Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this in an attempt for my 30th featured list. This is the videography of Ms Swift, partially based on other articles of its kind - Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography, also written by me. However, unlike them I have not dedicated a separate section to the commercials she has done, as I don't find them so notable that they be discussed in such detail like they are in the two videographies. I have also tried to be as less-detailed (in "Description" in the Music videos section) as possible. I have selected the images of the models and director of her most popular videos. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not see any other outstanding issue with the list. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw

• The Television chart is confusing, as it lists her two dramatic roles but then also includes her SNL guest host appearances, but lists none of her other TV appearances such as Dancing with the Stars and such. I am confused as to what your criteria were for this chart, can you clarify?
• I may be applying FAC criteria here, but the lead should normally only be unsourced where the content is repeated in the body text of the article, here the first two paragraphs are pretty much unsourced and the third is only sourced at the end. As the charts don't source the music albums from which the songs came and some other material in the lead, I'd like to see either footnotes in the lead or some of the material there added to the article, particularly where we have songs tied to audio albums. Doesn't matter which way you go, so long as we have sources.

More to come, pending what is done here and on other reviewers suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 02:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Included liner notes for the albums. As for the second one, I have not included television shows where she has performed her songs. They go in List of Taylor Swift live performances (I will start that page sometime later). FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but then why is SNL included? I guess my sense is that SNL isn't an acting role (though maybe she was in some sketches? Or was she only a musical guest? or both? Unclear) so if her TV performances aren't here, I need clarification on the SNL one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was also the host of the episode and she didn't really perform a song; it was a monologue. FrB.TG (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. You might want to note "guest host" on the chart then, so as to not be confused with "musical guest" which appears to be a category you are excluding here. I would recommend doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done.

• Support: My concerns have been addressed. Looks good. Montanabw^(talk) 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work!--Cheetah (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• According to WP:LEAD, “The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article” and “Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none”, but I have a slightly different question about the use of citations in the lead. Is there a reason why certain things are cited (such as the release of Swift’s first album), and not other things? I would think that either everything had to be cited, or everything would not be cited (and by extension be covered in the body of the article). Everything seems to be cited for similar articles like Rihanna videography and Madonna videography, but a similar citation style for Lady Gaga videography. I am not entirely sure which way is the more “correct” way (as it is up to your stylistic preference), but I just want to raise this question since the citation style in the lead was called into question by the above comments.

I have sourced those sentences which are not covered in the main body or are either controversial enough for the sources to be repeated. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I was just curious as this issue was raised by an above commenter.

• Is there a reason that a majority of the images focus on Swift’s love interests in the music videos (except for Kendrick Lamar)? This is more a question than a suggestion for a change, as this is up to your own stylistic preference, but I am curious why an image of Kellie Pickler or the Civil Wars or B.o.B. couldn’t be used instead of some of the images of the love interests for the sake of variety.
• Wouldn’t Speak Now World Tour – Live and The 1989 World Tour Live count as video albums and be included in the “Video albums” charts?
• Just a suggestion, but if you wanted to expand the “Commercials” section, you could use a table similar to that used in the “Commercials” section of Madonna filmography.

I would expand it if I find additional information about them. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This was just an idea if you had the additional information, but since it is not available, the section is fine as it currently stands.

@FrB.TG: Aside from these points, everything else about the list looks great! If possible, could you review my FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. Had your request come before today, I would have gladly reviewed your list, but I don't think I can do that now; so sorry. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: No worries, I am just glad that I could help in any way. I support this to be promoted as a FL.

Passing source review, and closing as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another football club player list up for FL. I based it on List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances) which was promoted quite recently, so hopefully it is up to the currently-expected standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good read, although is odd to have a list from 25 to 49, if the main list starts at 50, this one should have all the remaining players, but it's your choice.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the size of the 1-24 list? It's absolutely huge (well over 100K), so combining it with this one would create a monster! Also, splitting the overall list into 3 articles is quite standard for football club lists of this type......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – on style, satisfies the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The only issue I have is that maybe the position column should sort by position. So, goalkeeper is first with forward last, but that's the only quibble I have. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing source review, with some minor changes. Consider archiving your online sources, so that if e.g. Soccerbase goes away this list doesn't get taken out. Closing this nomination as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and because I have worked on this article and being that this is the biggest series of all time has inspired me push to get this list to FL. AffeL (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Currently, this list meets the FL criteria, even though it should exceed it. I am just wondering if there are any mobisodes, webisodes, or some other type of special episodes. Take for example the Lost list. --Cheetah (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: There are no webisodes or any any other special kind of episode for this series.. that I know of AffeL (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. All the promotional content has been presented as part of subsequent episodes. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that, yes, while the article may deserve to become FL status, it is far from being "the biggest series of all time". A definite exaggeration there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Burklemore1

• A nice list, though a few issues with the lead.
• "The series start when"... -> "The series starts when..."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "David Benioff and D. B. Weiss serves as executive producers along with..." What about "David Benioff and D. B. Weiss both serve as executive producers along with..."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Filming for the series have took place primarily in Croatia, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Spain." What about "Filming for the series has took place in a number of locations, including Croatia, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Spain." By the way, I'm confident that countries don't need to be linked.

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Filming for the series has took place" is not correct English grammar at all. It should probably be "Filming for the series has taken place" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks AffeL (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Episodes are broadcast on Sunday at 9:00 pm Eastern Time, the episodes for season one to six have been between 50 to 69 minutes in length." What about "Episodes are broadcast on Sunday at 9:00 pm Eastern Time, and the episodes for season one to six are between 50 to 69 minutes in length."

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of June 26, 2016" Why not just June 2016 for that matter? Don't think we need to be really specific.

Fixed AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the documentation at {{Aired episodes}}. This is the format agreed upon by the members of WP:TV, to include the date of the last-aired episode; if you believe that it doesn't need to be so specific, please create a discussion at WT:TV. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a terrible problem with it, it was more out of curiosity. I should also mention I am not familiar with the type of formats that are accepted or not. Thank you for the clarification though. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series will conclude with its eighth season." When?

It will probably be in mid-2018, but that has not been confirmed. AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• David Benioff is linked multiple times: specifically for S2 EP1, S3 EP1, S4 EP1, S5 EP1 AND S6 EP1.
• Same for D. B. Weiss, except for S4 EP1.

The reason they are linked multiple times, are because the table is from the season articles. Look at Game of Thrones (season 2) for an example. AffeL (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Each writer/director is linked once in the respective season articles, which is then reflected in the main episode article. This hasn't seemed to affect other LoE pages becoming featured lists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Will continue later. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources are good, external links also good, no dead links. Good job.
• Since my final comments were on the dup links, I have become aware this is fine for these types of lists. Because of this, I no longer see any outstanding issues that could prevent this nomination from becoming a FL. I can now support this nomination. Great job! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good. Well done AffeL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a source review at the soonest. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability - not sure about Zap2It (actually sure about this, definitely a bad one to use), and MetroNews.ca (the British newspaper is a very bad source; I am not expecting this one (if it's another version of the newspaper) to be any different). Have looked only until here; will post the rest tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zap2It has always been a reliable source in the Television WikiProject. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I mistook it for another not-permissible source here I myself used in a list of mine. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's the rest:

• Formatting - from what I see you are practicing the 'link the publisher/website/work only on first instance', but you are very inconsistent as to when you link them. For example, The Guardian needs to be linked in ref 5, Entertainment Weekly needs to be delinked in ref 11 (already linked in ref 10), and as does TV by the Numbers in ref 47, 57, 67.
  • Ref 9 - Deadline => Deadline.com
• Spotchecked the ratings section (at first I searched for the ratings but I couldn't find some numbers, but you practiced round-off there) and no issue.
• I think you might need to provide a source in the end of first paragraph, in which it discusses the series' storyline. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: TV by the Numbers is linked multiply times because it is linked once in the respective season articles, that is then reflected in the main episode article. - AffeL (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All done.. thanks. - AffeL (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:FrB.TG, I fixed all the things you said. Is there anything else? -- AffeL (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No! - FrB.TG (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted. --PresN 16:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Montanabw^(talk) 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a wikicup participant. I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive, annotated listing of the roughly 270 Herd Management areas for mustangs and feral burros (legally, "wild and free-roaming horses and burros" handled by the Bureau of Land Management across 10 western states. By necessity, it includes the Wild Horse and Burro territories of the U.S. Forest Service and some areas that have been merged or altered over the years. This is my first whack at a FL, though I've done quite a few FAs. I've been working on this for over a year and found it was far more complicated than I ever dreamed -- Government reports, contradictory statistics, political controversy and reading things with titles like "Cedar Mountain and Onaqui Mountain Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Capture, Treat and Release Plan - Fertility Control with Limited Removal - Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2011-0031-EA". I am glad to answer any questions and improve the article as the reviewers deem necessary. Montanabw^(talk) 07:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good list – and a monumental piece of work! A few comments to tighten up here and there:

Summaries of population by state table

• There are a few columns that could be made sortable: State, HMAs, HMA Acres, Pop. Horses, Pop. Burros, Total and AML could all be made sortable.

I did, but the last row (totals) also sorts, how do I exclude that row? Also, Pop. Horses won't sort correctly, any notion how to fix that? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You should remove the gaps between the references

• I would prefer to, but I ran into a glitch where they were making the column wide and not stacking. Do you know of a way I can fix that?

• I'm not sure of the use of the images on that one: they don't seem to show

• You can't see the images in the chart? I have one for every state... are they just running off on the right hand side of the page? I could run them down the side outside the chart, would that work better? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - no idea why I didn't finish the sentence there! I'm not sure what the images actually show us to help us understand the areas. Yes, they show pics of various horses, but they don't really illustrate the content of the row. I'd be tempted to remove the column entirely, which would help when the page is viewed on a mobile device. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To some extent, they illustrate the typical phenotype of horses found in that state or landforms in that state. I guess my answer is "I think they add interest and look nice," but I am open to suggestions — I've seen some FLs that have the images running down the side outside of the chart, would that work better for mobile users? Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of HMAs

• Set the Herd description columns on all the tables to be unsortable (It's pointless trying to sort open text)

Fixed. Also did state, as I now have each state in its own table. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Montana – one row table, so should be unsortable

Hm. I can, but hate to make it different from the others, and in theory, the BLM could make some HAs into HMAs there (unlikely...). Your call. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it out - consistency only need go so far, and one-line tables tend not to have the sort in FLs. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Shawave Mountains row in Nevada need reference(s)

• FIXED

Notes

• You need to standardise the capitalisation (notes c and e start in lower case)

• FIXED

References

• You have a mix of 'Day Month Year' and 'Month Day, Year' formats in there: when you standardise, I'd go with the US 'Month Day, Year' format.

• I was afraid of that... wish the templates had prefs for US/UK dates... FIXED (I think, ping me if I missed any) Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only other thing I'd add, which isn't an FLC requirement, is that it may be useful to archive the weblinks in the references to avoid link rot. (See User:SchroCat/Web archiving for instructions on the basic process, if you wish).

Can it automate all 263 of them??? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made a start and asked some follow up questions, beyond the above, is there more I need to do? Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• In the "Summaries of population by state" table, you have spaces between the refs, which should be removed. If you're worried about the column being too wide then do [ref][ref]<br />[ref][ref] or similar.
• That table has a quote in the Idaho row: I'm not sure this needs to be a quote - it can be recast in plain English, but if you're determined to retain the quote, it needs the reference next to it too
• In all tables where there are multiple refs in a row, the row title should be Ref(s) (or {{Abbr|Ref.(s)|Reference}}, which is better - it gives Ref.(s) as an aide)

In the series of tables labelled "List of HMAs in [state]", do we need the added column of "State", which for the most part has just that state in there - some entire tables have the same term listed throughout it's particularly noticeable in the very long Nevada table, when they are all the same...). I think you should think about removing the columns from all the State tables, and mentioning and dual state information in the notes section.

• Originally, I had one big chart that I later split into different states, I see your point, but for some states (California in particular), we do need the column. I shrank it to just the state abbreviation. Does that work? —MTBW

• You need to make sure your footnotes are all sourced: D, E, F, G & I are all unsouced at present.

• FIXED —MTBW

Hope these help. - Gavin (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as SchroCat says, nice list, some initial observations.

• I wouldn't use BLM in the title of the list as it's an uncommon abbreviation (e.g. it's not like NASA for example).
  • I moved to List of Bureau of Land Management Herd Management Areas. That said, west of the Mississippi, the BLM is well-known. Long title now, but better? --MTBW
• Add (BLM) after its explanation in the lead.
  • DONE --MTBW
• " of free-roaming "wild" horses and burros.[1] While all free-roaming horses and burros are" somewhat repetitive.
  • Changed to "While these animals are ..." Better? --MTBW
• You should use the {{convert}} template for areas etc, so people who don't know what an acre is can see it hectares, for example.
  • Oops, missed some. Fixed. Did I get them all? --MTBW
• You link feral two different ways in the lead "feral equines" is linked to "feral" and "feral horse" is linked to .. "feral horse".
  • Intentional, the first is to the concept of what is feral (only the word "feral" is linked), and the second to the article specific to feral horses.
• " bloodlines.Some" space needed.
  • Fixed --MTBW
• Serious sorting issues with the table, most of the columns containing mixtures of numbers and text do not sort properly.
  • I noticed, any idea how to fix that or who can help me? (Or maybe doesn't need to be sorted)
• Totals row should be anchored at the bottom.
  • Agree... thank you for fixing, I had no clue how... --MTBW

  Done this for you here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure you have a consistent use of periods in the text in the tables and notes.
• Arizona is not a useful caption for that table, perhaps "List of HMAs in Arizona" would be better.
  • All 10 are that way, changed all. Better? --MTBW
• Table headings should avoid being overcapitalised, e.g. you have Horse Burro, I guess "Horse/burro" is preferable, similaraly HMA Acres -> HMA acres (ha), Pop. Horses -> Pop. horses etc...
  • Fixed, I think. Did I miss any? --MTBW
• Use en-dash (per WP:DASH) for number ranges, e.g. AML 382-478 should be AML 382–478.
  • Looks like SchroCat fixed it...thank you! --MTBW
• Multiple refs should be in numerical order.
  • Meh, yes, that's hard for me to do in the edit window and VE crashes on this list, but will work on it (be back to this). FIXED I think?--MTBWW
• Consistent capitalisation within the tables, e.g. "horse" or "Horse".
  • Fixed, I think. Lots of entries, if you see a problem spot, help... --MTBW
• HMAs with "No current population" probably need some explanatory notes as to why they're HMAs.
  • Open to suggestions. There are a number of reasons. Some have been administratively merged with another region, others have had temporary removals due to things like fires destroying the range, and most of all, the numbers change all the time -- some have an AML of zero but actually have dozens of animals living there... it varies. I could put in a paragraph about that (or a sentence, except it would say, "BLM's AML numbers are, at times, pulled out of a hat, I think.")
• "15 ‐ 16 hands (60 ‐ 64 inches, 152 ‐ 163 cm)" unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced hyphens per the MOS.
  • Fixed. I think. MTBW
• Ref 8 should be broken down into which page number of the PDF is pertinent to each use of the reference.
• Same applies to Ref 31, and pretty much any other use of a PDF or document which has more than a couple of pages.
  • Some are unpaginated, including refs 8 and 31 so is Ref 18 --even manually counting pages wouldn't help others, I don't think the only way I found stuff there was to word search for the state or for the HMA. Advice there? --MBTW

That should be enough to get you started. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry for the delay. I did all the small stuff, I'm working on the bigger stuff, if you (The Rambling Man and SchroCat could be so kind as to answer some of the questions I have here and clarify if I've fixed what I thought I've fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in reviewing this but my computer had broken. Anyway I have no comments to make for the list's prose and thus am conducting a review for images and sources. I would like my queries to be answered, before I support it.

• Why haven't you linked any of the list's publishers? I suppose it is okay since I can name several articles not doing it.
  • Most of the time the website and the publisher are identical (the Bureau of Land Management). --MTBW
• WP:SHOUTING in the title of reference 2.
  • Fixed -- MTBW
• I am not familiar with the sources' credibility. Assuming good faith on that one.
• References for books should use {{cite book}} so that the titles could be in italics.
  • I don't think I have used any book sources. --MTBW

Ref 4 and 5. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One already uses cite book, I fixed the other now. They are both government reports, so they fall into kind of a weird gray area. But titles italicized. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not related to references but I don't think you need to make "Ref" in tables sortable and could probably use {{abbr}} to clarify their usage.
  • Made unsortable, unclear what clarification is needed? -MTBW
• I spot-checked about 10 sources and didn't find anything suspicious.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detection does not reveal much evidence of copyvio.
• Images are appropriately licensed - they are either under public domain or were posted in Flickr with permission to share or remix the files.
• Images are also provided with alt texts. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you, FrB.TG, and my apologies for taking so long to get to this (been off-wiki for several days due to travel and work). I think I have addressed your concerns and would be glad to work on anything else you think needs it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to one comment above and also see ref 2. FrB.TG (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:FrB.TG. I fixed ref 2. (At least it looks to me like I did... the all caps are gone... anything else? Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Support. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, SchroCat's retired, and TRM almost never bothers to support or oppose, so I'm going to count those as supports and give this a review to check before closing.

• Note that, unless you're quoting a full sentence, punctuation goes outside of the quote marks. I've fixed this for you.
• Fixed a ton of formatting inconsistencies in your "Pop/AML" columns (usually "AML 50 horses", sometimes 50 horses AML, or Horses AML 50, etc., and your use of breaks vs. slashes vs. commas was mixed)
• Also fixed how Utah only used capitalized Horse or Burro for the types
• Renamed "Horse burro" column to the more rational "Type(s)"; you may consider changing the cells that say "horse burro" to just "both"
• I've reached the point where "horse" no longer looks like a word, but that was it. Closing as promoted. --PresN 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating the 2016 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. We followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please review it!, its has been four days since i nominate this article. Please review it and state your verdicts. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than 20 days, since this nomination was made and it didn't receive any sufficient reviews despite the fact that article merely have any issues. Academy Awards articles are one of the most potential articles on Wikipedia so please i urge all to review it as soon as possible. It really needs FLC candidateship. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It looks good and I can't find anything to comment on. Jimknut (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Resolved comments. Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WTF This is like the 4th FLC on Oscars where I come to ask to have the big 4 explicitly stated in the intro. Can you guys not remember from one FLC to another???? Nergaal (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Am i missing something? I didn't understood a word you just wrote above. I mean are you asking to add Big 4 categories in lead section? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user is asking that the winners of the so called "Big 4" (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress) are mentioned in the lead. Cowlibob (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob and Nergaal: Done: Added acting winners and directing winners to introduction.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A fine piece of work, except for some minor quibbles:

• The first four lines of the last para (lead) seems too listy. I think it's better to merge the 'Best Actress' line with the succeeding one.
  • Y Done, added "whereas"
• I know the 'Films with multiple nominations and awards' section is just a summary, but there's no harm in sourcing it.
  • Y Done, cited with The Washington Post and The Rolling Stone references.
• In refs. why is that the some publishers are linked while others are not? (The Hollywood Reporter, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, The Daily Telegraph to name a few)
  
  • Y Done, all publishers' references that has been used at least once is being linked.

—Vensatry _(talk) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry:: All that concerns you mentioned has been resolved. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very strong list, and I cannot find anything that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, with the exception of the formatting of works- do not manually override the italicization of the "work" field by putting the names in italics. Not only does it break things, but the field is italicized for a reason- works are supposed the be italicized in citations (and in text). If you really don't like it, put the newspaper/magazine as the "publisher" - still wrong, but less so. Anyway, I fixed it myself, so now promoting. --PresN 23:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I enjoy cycling and follow the Tour de France every year. I think it meets the criteria. This page is based on the FLC List of teams and cyclists in the 2016 Tour de France. Please note that I currently have another FLC open but it has four supports and no unanswered comments so I think it is ok to open this one. If any of the FLC delegates disagree feel free to close. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have worked on getting 2012, 2013 and 2015 (review) to FL and had previously brought the list up to standard. It must be noted that Yellow has only contributed to the prose, so full credit must be given to HelSimki and Ytfc23 for their very time consuming edits. BaldBoris 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BaldBoris for your support. An yes i whole-heartily agree that credit must go to HelSimki and Ytfc23 as well as Tomrtn and yourself for your great work. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I should have been clear that my support was for the layout and tables, which have had no issues. Prose now looks in shape now and I fully support it. BaldBoris 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cites needs filling properly, which I thought I had done previously? I can do it for you, as I'm a stickler with them. BaldBoris 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Sorry, is there something I need to do here? Or is it fixed. I happy to do it if needed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now worries, I sorted it. BaldBoris 23:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The only issue remaining that I have is I can't find out how the starting numbers are assigned. If you add that info as well, That'd be over the top.--Cheetah (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Thanks for your support and thorough review. About the numbers, they are assigned based on the result of the team leader in the previous Tour. Should I add a note about it? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a footnote with a reference would be beneficial.--Cheetah (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Done. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to say that a couple of the suggestions by Crzycheetah are unnecessary. None of these are used in the other FL cycling lists.
  • The entry in the legend for explaining why Froome's time is marked differently: The "Time" column is explained as the difference to the winner of the GC, which is explained as being denoted by a yellow jersey icon.
  • The explanation for why there's no tenth number: I mean, really, is this needed?
  • The note in the "By team" section is duplicate of the one in "Teams": Both should be a sentence in the lead.

Those were just his comments, not what you have to change. Other ones were good mind you. BaldBoris 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with your points. The double dagger can be removed and the note about the time added to the yellow jersey in the legend table. Something like "Denotes the winner of the general classification with his full race time listed". As for your second point, to be honest, even after adding that note, I don't understand why there is no tenth number. Why are the cyclists not assigned with the tenth number? is it bad luck? Taboo? I have no idea. And the third point, yes, I agree, the notes can be removed and the order explanation be stated in the lead. --Cheetah (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Thanks for the reply. Sorry, maybe its because I'm a keen sports fan, but if the team has only nine riders you couldn't have the next teams numbers starting at ten. It basically just makes it easy to mark who's in what team, also, the rider ending with one can easily be marked as the team leader. Imagine the mess without this. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah and BaldBoris: I have made some changes here. I hope they are a decent compromise. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromise there. The style of the note may need looking at though. BaldBoris 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions BaldBoris? Should it be more informative? Does the wording need improvement? I'm a bit stuck for ideas at the moment. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very nice list. I have not find any issues with it. The sources and external links are also all good, and it has no dead links. Currently, this list meets the FL criteria. AffeL (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your support AffeL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and structure. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your support and review Vensatry. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

Good to see a different type of list being nominated here. But this needs a lot of work and raises many a basic doubts.

• So this is a list of MNAs as on 1 June 2013, the oath-taking day or has it been updated for current statues also. Means have some people vacated their seats for any reason; maybe removed/resigned from party, or death, or anything such?
• Not understanding how the sections are arranged? Why aren;t they alphabetic? Use full form of FATA in section names.
• If notes column of most entries is empty then get rid of it.
• Some guys have Dr. behind their name which could be skipped.
• One woman has Mrs. behind here name which can be dropped.
• If you are using only one ref for whole table then it need not be in each row.
• Lead is quite week and needs more info.
• What do you mean by "70 reserved seats for women and religious minorities". Are they not elected? If not then how are they selected?
• "..marked the historic constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to next for the first time in the history of Pakistan". So what was happening before that should be mentioned.

More comments might come... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharmadhyaksha: Thank you for reviewing the list. Please find answers to your question below,

• This is a list of MNAs as on 3 August, 2016. MNA's who were elected during 2013 general elections and have left their seats are not mentioned in the list. I just replaced them with new ones. I don't know where to mention those MNA's, maybe in the notes?
• Sections are now arranged in alphabetical order.
• Notes column could be removed but if we can use them for mentioning MNA's who left since.
• Titles Dr. and Mrs. have been removed.
• References removed from each row.
• I will work on lead section.
• The 70 seats reserved for women and religious minorities are allocated to the political parties according to their proportional representation.

Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Point # 1 has been resolved. Former members are now added to list under List_of_members_of_the_14th_National_Assembly_of_Pakistan#Membership_changes. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I'm now comfortable that this list meets FL standards. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass, I'm not going to bother writing the specifics. Promoting. --PresN 21:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Butler is a fascinating and important character in the history of women's rights. A tireless and forceful feminist and social reformer, she campaigned for women's suffrage, the right to better education, the end of coverture in British law, the end of child prostitution and against the human trafficking of young women and children into European prostitution. Her biggest victory was against the Contagious Diseases Acts, a discriminatory law that enforced medical examination on any woman accused of being a prostitute (without any evidence being needed); she described the examination as surgical or steel rape. This is a new list (Butler's biography is at PR at the moment); any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cassianto

• There is a lot of use of the word "biographer/biography" in the last para of the lede. Everything else looks great. Cassianto^Talk 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Cheers Cass: tweaked a few of them out - how does it look now? - Gavin (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support − looks fine, good work. Cassianto^Talk 21:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw

• File:Josephine Elizabeth Butler (née Grey) by George Frederic Watts.jpg has a tag that it's under the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. My understanding is that they also uploaded a number of lower-resolution images that are not subject to this dispute. Perhaps this image can be replaced.

• Given SNUGGUMS's comment about too many, I've removed it altogether. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All other images appear to be fine.
• Citations check out
• Mathers does not appear to be used in the footnotes, except in a double footnote at 3 -- are both sources required there to verify the material?

• Two parts to the sentence, with a source for each part. – Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do note that paragraph one of the lead has the first several sentences sourced to two sources placed at the second-to-last sentence. Is it possible to parse out which parts of that paragraph are attributable to which source, or are they so intertwined in each sentence that this is not possible?

• I could possibly break out some of the parts into separate bits, but we'd be left with "five words[^Ref1] six words[^Ref2] ten words words[^Ref1] seven words[^Ref2] five words[^Ref1][^Ref2]", which would jar a little. The 'big picture' leads of peoples lives are great in articles (where the refs are in the body), but to break them down into chunks in a list means either too many duplicated refs, or combining them at the end of a para. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's a Catch-22, for sure... I've done it both ways. Where they really are merged, I can live with your decision there; beats "Allsortsof stuff from one source [^Ref1] and Allsortsofstuff from the other source.[^Ref2]" Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure I care for the quote box sandwiched in with the images running along the side of the charts; it may be more suitable for the lead section, either under the main image or left-justified a bit below. That or put it at the top or bottom. As it sits, it appears out of context, as different width screens place it in varying proximity with the entries on the list.

• I've moved the quote into the caption; at least it'll ensure any less-than-welcome attention from my stalkers about the use of a QB. (Although I'm sure they'll find something else to complain about....) - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I use quote boxes all the time, not an issue for me. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All for now. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Montana. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support following the improvements made. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great: many thanks indeed. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely looking list, which certainly looks to meet all of the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - since I'm persona not grata, or will be by Christmas, I feel duty bound to spend some of my final days antagonising the outgoing FLC delegate with as many nit-picky comments as I can muster in the few moments I have between changing nappies (not mine, you understand). SO, stand by for a right old rollocking.

• You link "feminism" but not "women's rights". I would put them on a par so perhaps both or neither.
• " The death of her daughter Eva..." presumably since this pushed her on to campaigning, her death had something to do with the movements she advocated, could you expand in a sentence or two for context?
• "surgical or steel rape" should that be in quote marks?
• Again, a linky thing, if you feel inclined to link prostitute, I would urge you to consider linking monograph, the latter being far less common in my life than the former.
• "thought was probably" thought or actually wrote?
• "Over a period of 40 years Butler wrote 90 books and pamphlets, " we had this conversation at DYK. I think this needs to be softened, e.g. at least 40 years, more than 90...?
• "Butler wrote a biography of her husband George after his death.[3]" would suggest (pictured) after George.
• "Bust of Butler in 1865, aged 36, by Alexander Munro" she was born in 1828, so where's the ref for her being "aged 36" and not "aged 37"?
• How can year of first publication for a monthly publication be "1898–1900"? Surely it's just 1898?

And that is all. May you always have a pot to piss in. My utmost regards to your sterling work and your good humour and your magnificent assistance in helping me create 157 good articles in just a few days over one year, more good work in two days than most "Wikipedians" put into their entire "career" here. Don't be a stranger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers TRM: all tweaked and re-worked per your suggestions. Thanks also for your very kind words: much appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. I hereby support the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I could do on the source review, but passing. So, sadly, promoting this list. Don't go, SchroCat! --PresN 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks PresN – it's been great working with you, but the enjoyment has been ground out of me over time, I'm afraid. I'm leaving while I'm just about still ahead of the trolls and stalkers! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instituted by Government of Kerala, the J. C. Daniel Award is the highest honour in Malayalam cinema. I hope this prestigious award will find a spot in the Featured Lists of English Wikipedia. Looking for some constructive suggestions. Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "is the highest award in Malayalam cinema." says who?
  • It is a Kerala government award. Changed to "Kerala's highest award in Malayalam cinema".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Was it not awarded in 2015? If not, then this should be explained. If so, then the article needs updating.
  • 2015 award is yet to announce.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2015 award has announced, updated.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "hosted the award.[6][1] " prefer citations in numerical order.
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For the 2003 award, I don't really know what " due to some technical corrections" means.
  • Source says "The award should have been given for 2003, but was being updated to 2004 as part of a technical correction and would carry a cash prize of Rs. 1 lakh and a citation,".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you find any other sources to expand on what this "technical correction" really was? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Puzzle solved. The technical correction was updating the prize money. The source does not mention about the prize hike. Additional source added for that. Thanks Rambling Man. I actually missed that point.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No images at all for this?
  • Unfortunately not.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image added.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In table No Award -> No award
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major really, just a few comments and queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth checking that every recipient in the list links to this article, if, after all, it is the highest award they are likely to obtain... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply. It was not a delay. I just saw your comment now.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; don't link India; MoS discourages to link well-known cities and countries. FrB.TG (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked.--Charles Turing (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, The Rambling Man left zilch for me to pick up on. A comprehensive list with a well-written prose and reliale sources. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support FrB.TG.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ditto, I've read through the prose and couldn't spot and issues. This list is comprehensive, well written, and the sources all check out. Well done! JAGUAR  10:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaguar I appreciate it. Charles Turing (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nothing to fault here. You could possibly consider adding Alt text for the image, though the caption does much the same job in this case anyway. Harrias ^talk 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Formatting: You don't need "staff reporter" or "correspondent" or any of that- the author fields are for specific, named people
• Spotchecks: pass
• Completeness: pass

Only issue is the minor formatting problem; I've just gone ahead an done it myself so that this nomination can pass. --PresN 21:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this a good bit and made massive expansions to the lead, and otherwise think that the article is well formed, helpful, and adherent to the FL criteria, for the most part. I will need this to be an FL if I wish for the studio albums to be a good topic. Evanescence is an icon in 2000s alternative metal (or generally "Modern Rock", for those reviewers who are uninformed) and I've taken it upon myself to improve their articles as best I can.

This is my first FL candidate, and I'm not entirely sure if it's perfect. I had my first GAN fail too, so I can only learn from experience. If anything is currently amiss, it'll be fixed within the next few days. I know there are two things that I will fix:

Dead links will be done in a strafing run tomorrow, and the chart positions for Going Under and Lithium should be changed to reflect Bubbling Under per WP:USCHARTS. (now resolved) Otherwise, I want to get more comment because I'm sure it's pretty close. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick drive-by comment to remind me to come back later: the ref for the UK chart in the singles table only covers top 75 positions, and therefore the number 174 position for "Lost in Paradise" is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved with a citebundle. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, and released their debut full-length album Fallen in March." Wouldn't this be better as: "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, with their debut full-length album Fallen following in March." to avoid the use of "released" twice in the same sentence?
• Under the Promotional singles section, both "Imaginary" and "Missing" need citations (you can cite the liner notes[11][12])
• For the Other appearances table, change the text style from center to left.
• Also, remove the entries for "Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" from the Other appearances table. Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE: "What should not be included ... previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases." Yeepsi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, thanks for your comments! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yeepsi (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Very few copies of these copies were made" - need better wording here

How did I not notice that? Something I missed during expansion. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" managed to peak in the top ten" - why not just "peaked in the top ten"?

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You refer to their first album having sold so many copies, and the second so many units. Are these the same thing?

Done. Actually, I should've fixed that a bit ago. I learned on Tuesday they are not the same. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "managed to attain chart success" - again, don't see the need for "managed to"

Done with this and a few other instances it appeared. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Other appearances table is unsourced

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see the need for the "type" column in the videos table, no other such articles have this

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the demo album and EP tables are unsourced, but I'm guessing they are covered by refs in the lead........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put references next to those too. --DME's phone, 9:39 EST

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC

• You're very inconsistent as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you either overlink or never link (Billboard, MTV News, ). You should be consistent.

Done. Didn't know overlinking in the references was a thing. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some formatting: MTV News needs no italics. Billboard.com should read Billboard and Allmusic should read AllMusic. australian-charts.com → ARIA Charts

Done. The ARIA one would actually be Hung Medien, that URL just randomly got jammed in there. I assume everything MTV is excluded from italics, then? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything done. MTV News is still in italics, it's still Billboard.com. Publishers should be linked on first instance but I don't see that in ref 3, 4, 10. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I wrote this before I saved this. I lost power at some point last night, so I never saved it. Apologies. '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Completeness: check.
• For the music videos, convert the external links to references.

Should there be a publisher? If so, how would it be written? Also, should I add the date it was published to YouTube in the date parameter? I've never had to cite YouTube. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be very difficult: <ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM|title=Evanescence - Bring Me To Life|accessdate=September 9, 2016|publisher=Evanscene}}</ref>

• Spot-checked the YouTube sources (all of them come straight from the horse's mouth) and ref 1-10. Ref 1 says that the band has sold "close to 25 million" whereas the article says "more than 25 million". Is Rockonthenet a credible source?

To be clear, is there anything wrong with the YouTube sources? I don't know if "straight from the horse's mouth" is a good thing or not, I've never heard that phrase. (If emphasis is necessary, yes, really.) dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment RockOnTheNet definitely isn't reliable and should be replaced wherever used Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no issues with the YouTube sources, but other ones need to be resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this one is now resolved. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No dead links. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I believe I have completed your requests. Did I miss anything this time? The person that was previously involved with everything Evanescence (see their page here) did it the long way and defined all the references at the bottom (I hate when I have to dig through all those!). So it's very possible I missed some. But I did my best to fix them and will correct any further mistakes immediately. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated to references, but all the tables need to meet MOS:DTT, not a few. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still unclear to me what you'd like to happen. I've no idea what's wrong with the tables, I compared them to In Flames discography, Slipknot discography, Disturbed discography and Paramore discography and I see nothing missing (though, admittedly, the Disturbed one does have other problems). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what or how they are, you should be consistent with the !scope="row" in tables. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now I see what you're trying to get me to fix. But I still don't know how to fix that. Which part is it that you're even referring to? Are they within the same subsection, or are you speaking about something otherwise? I'm still confused. Remember, this is my first FLC. '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been more clear. You see how there's "Title" first before "Year" in the singles section and there's a slide gray shade in entries under "Title". That's what you get by applying !scope="row" to them before writing the titles. See, for instance, Taylor Swift discography; it has that in every table and is consistent with them. You should be too. FrB.TG (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean make the promos and officials' years consistent? I do notice that is different now. I can fix that ASAP, but I'm busy with life right now. I have to limit my Wiki time. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of making the asked changes myself (based on other FL-class discographies) since I feel like I wasn't being clear enough. One can always revert my edits if disagreed with. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have made some major edits in the process, but I don't think they are major enough to affect my support. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my density when it comes to list formatting. Thanks for the help and support! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. I like to help new users at FLC since WP formatting can be a giant pain in the ass. Given that it's your very first, you did just fine. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all required criteria. I would love any questions or comments. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support since things are looking better Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This is the only comment that I have for the article. Other than that, I support this and believe it is ready to become a featured list. Make sure to update this when Stefani makes future releases as I have noticed a few articles similar to this fall behind. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all of your concerns @Aoba47:. Thanks as always. Carbrera (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am very impressed by the work put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Did some script assisted fixes, and other than that no qualms at all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Large comprehensive list, without any flaws I can find. Chrishonduras (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Everything looks great. Just add a note or a key to explain what "TBA" stands for and why it has a blue background.--Cheetah (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: I took your suggestion. Thanks for the feedback! Carbrera (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Support this candidate. TheKaphox (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: I addressed both issues. Thanks for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, you have my support; great work! Mymis (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list is well-written, has a table that is easy to read, and the above issues have been addressed. Good job! Erick (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note to reviewers: (pinging @Chrishonduras, TheKaphox, and Magiciandude: specifically so they see it) - This list is pretty solid, from a brief glance. That said, bare reviews like "Looks great, support!" are generally discounted by delegates because they give the impression that the reviewer did not read the list in detail, and it actually hurts the nomination because it leads more in-depth reviewers to avoid the nomination because the count is high. I'm not saying that you didn't review properly- like I said, there aren't any glaring errors in this list. But we have had issues at FLC before specifically with discography lists with large numbers of supports for lists that later reviewers find major issues with, so when I saw that this nomination has 8 supports- double the next highest nom- I wanted to make sure that everyone understands that reviews need to be substantive, not just a vote. --PresN 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC:

• Formatting: since you are linking publishers only on earliest instance, you should de-link Billboard from ref 26 and any other/s I have missed.
• Spot-check: ref 1-5, and a few others here and there. No issues.
• Completeness: check.
• No dead links.

Impressive work. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks! Fixed the issue above! Carbrera (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! FrB.TG (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a complete list of all the awards and the nominations received by the 1996 American musical film, Evita, based on the original musical and directed by Alan Parker. Please feel free to go through the article and let me know if you have any concern else if its free to be promoted as a featured list. Please note that this is my first nomination so I apologize before hand if I have made any mistakes —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support; everything looks good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Ref formatting consistent.
• Spotcheck - did so on about 10 sources and found source 7 to be unnecessary as it supports nothing.
• This reveals no sign of copyvio, though it does score high on the IMDb source but they are all the titles of the categories.
• No dead links.

Support - I made some tweaks, removed some unnecessary information and have provided a source review above with a question about a source. Other than that, it's a good list by an experienced editor. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrB. The reference 7 I added to support the fact that ACE has listed the url for Ref 8 in their website. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – However, there seems to be a script issue involved the "currentyear" in brackets in the lead's second paragraph. I would fix it myself but I'm afraid I don't necessarily see the problem. Carbrera (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Carbrera, but can you let me know what is the issue? Because I could not see any physical error in the article? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]