Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2014

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 19:03, 28 September 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jasmine was a particular highlight of last year primarily for Cate Blanchett's performance in the film. Here is the accolades list for it, as always, I welcome all the helpful suggestions and comments for improvements. Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Table: The bottom note does not point to anything. You should either add {{ref|1|[I]}} to the Ceremony header or replace the note reference with a asterisk.

• References: You should strongly consider archiving your references in order to prevent WP:LINKROT. There are many services you can use, I personally prefer WebCite. Its very simple and only takes minutes.

Overall its a very good list; well organized table, well referenced, and the lead does a good job summarizing the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: Thanks for your comments. I've added a note to the date of ceremony column and archived all the references. Cowlibob (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good job!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the standards! --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for your comments. I've fixed all the issues you highlighted I think. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 01:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a big fan of rowspans as there are access issues with them (see Avoiding rowspan/colspan), but I'm not sure that is an enforceable criteria.
• Be consistent in your spacings in refs: some have " ' and some have "' (compare FNs 11 and 14, but there are others)
• Be consistent in providing publisher details: you do for some, but there are a lot of gaps

That's it from me: very slender fare for a well put together list. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the spacing and added publishers wherever possible. I don't know if it helps that the rows return after the column is sorted. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well done once again Cowlibob (talk · contribs), though I am not sure if describing the film as a "comedy-drama" is apt. I think it has been generally described as a drama. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: It's not a pure comedy but I've seen it described as a black comedy which I've changed in the lead as well. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks consistent with all the other film accolade lists that are featured articles.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2014 (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) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (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 19:45, 28 September 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Speech is the most successful independent British film, a critical and box office success. It was well-received enough to win a pile of critical riches that were poured forth onto the cast and crew alike. It's had a recent work over, and should now be FL standard. All comments and criticisms are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reordered the lead a bit. One minor thing I would add is an introductory sentence before the 83rd academy awards which highlights that although the film earned recognition in a variety of categories, certain aspects of the film earned the most recognition in terms of accolades e.g Firth, Hooper, Rush and Carter. In regards to Metacritic, I've seen that bit of MOS most of the time interpreted as only news/magazine sources should be italicised so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else brought it up but it's so minor. Anyway, great list which is well written and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Cowlibob. I've seen Metacritic italicised and not italicised all over the place, and it's a shame there's no concrete decision made somewhere to make the MoS more clear on this! Thanks again for your time and effort here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support quality list, decent references, not seeing glaring omissions, all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, RM. As always, your comments are always great to have – and always lead to great improvements. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Can't fault a thing on this excellent list! Cassianto^talk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Cass. Your time and effort are, as always, much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The title is a touch unexpected (I might have gone for "Awards" rather than "Accolades") but that's of no consequence. This is a thorough and impressive piece of work, fully meeting the FL criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks indeed for your time and thoughts here. As always it is very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (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) 19:50, 28 September 2014 (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 SchroCat 14:35, 28 September 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because SoapFan12 and I have worked on the list more than a year ago to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Daytime Emmy Award acting list were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Matthew McConaughey is the most recent winner in this category for his role in Dallas Buyers Club. The sentence should be shifted to the end of the lead as we follow chronology to these kinds of lists. I have no other thing to say --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG:: Done: I moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph.

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – I really like the list after reading through it. However, I do see one area that could be improved: the multiple wins and nominations lists, which are just bullet-point lists with minimal formatting. A simple two- or three-column table would look nicer in each case, in my view. Also, the See also section contains several links that are in one of the templates at the bottom of the page; they probably don't need to be duplicated and make the section long. Finally, the bibliography should probably be alphabetized, which won't take much work with only two books there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Fixed: I have alphabetized the bibliography by author's surname and eliminated duplicated Oscar links. Regarding the multiple winners and nominees section, however, I'm not sure what to do. I attempted to do a similar table as the one featured here, but other Wikipedians complained that it was too long. How can I fix the problem?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You could change the emphasis of the latter grouping to be about actors with the most noms, and pick a minimum number of noms required for inclusion that will help control the size. If you limit a table to actors with at least four or five noms, the table's size should be much more managable than if you try to put all of the actors currently listed in a table. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Done: I merged the multiple awards/nominations into one section. For the nominations, I put the limit to four to avoid a long column. Thanks for your help!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great list, good job. Cowlibob (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - List looks great ! Neonblak ^talk - 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nice to see a different type of great list for a change.--Jagarin 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent work!! Just one minor point: For the images of the actors on the right, I see some of the captions are accompanied by the year(s) in which they won, while some are not. For example, it doesn't state the years in which Sean Penn and Daniel Day Lewis won. I suggest the years are mentioned for all of them. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Added missing years in the thumbnail captions to Brando, Hoffman, Brody, Penn, and Day-Lewis.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (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 SchroCat 10:51, 28 September 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Walsh, the leading Test wicket-taker for the West Indies, took 23 fifers in international cricket. This list of his fifers is now, I think, according to the FLC criteria. Comments/suggestion from anyone will be much appreciated. Cheers! --Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets the standards —Vensatry _(ping) 04:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok Support - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Another good list. Had a look at this list earlier in the month and fixed a few things and it's only improved since then. The alt text is currently inappropriate as per WP:ALT which says you shouldn't mention clothing unless the article is about fashion. It should also contain the name of the person in the picture. Cowlibob (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob: fixed alt text, thanks a lot! I'll review your list ASAP. Khadar Khani (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets FLC criteria. Cowlibob (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets the criteria, well-sourced, well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all of you for reviews and supports, much appreciated! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 00:19, 24 September 2014 [7].

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a good example of her career, with proper lists and everything referenced appropriately. It's my first featured nomination, be gentle ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite close to being featured quality :). Just need to get rid of one New York Post ref. Also, if not including number of movies, shows, and plays she appeared in, may as well say she appeared in "many films, television shows, and plays" or say she had "an extensive career in films, television shows, and plays". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blast! I thought I got rid of that NY Post ref. I'm on it! And I like the second one, so I'll go with that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, just minor fixes, and include her roles for all the "stage" roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to look them up but some of her roles were nameless roles. Should I leave them blank? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If nameless, Lady Lotus, just describe the type of character (i.e. office secretary, opera singer, nun, bartender, dancer) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok so I dug a little deeper and got all the names but one. And all I can find was she was a shy 17-year old, it was speaking part, but no name. I don't want to say what she is if I dont' know. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did some searching myself, but found no names for her character either on Franlin Street. Before anything else, tell me this: what was this shy girl like? A pedestrian, student, townsperson, you name it: some more detail on her character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well she was 17 so I'm guessing a student but I'm not sure. Not a whole lot of sources talked about her character just that is was her stage debut at 18. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm..... just say "unnamed teenager" or something..... as long as there are no blank fields for roles (please also take a look at A Star for Two), I support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding {n/a} to it? That way it's not blank...? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me if you can't find the name of a role or even a description of her character, good work :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very close to featured quality. just a few minor points:

• Since the release years for Applause and Woman of the Year are already stated, I don't think the years should be repeated for her Tony Wins for those plays.  Done
• The Tree of Hands links to the novel, not the film.  Done
• Ref no. 30 is not centered in the ref. column, like the others.  Done
• Are her roles in A Star for Two and Franklin Street unknown? If so, it would be good to state that. (I see the previous reviewer has also commented on this)  Done; put "Unknown" for A Star for Two; and "Unnamed teenager" for Franklin Street.
• Playbill is a magazine, right? So it should be in italics in the reference section.  Done -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – A peer reviewer, I was happy with the responses there and I feel the article has only grown in quality since. Nice job! Cassianto^talk 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All good now. Great job. Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate's comment - I'm not too sure on the acceptability of some of these images. Promotional stills, though rarely copyrighted, were sometimes still given notices. Short of actually being able to see the rear of the page (and thus check for notices) we can't be sure either way. I'm putting this on hold until all of the images can be thoroughly vetted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: do you know which images of Bacall in commons are already vetted and can be used appropriately? I would hate to see this put on hold if I can easily just swap out images. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We just need what, at FAC, is called an image review. I'd generally be able to do it, but RL is fairly busy right now. I can tell you, however, that We hope is really good at this, and could probably help you find more than you need. (BTW, the main image here is an example of the type I'm concerned of; we lost an FP of Katherine Hepburn because it didn't have the back). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all sure about the headshot as there's no information about when it was done nor where it came from. I can try to find a copy of it if possible and we might be able to fill in the blanks. I'll take a hard look through Commons at the Bacall photos today and nominate any that are questionable for deletion review there. The rest look exactly like what they are, screenshots from movie trailers, and shouldn't be a problem. I can also have a look through various places for more photos of her that might work and upload them at Commons. We hope (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, We hope. I'm concerned about blanket rationales for trailers though, so if someone who's not on a maximum 80kb/s line (shared by three laptops) can verify those... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working my way through the trailers now. IMDB To Have and Have Not. Unfortunately for File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg, there's a copyright notice at 2:33 of the 2:47 trailer. page 165 shows the film was renewed. We hope (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dark passage trailer bacall.JPG. IMDB-copyright notice at 2:06 of 2:11 trailer. Copyright of film renewed page 159. We hope (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question though: are these renewals for the trailers, or the movies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go back into the Den of the Deep and haul out the original registrations. Meantime-

File:Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer 1.jpg IMDB. There's no notice on the trailer at IMDB, but the trailer there is is black and white; this screenshot and the others taken from the film are all in color. The film itself was renewed and colorized at some point. There was a situation like this with some Three Stooges shorts at Commmons. They were colorized and that case, Columbia let the non-colorized version lapse into PD while taking a new registration on the colorized ones. There, the older clips were PD but not the color ones. Since the trailer at IMDB is in b&w and not marked, could the screenshots be replaced with ones from the PD b&w trailer? We hope (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Type of Work: Motion Picture
• Registration Number / Date: RE0000103015 / 1981-10-13
• Renewal registration for: LP0000003269 / 1953-11-04
• Title: How to marry a millionaire.
• Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH)

TCM has another trailer-this one in color-they say is the original. I viewed that one also and saw no copyright notations on it either. We hope (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For To Have and Have Not page 13. Copyright L 13056 on January 20, 1945-so it appears this wasn't filed until after the film had premiered. We hope (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Dark Passage page 48 Copyright LP1232 on September 27, 1947. And it looks like this went public before it was filed also. We hope (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does that mean for the images you have already gone over? Which ones are ok to use? Does that mean that File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg needs to be removed? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to confirm that the two earlier films were available to the public before they were copyrighted. October 12, 1944. To Have and Have Not showing at a New York Theater. September 25, 1947 Dark Passage showing at a Connecticut theater 2 days before copyright was filed. I'd say this means they're in the public domain because we have proof that the film was "published" before copyright was filed. We hope (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent! Thank you so much. Only possible issue is the publicity shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note all of this on the Commons files so nobody "trips" over what we discovered. Can do the remaining movie trailer there also because I watched that too and no copyright notice. If you think you can do something with this, I checked the renewals for 1974 and 1975--not renewed. Lantern has some copies of the magazine, but unfortunately not (yet) including 1947. All the copies I found of the publicity photo didn't have any information about where the photo came from or when. We hope (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant. What do you think, Lady Lotus? Colour magazine cover? One of the other images of Becall? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am now asking about what the screenshot licenses should be changed to. I think it's an "improper notice" tag. Will be changing them and adding the links re: original registration and news clippings when I find out about the licensing. We hope (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use whatever images I am able to use, it's hard to not like a photo a Bacall lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent. Just work it in, and we're pretty much golden except for that one trailer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I start earning my money. :) The How to Marry a Millionaire trailer was able to be seen at TCM (link above) and there's no copyright message. The one in black and white at IMDB has none either. Both have some different material in them; no idea why there's a b&w and color one. Have included the TCM link to all screen shots from "Millionaire", but have not yet heard what the licenses for the 2 older ones should be changed to. We hope (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the pre-1976 law, copyright began upon publication, provided that the appropriate notice was included. A work that was not published could be registered and that would also begin the copyright. Although there were certain benefits to registration, it was not required for initial copyright (the first 28 years), so the fact that the registrations in this case were after publication is irrelevant. see Copyright Basics, page 6 . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. So far, I can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot with one published in an old movie magazine and will look for one for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bogart and Bacall To Have and Have Not.jpg This can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot. We hope (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]

File:Bacall and Bogart Dark Passage.jpg This can be used for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done thank you so much! what about the image from "Millionaire", was that ok? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the trailer and there's no copyright marks. Last night, I added the link where it can be viewed to all screenshots from the film, so that should be good to go. We hope (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See if you like either of these File:Lauren Bacall Gary Cooper Bright Leaf.jpg or File:Lauren Bacall 1945.jpg to replace the publicity photo. I had no luck finding out where it came from or when. We hope (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ew I love the 1945 one, I just now replaced it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about File:Lauren Bacall - YankArmyWeekly detail.jpg ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's from an US Army publication--all those who produced the magazine were servicemen, so the license is right, and the AFRS is OK also because that was a US government entity. I think you're good to go! :) Nice that someone's going to be happy because I have to send all those older screenshots to deletion review and that's probably going to make some people unhappy. We hope (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I greatly appreciate all your help! And they'll just have to be unhappy, that's what happens when you upload something with a bad license. Thank you again :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, let's promote this! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (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 SchroCat 10:22, 22 September 2014 [10].

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last seven months. It is extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies. Recommendations made during the peer review regarding the format have been incorporated and it has been thoroughly fact-checked. In the past, comments have been made about tendentious editing, ownership, and vandalism of Jimi Hendrix articles. However, they now seem to be stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and several others are nominated as GAs. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question, would the Jimi Hendrix Interview Album count as a release??Coal town guy (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No, it is not within the timeframe of this discography, because it was released posthumously. Long(er) answer: By definition, a discography is "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings". If the release doesn't include music, it usually isn't included. Biographers McDermott (1992), Roby (2002), and Shadwick (2002) don't list interview albums in their Hendrix discographies. Shapiro (1990) lists two under "Miscellaneous"—a BBC transcription LP (1976) and Jimi Hendrix: The Interview album (Rhino 1980s). Portions of interviews are included in the film See My Music Talking (1968) and several posthumous videos, along with musical performances. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wow, you did a great job on this one, I don't see any problems with it. It always feels a bit weird for me to just support without having any comments that have to be resolved, but that is the case here. Though I will ask you, why is a filmography included on this page, as it regards Hendrix' discography?--Music26/11 15:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the accepted FL discography practice (see David Bowie discography, Led Zeppelin discography, Nirvana discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, The White Stripes discography, etc), unless there is enough for a separate videography (Madonna videography, Beyoncé videography, etc.). The proposed style guide doesn't address videos; under "What should not be included" it lists "Non-musical releases or works." Hendrix's appearances in the films are essentially limited to musical performances and are listed along with his published discographies. Since these predate videos, the term "Filmography" was used. Maybe rename it "Music performances in films" or similar? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that should be better, to avoid confusion with acting appearances.--Music26/11 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. Thanks for bringing it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport — This looks good and thorough, but I do have one query: I notice that you give two sources for the UK and US peak chart positions, however under the "other" peak positions, none of the footnotes you give has actually been referenced. I can't see that they are explicitly sourced elsewhere in the article. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The references for the "Other" charts were listed in a subsection "Other charts" immediately below "Citations" and above "References".[11] However, I can see how they would be missed, so they are now in "Citations" (by using inline cites for the "Other" columns). Hope this makes it clearer without overburdening the citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the matter. The article seems very thorough and well referenced throughout - great work. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 06:11, 21 September 2014 [12].

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... The nominated list briefly discusses U.S. state coats of arms, distinctions between arms and seals, and some of the notable people involved with design (and some of the mistakes that were made). The authority and regulation of arms/seals are described. The illustrative center-point of the nomination are the restored full color illustrations from State Arms of the Union, by Henry Mitchell, published by Louis Prang in 1876. Sources indicate that only 20 copies of this book (of less than 10 pages) are reported to exist in libraries across the United States. The illustrations are matched with Bureau of Engraving and Printing proofs of the State arms. Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed the article's title has been changed; I would suggest just Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states, as the article is about the coats of arms in general, not just those specifically in the book.
• Heraldic, coat, and jousting in the first section should be lowercase, though most of that paragraph isn't exactly relevant. Reywas92^Talk 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92- I've edited the paragraph to remove less relevant information (and correct the caps issues). I am concerned that removing the date from the title would create a scope far broader than intended. Thanks for your comments. They are, as always, appreciated.-Godot13 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alrightly then, and I've already done my copyediting. Support. Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks Reywas92!-Godot13 (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted comments. I don't spend much time at FLC so if anything is way off base just say so.

• Given both the length of the article, I would suggest expanding the lead
• The last sentence of Arms versus seal is not a complete sentence - corrected
• First sentence of design should not have mid-sentence caps, those aren't proper nouns in this context. There are several other instances of inappropriate capitalization - corrected, along with several others
• Why use DMY for a US topic? MDY is more common in the US - I agree, however I hope that this list will be part of a Featured Topic in the near future. Three other FLs I have written/contributed to (that would be in the same proposed topic) are all in the DMY format. Trying to be consistent.--Godot13 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
• Generally I think a bit more copyediting is in order - the prose could flow better and be clearer at times. The Instances... section in particular needs some massaging. See also "a similar copy of this book was described by the Antiquarian Booksellers Association described" and other issues
• Why do you have complete legal citations inline when all other citations are footnoted? - corrected
• Suggest using {{convert}} to translate measurements - done
• "20 copies exist in all libraries across the United States" - any non-US?
• Don't include links in See also that were already included in the article. - corrected Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria for the comments, I will work on it over the next few days. Could you clarify two things please: "Given both the length of the article," was there something else also? You suggest more copyediting in a particular section, but don't mention which... Thanks again.-Godot13 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to mention the amount of "readable prose" (which differs from byte count), but then noticed that this article has proportionately more readable prose than most lists I see. The section in question is Instances of design inaccuracies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edits in progress.--Godot13 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Nikkimaria- I think I've addressed most of your comments in italics above. I could not find any comprehensive library tools for searching outside the US so I'm not sure about that figure. I've done some copyediting and rewriting. I added two or three sentences to the lead (not enough?) If there are more specifics, or I haven't been clear above, please let me know. Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey Godot, I wonder if you could expand the second para of the lead a bit more? As to non-US holdings...I'm kind of torn. I realize that finding such holdings can be quite difficult; however, since Worldcat does show at least one non-US holding, I don't think we can just ignore the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Nikkimaria- I tweaked the lead a bit, and removed the Worldcat fact/ref. I feel less confidant making statements about the entire world's library system and their holdings... And honestly, I don't even know what "20 copies" means (i.e., where does that rank in terms of scarce, rare, extremely rare, etc.)--Godot13 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, that seems reasonable. The lead looks better now, thanks for your work on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my work is film related, but from what I could tell everything was very nicely sourced, the only things that I would mention is that maybe the images be the same size for consistency. One table's images are 125px and another table is 200px. Also, the names from the sentence "A few of those involved in the design of state arms and seals include (but is not limited to):" I would narrow down some of the names just so it doesn't borderline WP:LISTCRUFT. And then add alt text to File:Great Seal of Ohio actual view.jpg, after that, I support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady Lotus-I changed the image size as much as possible to be a uniform 200px, but I had to alter the Colonial Rhode Island size a bit so as not to throw off the spacing of the table. I re-enlarged the lead image only because at 220px the title was not clearly visible (there is some discretion over image size). Added the alt text, and reduced the list of state seal/arms contributors to the most historically notable. I hope these changes meet with your approval. Thank you again for reviewing this list.--Godot13 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks very nice, I just have one concern: If this is a US-related topic, why is the article using Day-Month-Year format when US standards are Month-Day-Year? I see Nikkimaria also asked this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Snuggums- Thanks for taking a look. I understand the concern and I tried to address it above in my response above. I have written/re-written three featured lists on U.S. currency and they each use the DMY format. It has always been my intention to create a featured topic on U.S. Banknotes. While not directly about currency, this list does include (for comparison) the engraved arms found on the reverse of the first three series of U.S. National Bank Notes. I would like to include it in the featured topic in the future and it is strongly encouraged that the formatting be consistent throughout. I am not saying that I absolutely opposed to changing this, but I fear it will create issues down the road. I hope that answers your question. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. In that case, I support the nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snuggums- You made my day, thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus for promotion has been reached. I did a little tweaking; please check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492-Tweaking seen and appreciated.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2014 (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 18:10, 15 September 2014 [13].

Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Former Australian captain, Richie Benaud, was one of the best cricket all-rounder of his time—the first to take 200 wickets and make 2,000 runs at Test level. He took 248 wickets in Test cricket, including five-wickets hauls on 16 different occasions. This list of the leg-spinner's fifers is constructed according to the FL criteria, so I'm nominating this here at FLC. Comments and suggestions appreciated, as always. Regards, —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support All good now. Cowlibob (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Made some minor changes, mainly to mirror the Bob Willis FL. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-written, very well-sourced list, excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 15 September 2014 (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 22:10, 15 September 2014 [14].

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is fully comprehensive and is ready for the gold star. I will appreciate any comments/suggestions in order to help improving this list. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great work! Holiday56 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of major concern here, and I trust that you will address my comments as needed, so I will give my support to this well-developed list. Nicely done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered moving the EP/mixtape sources to be next to the release dates instead of the titles? It makes it a little neater.

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Think about rounding the sales figure to the nearest thousand. Even though the bulk of sales in 2014 are digital and can be tallied directly, Nielsen SoundScan only tracks a sub-set of stores instead of all of them, so statistically this figure can't be 100% accurate (plus she's quite popular and it's a new album, so the figure will change frequently and that degree of accuracy is unlikely).

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What regions do the release dates refer to? In other discographies, next to the date is often listed (US), (AU), (UK), etc.

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following the release, Azalea aligned herself with rapper T.I.,". I'm not sure what align means here. Could you clarify the sentence a bit? --Prosperosity (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed "align". Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Support. Good luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 15 September 2014 (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 23:07, 1 September 2014 [15].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC), Bruce Campbell[reply]

Here it is, the largest film accolades list on Wikipedia. The list contains nearly 400 accolades. Bruce Campbell created and did much of the compiling of this list. To recognise that I've added him as a co-nominator. In terms of my contribution I've made the necessary adjustments to meet FLC. As always, look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• De link Washington D.C, MoS advises against linking big cities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent list, which covers a lot of award wins and nominations. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work! —Vensatry _(ping) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent list. Well done. Very well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (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) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (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 23:07, 1 September 2014 [16].

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria and comprehensively covers GTA V's many year-end accolades. I had a peer review open prior to this nomination that got no comments and went stale, so I can only assume that this list is good to go all the way. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also support, as a major contributor. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's close. My concerns are only stylistic/organizational:

• Keep consistent whether you link all instances of a publication or just the first one in the sources. For example, Metacritic uses the former style, and Destructoid the latter.
• I'm concerned about the allocation of information into the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the lead. Why is the Best Xbox Game accolade in the third paragraph but the Best British Game in the fifth? Why are some graphics/technical-related awards in the fifth and others in the fourth? I mean, maybe there's some hidden rationale I'm not seeing, but to me it looks kind of haphazard. Why not try an organizational style like this?

• First paragraph as normal: anticipation and release.
• Second paragraph as normal: reviews. (God, it sickens me to even look at this because I dislike Western open-world games and the general "we're so edgy and jackass-ish" GTA style so much, but whatever. Most people don't.)
• Third paragraph: All awards for the game in general, whether among all games or among all Xbox 360 or British games.
• Fourth paragraph: All awards for specific aspects of the product.

• "GameTrailers' Game of the Year Awards ... Top Three" - Ambiguous. Were they unable to decide beyond their three favorites, is it traditional that they only narrow it down to three, or did it only make it up to the top three before being knocked out? You might want to include a footnote to elaborate on which of the first two it is, or if it's the third, just say "3rd Place" or something. "Top Three" in that context makes me cringe like I do when my dad touts UIUC as having a "top 3" Computer Science program (he contrasts this with "just" having a Top 5 one) when it is unequivocally in third place.

Tezero (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay Tezero, I think I've taken care of everything. Take a look and bask in the glory of the world's greatest Western open world game. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like your attitude, so I'm oppo- Nah, just kidding. Support. Great job; maybe I should try this game sometime. (I actually have the GTA collection from Steam, although I've only played a couple hours each of GTAIV and San Andreas and haven't touched the rest. This one wasn't included.) Tezero (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As if you weren't hooked after San Andreas. Go pick up GTA V when it finds its way into Steam's discount bin and I very much doubt you'll regret it. Thanks for the support. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE:If it was same awards ceremony it's fine. Made a few fixes on ref formatting and changing some sources. Good Games most memorable moment according to the source was "Looking out over Los Santos as Trevor" not Friends reunited mission so please change that.

• I can now Support this list. Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good so far, here's my 2¢:

• "scheduled to be released in Q3/Q4 2014"..... just say late 2014 for simplicity sake
• "Two characters, Trevor Philips and Lamar Davis, received numerous nominations for Best Character, and Lamar won such an award from Giant Bomb"..... I think multiple nominations would be better, and try with Giant Bomb deeming Lamar the game's best character
• For some of the awards this didn't win, maybe include in the lead who the winners were.
• Metacritic should not be italicized (it's a website)
• IGN should not be italicized either (same reasons as Metacritic)
• Digital Spy should also not be italicized for previously stated reasons
• Publisher for The Daily Telegraph is Telegraph Media Group
• Game Revolution owner/publisher is Net Revolution
• Publisher for Wired (magazine) and Ars Technica is Advance Publications
• GameSpot and Giant Bomb are owned by CBS Interactive
• Publisher for The Escapist (magazine) is Defy Media
• Publisher for Entertainment Weekly and Time (magazine) is Time Inc.
• Publisher for Electronic Gaming Monthly is EGM Media
• I think you meant to link to Polygon (website), and publisher is Vox Media

Not much to do here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks SNUGGUMS, I've tended to everything here. Metacritic/IGN etc. are italicised by default because they're using the work= field. I'm not aware of any policy that says they can't be italicised, and I'd rather keep it consistent with other video game websites like Polygon and Edge, which are normally italicised. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. I now support this for FL. For the record, a way to un-italicize terms would be by putting them in "publisher field". For example: "publisher=Digital Spy. Hearst Corporation". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Spike VGX"? Shouldn't that be "the Spike VGX Awards"?
• Link Inside Gaming Awards, since you do in the table
• The Platinum PlayStation Award is given out by Sony entirely based on sales- it's like an album being certified Platinum, except it's only for PlayStation games. Your call if you want to mention that.
• "from Spike VGX" - well, you dropped the "the" this time, so be consistent
• When sorting by result, some of the places (fourth, fifth, eighth) are sorting below nominated
• Yeah... you can't just link the first instance of a term in a sortable table. You will need to link each instance of Spike VGX 2013, etc. - the one you linked may or may not be first in the table anymore once you sort on a column.
• You have the award for "GamesRadar's Game of the year 2013" down as "Game of the YEar"
• Sorting for recipient is messed up- the songs are sorting by ", and names are sorting by first name instead of last. To solve: put the songs down as {{sort|song name|"song name"}} and the people down as {{sortname|first|last|optional article title if different}}
• If a source doesn't have a specific author you leave the field out, rather than putting "GameSpot staff" or "Staff" etc. - it's taken as given.
• Snuggums missed one - GamesRadar is published by Future plc
• Slant Magazine, as an online magazine, should be italicized in references- stick in "work=".

--PresN 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN:, I think I've taken care of everything. Please take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --PresN 17:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob/PresN, I think I've tended to most of your points but I'll be back later to do more. Let me know if there's any problems with my changes insofar. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 18. Canada.com should be linked in the source
• 23./67. Same with Edge

Spotchecks:

• 9. good, but you could probably get as specific as $817 million
• 17. good
• 20. good
• 13. good

Tezero (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. Canada.com redirects to Postmedia News, which is already linked in the publisher field. Do you think it needs linking anyway? CR4ZE (t • c) 08:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tezero: I know you're probably busy playing the world's greatest sandbox game, but please look at my changes when you have a moment. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hadn't noticed that about Postmedia; that's fine. Continue to support; source review passes. And yes, I've had a great time with Terraria; thanks for asking! :D Tezero (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (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) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (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 23:12, 1 September 2014 [17].

Nominator(s): Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. The issues from DragonZero's peer review has been resolved. Thank you for your time and patience. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• • Hi there. I solved most of the issues! Also, I removed a line for "36 playable characters" cause I couldn't find an appropriate source. Cheers! (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    Thanks for your contribution!--222.82.228.174 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great work, Nightwolf! My comments have all been addressed. I hope you keep on writing these video game FLs! Nomader (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good job. My only remaining comment would be that I would have preferred if the template format was the one used in List of Mystery Dungeon video games, since the one you used puts more emphasis on which systems the games came out for even though most of them only came out for one, but that's well outside the scope of an FLC review since it's an aesthetic judgement and the one you used works just fine. Just something to consider if you make another list like this in the future. --PresN

Just chipping in here to say that when I put those templates in at the time the List was being based off List of One Piece video games and List of Harvest Moon video games. Both of which were fairly new Featured Lists at the time. The template you showed had only just recently been created and due to the focus of that template appearing to be on the release dates in different regions and with PAL being combined as one instead of separated into it's own regions (as seen in EU and AUS in the list with differing release dates), as a result I decided to stick with the ones currently in place. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a few small edits to the lead. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support this nomination given I was the nominator from the previous archive. Nightwolf you've done an amazing job updating the article with new games, fixing all the templates and bringing the article up to the current guidelines and cleaning up the references. I'm so happy to finally see this list looking like it'll reach featured status, it was really disheartening to get only one support back then, and since, life has happened. I have two points of recommendation though, it may be worth mentioning that certain online surfaces have been discontinued, such as in the Heat the Soul games and those that require the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, which was discontinued earlier this year (I know all Pokemon games were affected, I assume Bleach was the same) I'd do this in the same line as the online mobility was announced something along the line of "Multiplayer functionality was available, however as of <date> have been discontinued.". I also feel that any pre-order purchase goods should be mentioned if a reference can be found. I noticed the one for the Kon 'purse' I put up the website died, but for Bleach GC: Tasogare ni Mamieru Shinigami I know there was a Gamecube skin released in the reference used. I'd also like to point out that the mentioning of specific character counts is odd for me. I'm not sure if that was me, you or someone else, I initially only did this for the Jump games since they were not set within the Bleach universe. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightlowemon: I'd say that, given all the work Nightwolf has done since the last nomination (five years ago!), there shouldn't be any problem with you supporting. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightlowemon: Hi mate and thank you for stopping by. Well, its your choice to support or not :) I must also give you the credits if this list pass because you were a first nominator and things that you have done are still visible. As you suggested, I added notes about termination of online services for Nintendo Wi-Fi and Heat the Soul series. Cheers (Nightwolf87 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2014 (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) 23:52, 1 September 2014 (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 SchroCat 08:13, 8 September 2014 [20].

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of heads of government of Russia. Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Too many redlinks. One assumes the head of government of Russia is sufficiently notable that everyone in it should have an article.
    • If I get the time I will create them. Articles about Russian politics before 1917 are underexposed in enwiki, but I try to do the best to create at least stubs
      • Thanks
  • Why so few pictures during the Soviet era?
    • There are several reasons, one is the traditional copyright issues
      • Perhaps, but three random ones I picked from the Soviet era all had photos in their own articles. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The pictures are non-free, so they should be used sparsely in articles--Tomcat (7) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they qualify to go in the individual articles, it seems that they qualify for the list article. They aren't being used under fair use, presumably, since none of the articles are about the pictures. But I admit to not being an image copyright expert. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Delegate comment: No, inclusion in another article does not give an image a "free pass" to be used in a list. There is a need for contextual significance for all non-free images. @Crisco 1492: will be able to clarify or correct on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Russian Soviet Republic" is a term used several times in this article, yet so far as I can tell is not in common usage. It redirects to the article on the Russian SFSR, where the phrase "Russian Soviet Republic" never appears.
    • Changed to Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
      • Thanks
  • I don't think we should rely on a line in the intro to explain the date change; they should be specified by stating which states are old style. Likewise, the treatment of old style dates in the intro can be improved.
    • I added in-line clarifications.--Tomcat (7) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there gaps from 1801 to 1810, and 1917 to 1923? Just because these gaps might be explained in the intro, there still needs to be in-line explanations about them. Don't expect the user to have to jump back and forth within the table.
    • How about now.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include a political party column in the first table? This might make sense if it was actually linked to the other tables, but it's not, so the column goes entirely unused.
    • Because it will look too odd and small. I would keep it consistent. Secondly, the Russian Provisional Republic was a temporary republic which chronologically neither belongs to the Russian Empire, nor the Soviet Union
      • Except it's not consistent; none of the earlier tables have a Cabinet column. I would say remove unused columns, or combine everything into one table. There's no need to create a false consistency.
        • See below.
  • Inconsistent date styles, for example in the 'Cabinet' column for Silayev.
    • Overlooked that
      • Thanks
  • Why are some acting?
    • The answer would be the same as for all acting politicians. Acting politicians come to office after a tragic event, after resignation, etc. Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov was acting after the assassination of Stolypin
      • In the lists of U.S. governors I've made, I made sure to be very clear why a position changed hands, if not through normal electoral means. So if someone was acting, the list should inform us if it was because the previous person resigned, or died, or what not. This should not just be a simple list of the people who held the office; it must also educate the reader as to how they came to occupy it.
        • Added notes. Not sure why Kokovtsov became acting on 2 September 1911, probably ten assassination attempts of Stolypin by socialists was the reason to change the chairman. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about scope. The Russian Empire, Russian Federation, and Russian Republic were independent countries, as was the Russian SFSR for five years. But then it became part of a larger country, and thus its head of government was not analogous to the head of government of a country. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify what you exactly mean. Especially the last sentence is not quite understandable. But I try to answer of what I understood. This article does not list secretaries of the Soviet Union, we have a separate article. The Russian SFSR with the future Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire, as is the Russian Federation of RSFSR.
      • I mean... the Russian SFSR was not an independent country. So its head of government had a much different definition than that of a country. Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR or the Russian Federation? My point is, you're jumping between independent nation and subunit. I know the Russian Federation was the successor state to the Soviet Union but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying, the offices are not analogous. One is the head of government of a country, one is the head of government a part of a country. No one would combine a governor and president into the same list with a U.S. state, even though they're both chief executives of their respective areas. However, I don't think this is quite a huge issue. After all, the only solution would be to split it out, which I might recommend, but there are enough other issues with the list that that can be tabled for now. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR" - probably yes; since Rykov the chairmen of USSR and RSFSR varied. Lenin, Rykov, Molotov, Stalin, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Tikhonov, Ryzhkov, Pavlov and Silayev. [21] lists heads of government of RSFSR as Russian heads of government.--Tomcat (7) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm withdrawing this objection. The offices are not purely analogous, but the only other option is to split out the list. And, this isn't a list of prime ministers of Russia, or or chief ministers... it's a list of the heads of government of Russia, which means it's less concerned about the actual office or title. I mean, heck, the office of Prime Minister of Russia probably has less in common with being a member of the Supreme Privy Council than the office of chairman of the RSFSR had to do with the head of government of the Soviet Union, yet they still belong on this list. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A new one to add: There's a difference between "Independent" (like Zubkov) and "No parties" (like in the imperial era). All the more reason to remove party from the imperial era, and be specific what a dash means in the modern era, perhaps simply replacing it with "Independent". --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the column. I think the dash should stay, as it may confuse the reader.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying remove the dash, I'm saying replace it with either "Independent" or "No parties". --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, but I changed it anyway. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]