-generated sites like IMDb (refs. 5, 18) and TV.com (refs. 59, 61) are generally not accepted as reliable sources per WP:UGC and WP:IMDBREF. Please change.

• Photo is great, but is missing an alt text.
• There are a decent amount of dead refs or refs that redirect to different links for you to fix.
• What makes ref. 33 a reliable, high-quality source?
• Add the |publisher = parameter inline but be vigilant in avoiding overlinking.
• WL to Understudy

Fixed all. Thanks. RedLiquorice (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• See above. SLIGHTLY^mad 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. RedLiquorice (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, support. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support — All concerns addressed. Jimknut (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is very good indeed, all I can find at a quick glance is to reduce the SHOUTING in the ref title (see ref 63) and a malformed template (see ref 56), otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Thanks. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• All of the references are sufficiently reliable, and the only formatting issue I see is that reference 13 still has some all caps.
• Spot-checks of refs 27, 39, and 47 revealed that the latter two citations don't mention her characters' names. This isn't the first time I've seen this in filmography FLCs, and examples such as these should be fixed before this list gets the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm here, the link-checker now shows no dead links, so no work is needed on that front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped out all references for ones including character names. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the replacement source for Closer to the Moon, and that doesn't give the character's last name, which I'm not thrilled with. Checks of a couple other refs (the ones for Source Code and The Judge, and the replacement for Up in the Air) revealed no problems, so I'd be inclined to consider this a pass if something with the last name can be found for Closer to the Moon (or if the last name was removed until a better source can be found). Please keep this issue in the back of your mind if you do other filmographies in the future, though, as being able to verify article content is always vital. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed source for Closer to the Moon. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the new source. As that was my only outstanding comment, the source review can be considered a pass. I'll go ahead and promote the article in a minute. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I present the medal table from the first Winter Olympics. The table is modelled off similar such lists from other games. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive By Comment: I would add something about Anders Haugen's bronze medal not being awarded until 50 years later due to a scoring error in the lede as well. See his obituary from the NY Times as one potential source. Ravendrop 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ravendrop, I have incorporated that information now. Harrias ^talk 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Overall, a very well-written list. I have a couple of minor comments to make:

• In the first paragraph when it says "were a winter multi-sport event...", shouldn't it be "was a winter multi-sport event" because the article is talking about a singular event (the 1924 Winter Olympics)? Correct if me I'm wrong.
• Change the last sentence of the second paragraph to "After Haug died in 1934, his daughter presented Haugen, aged 83, with his medal". It just flows better in my opinion because on first read, I got a bit lost.

Again, this is a really good list and definitely deserving of FL status. The points above are very minor, but I believe it would make the list even better. Also, if you wouldn't mind looking at one of my two FLCs (List of Metra stations and List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks), that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sportsguy17: Your suggested second change gave the wrong impression; I've changed it to "As Haug had died in 1934, his daughter presented Haugen, aged 83, with his medal." I favoured this because the presentation was made in 1974, and your suggestion might have implied it was in or around 1934. Agree with the first change though, which I've done. Will take a look at your noms. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just looked at that Sports Ref reference to work out how on earth 115 athletes received medals (with only 49 given out)...
• ... just to discover that while the lead currently says "A total of 258 athletes from 16 nations participated in 16 events across 9 sports.[1]", Sports ref says "313 (300 men and 13 women) from 19 countries" and "17 events" in "10 sports". It lists 115 medal winners and includes a reference to a "mixed team". I suggest this is at the very least noted and explained... My guess is that it's down to this so that could be used to explain things.

• I need to untangle this a bit more, but thanks for spotting it! Harrias ^talk 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning towards withdrawing this nomination. From what I can tell, you're absolutely right, but I can't find sufficient sources to back this up for featured content. It would be pretty much WP:SYNTH at this stage. I'm going to keep looking for a bit; hopefully I can find a book in the library that gives a bit more detail, I'll try and pop in there next week. Harrias ^talk 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, no worries, sorry to have blown a hole in the nom... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I've gone for a very different approach; let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great. I really like it when we find something like this which is a little bit unusual but cover it nicely with a number of angles. It gets my support but I would think that such a radical overhaul would require a polite nudge of those who reviewed before me, just to check they're satisfied with the new approach. Good work, much applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sportsguy17 and ChrisTheDude: As noted here, I've made a reasonably significant change, and would appreciate if you could confirm whether you're happy with the changes made. Harrias ^talk 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another excellent job Harrias! I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the list. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've put a lot of work into this list, bringing it to where it is now, and believe it meets the criteria for it to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - don't think I can see any outstanding issues.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It meets the six FL criteria – it is comprehensive with RSs that check out (including the lead), is well organized/formatted, follows MOS, and is stable. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all done for me, this is good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this list twice before, but each time it failed on the basis that some editors did not agree with single-year lists for number ones. As such lists have continued to be promoted (eg List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011 in 2015), this clearly isn't consensus and therefore I thought it was worth another punt..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I was a little confused by the title of the list as it was not made immediately clear what was meant by "country singles". Would it be more clear to rename this list as "List of Billboard number-one country singles of 2000" to make it a little more clear that you are referencing a Billboard chart?
  • The problem there is that the other 75 articles in Category:Lists of number-one country songs in the United States would presumably also need changing to be consistent............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will say that it is fine for now then; I will leave this matter up to other more experienced users/reviewers. The title just reads as ambiguous/a little unclear to me, but I will not make an issue of it during my review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The image requires ALT text.
  • Upon further examination, I am not entirely sure about the quality of the image as there is a little bit of "noise" (a lot of the image is taken up by other people/actions during the red carpet). Do you think it would better to simply put two separate images of the singers so that way the reader has a clearer image of the two? Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed the image, added alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the infobox image's caption, I think "scored" is a little informal and should be replaced with a better word choice.
  • Changed to "achieved" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the sentence (Published by Billboard magazine, until 2012 the data was compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based on each song's weekly airplay.), I think that the "until 2012" could be better integrated/placed in the sentence as it stands out rather awkwardly in the current phrasing.
  • Changed to something which is hopefully better. On reflection, the fact that the methodology changed in 2012 isn't really relevant to a list relating to 2000...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the phrase (until it was knocked off the top spot by "Cowboy Take Me Away",), I think the phrase "knocked off" is a little too informal and should be revised.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the phrase (performed by girl group the Dixie Chicks,), it should read as (the girl group the Dixie Chicks).
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this list; my review primarily focuses on the lead's prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing all of my comments; you have done an excellent job with the list and it is an interesting read. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For accuracy, shouldn't this be called "List of Hot Country Songs number-one singles of 2000"?

Probably, but then it wouldn't match the other 75 in Category:Lists of number-one country songs in the United States and I don't fancy changing them all.....

Perhaps, but this is mildly concerning, is this the only country music chart in the United States? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming it's because the chart has had a bewildering variety of different names down the years and whoever created the articles wanted consistency in the titles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's possible, but we do cater for that in other articles such as the Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction which has changed quite a few times in its relatively short history, the article is moved and redirects are made from all the old names. But my chief concern remains, is this the only country music chart in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was in 2000, as far as I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'm cool with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - having looked at old issues of Billboard, which are available via Google Books, it seems there was in fact a second country songs chart back in 2000 (Top Country Singles Sales), although it seems to be super obscure. Nonetheless, for absolute clarity I have moved this article to a 100% accurate/clear title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support your diligence is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – It looks like Chris took care of TRM's issues, and I don't have anything to add. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by 2016 Indian film Neerja, which is one of the best films of 2016. As of now, the film has won 39 awards, which is not a less number for a film to win awards. Please kindly note that I didn't nominate the list for peer review, because I believe that the list is currently meeting at least 70% FL criteria. I will bring this percentage to 99, if issues are raised here. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same. Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would include this in the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Awards and prizes, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Lists.
• Is there any particular reason why you are not include the typical infobox used in these types of lists? (i.e. as seen in these two lists List of accolades received by Aadukalam and List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)?
• I would recommend adding citations for everything in the last paragraph of the lead.
• The title in Reference 12 should not be in all caps.

These are a few points that jump out for me when I read through the list once. You have done an excellent job with this, and I will provide a more complete review once my comments are addressed above. My review will primarily be focused on the lead and the prose just so you know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing the list and for your comments. I have addressed your first, third and fourth comments. As for your second comment, my answer is yes. Check the Featured lists in the "Recognized content" box in Portal:Bollywood. None of them has an infobox. So I copied their style. Waiting to hear your complete review. Mr. Smart LION 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I will leave the infobox question up to other reviewers as I think it is fine without one. I support this for promotion.f possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for supporting this list for promotion. And I looked at your current FLC. Though I've not fully gone through it, but it's looking great. All the best for your FLC. Mr. Smart LION 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Kapoor was fantastic in this fantastic thriller.

• Regardless of how Bollywood accolades are, an infobox is needed to give an overview of the awards received by the film. See similar lists at WP:FL. The WP:DISINFOBOX in Bollywood lists was a result of some early discussions as it was thought to have confused the reader instead of helping. However, I disagree now.
• "served as the stunt director for the film.[5][1]" => "..the film.[1][5]" (shift the references).
• Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan - WP:OVERLINKING.
• "As of 15 July 2017, the film has won 39 awards" - I would cut the as of part since it is unlikely the film will receive more (competitive) awards in the future.
• "The film won two awards: Best Feature Film in Hindi and a Special Jury Award for Kapoor—at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards" would better work as "the film won two awards at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards—Best Feature Film in Hindi and Special Jury Award for Kapoor".
• "At the 62nd Filmfare Awards ceremony" - cut ceremony to avoid repetition.
• " including Critics Award for Best film and Critics Award for Best Actress" => "including Best Film (Critics) and Best Actress (Critics)".
• "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y.
• Ref 8 and 13 - wikilink India Today in first instance and de-link in the next.
• Ref 9 and 10 - ditto.
• Ref 12 and 18 ^^
• Ref 19 is incomplete. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG:  Done I've resolved all the issues. Mr. Smart LION 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite

• Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan still not de-linked. In addition, there is now Indian that borders on overlinking.
• "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y. I did not ask you to remove this altogether, just some explanation was needed. Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?
• Ref 18 needs accessdate. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Done except the second one. As for the second one, I searched on Google, but I could not found the answer to "Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?". So I thought that it would be better to remove the sentence. Mr. Smart LION 05:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to Google. Just looking into the source for the answer would have done, but it does not seem like a relevant info anyway.

• Support FrB.TG (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Mr. Smart LION 07:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose primarily on the inclusion of non-notable awards. Infobox doesn't need bold font in the title but does need a full stop at the end of the caption. "The editing for the film was done" yuck "done", maybe "The film was edited by..." "the city of Mumbai" "the city of" is nugatory. Link ₹. I do not consider that awards which aren't even recognised by English language Wikipedia should be included in these lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Your first four issues have been solved. As for your fifth comment, I will recommend you to see the Sonam Kapoor FA. Mr. Smart LION 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid I don't really care what's in other articles, non-notable awards do not belong in a list of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Which awards are non-notable according to you so that I can remove them from this list. Mr. Smart LION 04:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] The ones which Wikipedia doesn't consider notable enough to have an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man:  Done Mr. Smart LION 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Link Saiwyn Quadras.
• How relevant is it to mention the stunt director's name here? I don't see any such mentions in previous FL's.
• "Set in Mumbai"? But the whole film takes place inside a plane which was in Karachi.
• The alt text is quite messy.
• Ref 5 is missing the authors name.
• These links needs to be fixed.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher:  Done Mr. Smart LION 06:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you so much for spending your precious time in reviewing this list and also for supporting it for FL. Have a great day ahead! Mr. Smart LION 13:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made a couple small changes; source review passed. Promoting. --PresN 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is another list of listed buildings in the English county of Somerset. It follows the format of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and the more recently promoted Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it is comprehensive including images where possible, with brief information about each entry and links to its official listing documents.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Europe's oldest known engineered roadway, the Sweet Track." This is correct according to all the sources I can find apart from the Wikipedia article Sweet Track, which says the second oldest. Strange!

• There has been some debate about this since one was discovered in London in 2009 & other sources may not have been updated since. Although Sweet Track was built over the Post Track which would also pre-date it. I have tweaked the wording.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some churches such as Church of St Mary the Virgin are shown as Parish Church, others such as Church of St Michael, Enmore as Anglican Church, and Church of St Michael and All Angels, Rowberrow as church, but the ones I have checked all seem to have the same status, so why the different description?

• The original list was generated by a semi-automated dat download from English Heritage (now Historic England) during set up for Wiki Loves Monuments & these descriptions were included in that process. I have now standardised on "Church".— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be better to correct excessively vague HE titles, e.g. "No 10 and attached railings" to "10 King Square and attached railings", especially as other titles are shown as e.g. "8 and 9 King Square", and this is obviously carelessness by some people writing entries. However, I realise that may go against your practice in other FL lists.

• I have tweaked these as suggested.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A ten figure grid reference, accurate to the metre, may be helpful for a cross but it seems too exact for buildings.

• I have shortened the grid refs & lat & long entries, but display options seem to be set by the template.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A first rate article. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent list, as always. Just a few thoughts you may consider to make it even better.

• Ref 1. Why not go to the "horse's mouth" and use Historic England's own site rather than that of Manchester City Council? It's at [10]

• Thanks - I don't think that was available (or I didn't find it) when I started these lists). I have also changed it on the other Somerset LB lists.— Rod ^talk 13:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 10 and 11. Why not use the NHLE reference rather than British Listed Buildings (same reasoning)?

• I thought I always used NHLE in preference to "British Listed Buildings" but must have copy & pasted these without noticing - now changed.— Rod ^talk 13:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 4–6, 12 (maybe more) Why not use the NHLE template for these as well. This will give consistency to your referencing (which I thought was a requirement for a FL).

• I've tried to do this (let me know if I have missed any) - I have been nervous about using too many templates as this can cause problems with large lists (some of the Somerset ones are extremely large), most are generated automatically from the template "EH listed building row" but hopefully now consistent.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overlinking of "Historic England" It needs to be linked only on the first occurrence. After that it can be blocked by adding "|fewer-links=yes" at the end of the template on each occurrence. This will much reduce the unnecessary blue-linking.

• I have tried adding "|fewer-links=yes" I didn't know about this "switch" on the template.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – You have to really pick nits to find things wrong with this list, but I had one question: was the publishing date in reference 3 meant to be italicized? Also, as an extension of one of TRM's comments, there are some date ranges in the Completed column that need dashes. If you need help with this one, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Looking forward to supporting this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I've fixed the italicised date. Any help with dashes appreciated - as I said above I have never understood this one.— Rod ^talk 21:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Fixed the dashes myself. That had to be done manually because the script TRM refers to didn't catch these hyphens (maybe because they were in a template?). Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked intensely to bring the list to its current state, and I think my efforts deserve to be fruitful. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• In the main image, I would revise the caption to include where it was taken.

The image caption at Commons reads, "Actress and TeachAIDS ambassador, Anushka Shetty, behind-the-scenes in Hyderabad, India before her live telecast at the 2013 Tech Awards Gala in Santa Clara, California". So could I write, "Anushka Shetty in Hyderabad, 2013"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be appropriate to me; it would just be helpful for the reader to know where the picture was taken so identifying the city is good enough for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide ALT text for the main image.

Done: See what it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the phrase (the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which became a major commercial success,), you will need a citation to support the "major commercial success" claim.

There's this source which says "Anushka debut film was Super but she got recognition and fame with Vikramarkudu". So could I rephrase it to something like, The following year, she had four releases, the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which helped her gain recognition? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would seem fine to me; you could have kept the original sentence if you just added a source supporting that the film was commercially successful through. I am fine with either way you choose to approach this however. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence (In 2008 she appeared in six films, including Okka Magaadu, Swagatam and Souryam.), put a comma between "2008" and "she".

Done as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add the release years for Yennai Arindhaal and Baahubali: The Beginning and Rudhramadevi and Size Zero.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the phrase (The following year she appeared in), put a comma between "year" and "she".

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link all instance of "cameo appearance" in the table. Since it is sortable, the first instance of the term may change. Same comments applies for "special appearance".

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Aoba47. All except one have been resolved. Would it be fine to link "Bilingual film" in each cell to "Multiple-language version"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. I have responded to your comments above, and I think that linking "Bilingual film" to "Multiple-language version" would be appropriate in this case. Please ping me when you are done addressing my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, your comments have been addressed. Please tell me if there is anything else I can do. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me; you have done a wonderful job with this. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: IMO the lead is somewhat long although I don't think its a hindrance in passing the FLC. Great work on this list Kailash29792.Krish | Talk 12:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'll be travelling till 14 September. I hope someone will take care of the FLC in my absence. Ssven2, I hope I'm not putting pressure on you. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think Anne Hathaway is a multi-talented actress and one of the most beautiful women I have seen. Her filmography is filled with solid box office hits and acclaimed gems, a rare combination. I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• "The role established her as a teen idol". Provide a source for the statement.
• The next sentence is also unsourced.
• Alt text is missing.
• Provide an mdash or 'TBA' in the table for Serenity.
• Ref for Get Smart's Bruce and Lloyd: Out of Control is missing.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Done.Krish | Talk 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• In this sentence (This was followed by a string of family-oriented films, including Nicholas Nickleby (2002) and Ella Enchanted (2004), all of which were unsuccessful), I would specify that you mean “financially unsuccessful”.
• For (a recovering alcoholic in Rachel Getting Married (2008).[1][2]The role garnered several accolades), there needs to be a space between the references and “The”.
• Specify the year in which Love & Other Drugs was released.
• In the sentence (During this time, she also starred in a number of box-office hits such as Get Smart (2008), Bride Wars (2009) and Valentine's Day (2010).), I am not sure the transition “During this time” works in this context. You include two films, which were released before the subjects of the previous sentences (i.e. Alice in Wonderland, Love & Other Drugs, and the Simpsons). I would change the transition to something else.

I don't think anything is wrong with the transition. I can't just list all those seven/eight films to show that they all were hits. But if you have another way, Go ahead change it. I don't know how it can be done another way.Krish | Talk 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (she starred as a NASA scientist in Nolan's $675 million grossing science fiction film), is it really necessary to mention how much the film made? I understand the inclusion for the billion dollar making films as that is a rather large feat, but why do you include the number here? I do not think it is necessary.
• Please add the year in which she performed in Grounded.
• I am not sure of the placement of the year in parenthesis behind Twelfth Night as the play was obviously not released in that year. I would move it to the following placement in the sentence (in The Public Theater’s 2009 production of Twelfth Night).
• This is more of a clarification question, but do you think that the theatre information should be more integrated into the lead rather than as it is own separate paragraph at the end? I am not against the structure, but I was just curious about the decision behind it.
• In the “Film” table, do you think that you should link “voice” to Voice acting?
• The lead does not make reference to the following films: The Intern, Alice Through the Looking Glass, and Colossal. I would image that these films should be present in the lead in some way.
• For 83rd Academy Awards in the “Television” chart, should you make a note that she was co-host alongside James Franco?
• Is there a reason for not including The Woman in White and Children and Art in the lead?
• I do not think the “Notes” column in the “Stage” table is necessary as you do not have anything in that column.
• The White Queen should be linked in the “Films” table.
• Cameo appearance for Don Peyote in the “Films” table needs to be linked.

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. All of my comments pertain to prose, and I will leave anything dealing with source use and reliability to the person who conducts the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – One of the comments hadn't been resolved when I went back to check the article fixes, but for the sake of expediency I fixed the remaining issue myself. The changes that were made look good, and I think this meets the criteria now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• Hathaway's breakthrough role came with the role of Mia Thermopolis in the successful Disney comedy The Princess Diaries (2001). The role established her as a teen idol and she later reprised the role in its sequel. While the phrasing is fine, you may want to write ...she later reprised the role in its sequel, Royal Engagement. to avoid violating WP:EASTEREGG.
• In 2005, she voiced the lead character in the highly successful animated film Hoodwinked! Add a full-stop here, since the "!" is of the film's title, and not an independent punctuation.
• Hathaway went on to voice Jewel in Rio (2011) and its sequel Rio 2 (2014). Mention Jewel's species, and the fact that Rio was an animated film.
• As mentioned by User:Aoba47 at Trisha filmography's FLC, "make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use."

I don't think it is mandatory to link the references on every occurrence. It is a choice. And, yes he once asked me too to do that.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "stage" table, decapitalise "pilot" since it is not a proper noun.
• Some tables read "Ref(s)", one reads "Ref." Please be consistent.
• In those roles where she plays herself, you may want to just replace "Herself" in the tables with the actress' name for sortability. Otherwise, you may retain "Herself" but link to "Anne Hathaway". Ask others which is fine.

I am sure someone will object to this.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Optionally, please verify whether the lead can mention Hathaway made her voice acting debut in 2003 with the English-dub of the Japanese animated film The Cat Returns, using this source. I'm not sure if it passes WP:RS, but I don't want readers thinking The Cat Returns is an English-only film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not even noteworthy in her career or in general. I am sure dubbed films are not mentioned in the lead.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Done.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My comments have been addressed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this when browsing for potential FLCs, and it had about two lines of prose and a few refs, and a table. So I expanded it out considerably, and hope that it now matches the community's expectations of what a featured list should be like. As ever I will cover all comments here as soon as practicable. Yes, I have a nom and a co-nom running, but the former has two supports and the latter one, and neither are anything like this one, so there should be no read-across problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The award is part of the Gran Galà del Calcio (former Oscar del Calcio) awards event" - not very clear. Are these two different names for the same event? Two different events? When did the name change? Also, this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
• "Only two non-Italians have won the award, Sven-Göran Eriksson became the first in 2000, while José Mourinho was the first foreign coach ever to win the award twice." - first comma should probably be a semi-colon, or even a sentence break. Mourinho bit does not need the word "ever"
• "yet lost Champions League Final to "perennial German underdogs"" => "but lost the....."
• Internazionale in the tables but Inter in the History section?
• In the "By nationality" section, the Special One's name is spelt incorrectly

Think that's it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude all address I hope, thanks for your interest and comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you need to mention the awards ceremony in the main body of the article as well as the lead............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure. The "main body" is the history of the winners. There's not much more to add beyond the lead. It would look odd to suddenly start talking about the awards ceremony there, don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried crowbarring it in, what thinketh you? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, happy to support now. I was just going on the rule/policy/guideline that nothing should be in the lead that isn't also in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good with all the expansion. (I am also a regular editor of the page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose looks all good..found a typo but just corrected it myself..only issue (and a nondealbreaker really) is I did wonder whether it was worth including any rationales for when a coach won the award whose team did not win the title (eg Ancelotti in 00-01) - just a sentence here or there..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, thanks for your comments (and correction). I've tried to objectively include why the coach may have been selected (e.g. Coppa Italia wins, Champions League etc), but the award has no citation attached so any claimed rationale would be OR. In Ancelotti's case, it's an odd one. Italian clubs were terrible in the Champion's League that season, and while Roma won Serie A, they were only mediocre in the the UEFA Cup, so I guess on balance, Ancelotti's second place combined with limited progress in the CL put him marginally ahead of Capello. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I figured that was the case (that any real speculation of why would be OR as the judges wouldn't be saying..), as it would be in various "player of the year" awards I know about here in Oz, hence why said nondealbreaker...but in an ideal world. Anyway, it is a nice read and has come out fine with nothing to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Essex and Cambridgeshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Northamptonshire" should be in blue, not in bold.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't "Area" be replaced with the following code instead of repeating the units in every cell? "Area<br />{{nowrap|<small>[[Hectare|ha]] ([[acre]]s)</small>}}"

• I think it is more convenient for readers to see the units when looking at each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Site names are in bold and centered. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.

• Fixed. (I must have edited with Word, which messes up the formatting). Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "B" and "G" lack {{tooltip}}. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Area" and "Location" lack notes; "Map" and "Citation" have different notes. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed first one, fixed Esses for second. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• {{commons category}} is at the bottom. Not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• {{GeoGroup}} is near the "Sites" heading. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could use a "See also" link for Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not saying this list should be updated to look like the previous ones – you might as well update the previous lists, just be consistent. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Sandvich18. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) If you prefer having units in cells, then may I suggest adding style="width:75px;" to the first cell in the "Area" column and |disp=br() to each {{convert}} in the table? It would make that column look less busy. I took the liberty of implementing that change myself to show you what I mean, feel free to revert it if you don't like it, of course. I also think expressing coordinates in DMS instead of decimal would look better. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes to the area column. It looks much better. I prefer not to change to DMS. Decimal looks OK to me and it would be a lot of work to change all the lists to DMS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'd also suggest using "{{As of|2017|07}}" in place of "As of July 2017". Other than that, I think the list looks great and I support this nomination. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'As of' template added. Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list which has already had most of the minor tweaks resolved, so I don't have much to add:

• In the lead does England need to be wikilinked? (I thought linking of common terms was discouraged)

• Delinked. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be worth wikilinking fen as some readers may not familiar with the term (eg in description of Aldwincle Marsh)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know we have debated definitions (and wikilinking) of ancient woodland in the past but now we have "secondary woodland" which could be wikilinked to Secondary forest (eg in description of Ashton Wold)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In Alder Wood and Meadow we see "a surviving fragment of the Royal Forest of Rockingham" by the time we get to Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorn's Woods and Wakerley Spinney we have "remnants of the ancient Royal Forest of Rockingham" and at Geddington Chase, Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods and Short Wood "medieval Royal Forest of Rockingham." - would it be worth making these consistent? Is it ancient or medieval?

• I followed the source in each case, but William the Conqueror introduced Royal Forests, so they are medieval and I have corrected.

• I know ages of geological deposits are approximate but we have the Rutland Formation and up to nearly the top of the White Limestone Formation, "169 to 166 million years ago" (Cranford St John) & "168 to 166 million years ago" (Finedon Top Lodge Quarry). At Roade Cutting we see White Limestone Formation between 168.3 and 167.1 million years ago. Have we got a date for Blisworth Clay (Thrapston Station Quarry)

• The International Commission on Stratigraphy says 168.3±1.3 to 166.1±1.2, so I have settled on 168 to 166. The British Geological Survey says Blisworth Clay is Bathonian, and Thrapston is the type site, so I have amended accordingly.

• Many of the references to citation sheets etc are archived but some are not - any particular reason? I now use the IA bot form to archive them all.

• Someone else must have archived some citations as I rarely archive, but I have tried running your bot. I have never used bots before and I got two failures with error messages but the third time it worked fine.

I can't see any other issues with meeting the criteria at present.— Rod ^talk 13:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for addressing these minor issues. I think it now meets the criteria so I can support the nomination.— Rod ^talk 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

• Consider adding alt text to File:River Nene in Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow 2.jpg ("|alt=as caption" would be sufficient.)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes "countiesinengland.com" a reliable source?

• It is the only source I could find for uncontroversial information. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead, and that source, omit Rutland from the list of counties that it borders. (It isn't inaccurate, it just says "borders 8 counties including...", and only lists 7 of the 8.) This might work for the bordering counties, this for boroughs and councils and this possibly for the "East Midlands". Harrias ^talk 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - with I think a better source for East Midlands. Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Put a full-stop at the end of ref #43 for consistency.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Checks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Harrias ^talk 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work, thanks for the quick responses – images and sources are all okay. Harrias ^talk 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]