Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2017

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
• In the "Run" episode description, please address the "clarification needed" tag.
• Please add ALT text to the image in the "Production" section.
• I do not believe the links in the "Ratings" table are necessary as it just links right back to a different part of this list.

• I removed the links but someone reverted me saying it is the part of the template and hence should not be removed.Krish | Talk 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that is true as if it was truly "part of the template", then it would automatically be linked and could not be un-linked so easily. Either way, I will leave this up to future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the following sentence (She is taken into custody charged with treason) should read as (She is taken into custody and charged with treason).
• This sentence reads awkwardly (Featuring two timelines, various flashbacks show Parrish and fellow agents, each having their secret reasons for joining the FBI, training at the FBI Academy.). In this phrasing, the dependent phrase (i.e. "Featuring two timelines" is supposed to modify the subject of the rest of the sentence (i.e. "various flashbacks). Since the various flashbacks are not featuring two timelines, this should be revised.
• Please revise the following part: "Shelby Wyatt, and (Johanna Braddy),".
• I am confused by this part (who all seem connected somehow to the bombings), specifically the word "bombings". Were there multiple bombings/attacks? You have only mentioned the one on Grand Central Terminal at this point.
• I would change "she works to determine who the mastermind is behind the bombings" to "she works to uncover the mastermind behind the bombings" for conciseness.
• I would change the link on "Senator" to United States Senate to be more specific.
• You have ABC Studios linked twice in the list.
• I have two issues with this phrase "Good ratings and strong viewership numnbers": 1) numbers is misspelled and 2) what is the difference between "ratings" and "viewership numbers"?
• You have Alex Parrish linked multiple times in the list when it should only be linked on the first instance.
• The characters who were already introduced in the "Overview" section should not be re-linked in the "Production" section or any subsequent section.
• You have "Grand Central Terminal" linked twice.
• In the phrase "The twins, Caleb, Shelby, Natalie and Simon", you need a comma after "Natalie" as you are primarily using the Oxford comma in this list in other spots.
• I have a concern with the amount of quotes used in the "Critical reception" subsection as there are a lot of them. I would encourage you to paraphrase a little more to help build a flow for this paragraph rather than just having a listing of different critics' quotes.
• You use "season 1" in the "Ratings" subsection; please change those to "season one" to be consistent with the rest of the list.
• I would move the "Accolades" subsection before the "Ratings" one; also since the "Accolades" subsection is so short, I am not certain if it needs to be separated from the "Critical reception" subsection.

• I have moved rating section below. Plus, the accolades and critical reception sections are separated in other FLs too.Krish | Talk 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for moving it up, and I understand your point. I will leave this up to your discretion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• Make sure the recurring and guest characters are sourced.
• ABC ordered the pilot on January 23, 2015, for the 2015–16 television season - "pilot" links to Pilot (television episode), but I think you mean to link to television pilot. And do link "2015–16 television season" to 2015–16 United States network television schedule.
• Yasmine Al Massri plays dual roles as Nimah and Raina Amin, right? Mention that under "Production" in the sentence which goes, "...while Johanna Braddy and Yasmine Al Massri rounded out the cast in the final co-starring roles as trainees Shelby Wyatt and Nimah and Raina Amin". The word "respectively" could be added to avoid confusion.
• Make sure the series' name is italicised in the reviews.
• Robert Bianco from USA Today gave it a three out of four, praising the diversity Chopra's and Ellis' performances - is there supposed to be a comma between "diversity" and "Chopra's"? Also, does "diversity" refer to the cast?
• On the other hand, TheWrap's Tim Grierson, who although felt that the show "provides sexy fun", was less impressed writing that the show often succumbed to "lame-brained plotting" and a unconvincing portrayal of the setting. He concluded saying that the fluffy material did not fit well with the darker tones "meant to be struck by the introduction of a cataclysmic terrorist attack." - I think you can begin with something more formal, like: "in contrast". You could add a comma after "less impressed" to split the sentence.

• Done.Krish | Talk 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Once my comments have been addressed, I will support this. Source reviewing and proofreading may be done by any interested admin. An unrelated question: why is this article being tried for FL and not GA? I am reminded of an incident at List of Agent Carter characters' FLC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kailash29792: This is why. It depends on the article/list. This list does not contains heavy texts such as that of the characters' list you have linked above. I hope it is clear now.Krish | Talk 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my comments have been addressed. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brojam

• Actors' names should be removed from the overview section per WP:TVPLOT
• No need to repeat the word "cast" for subheading (regular, recurring, guest) in the Cast section.
• Change "Regular" to "Main"
• All those actors should be sourced per WP:TVCAST. All the main actors and many other recurring actors have sources in the production section so just reference them and for the others try to find casting announcements, episode reviews or other RS, rather than something like Hollywood.com. I don't think it should be too hard to find.
• The entire Crew section is simply a list of crew members and violates WP:TVCREW. There's no need to list all the directors and writers when they are listed in the episode section further down. The majority of the other members such as production companies and producers belong in the Development section.
• The Production section should be divided into subheadings (Development, Casting, and Filming) to make it more clear and easier to navigate per WP:TVPRODUCTION.
• Some small changes to the first paragraph: JoshuaSafran pitched the series to ABC, describing the show as "Grey's Anatomy meets Homeland".[3] On September 17, 2014, ABC announced the network had bought the original concept for the drama series from ABC Studios, and creator Joshua Safran and producer Mark Gordon.[3] ABC ordered the pilot on January 23, 2015, for the 2015–16 television season.[4] In May 2015, the show was picked up after the pilot ordered to series, with an initial order of 13 episodes for the 2015 network-television season... In NovemberThe next month, the season was extended to 22 episodes.[7]
• Second paragraph: "Following the pilot pick up," to "With the series order in May,"
• Sentence "The show was designed to have a flashback..." should be put in the Development subsection since doesn't belong with Casting.
• Replace Montreal, Quebec with Montreal, Quebec, no need for "(Canada)" after Quebec and change Sherbrooke to Sherbrooke, Quebec.
• The source for the explanation of the title of S1E21 does not mention the original title "Closure". Either find a source that does or remove the note since it's kinda trivial without an explanation for the change.
• In reviews: TheWrap should be italic
• Ratings section belong as subsection of Reception
• Would be good to add that it ranked as the third new series of the season among adults 18–49.
• Ref #71's is not dead and the archive doesn't work.
• DVD, Blu-ray and Region 1 should all be linked
• Missing publisher TVShowsOnDVD.com to ref #94
• For your refs, link the publisher/work/website for each reference to be consistent. Also make sure that you are consistent with using each parameter; you are using both publisher and work for Deadline.com, same thing for TVLine, and TheWrap.

That's all for now. - Brojam (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brojam: Done.Krish | Talk 00:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's always best to use the casting announcements for the cast. I went ahead and used those for the ones that were in the production section, for the rest I'm good with the TVGuide ref. I also made some other small changes [2]. Apart from that, everything looks good so I can support this promotion. Great job! - Brojam (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Quantico Season 1.jpg -- Resolution low, non-free rationale available, used only in one article as the primary means of visual identification as noted in the rationale.
• File:Priyanka Chopra at the 2011 Big Star Entertainment Awards.jpg -- Permission provided by Bollywood Hungama under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
• Alt text provided aptly to both the images.

Images are fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, general ref for credits is in place, promoting. --PresN 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the title suggest, this is a list for the episodes of Transformers: Robots in Disguise, the sequel series to Transformers: Prime. The show's first season aired its 26 episodes during 2015 and the second one had 13 eps in 2016. Later that same year, a 6-episode miniseries featuring Starscream was aired. The show is currently on its third, and hopefully not final, season. I worked on this page mostly by looking at other F-episode-L like Avatar and Eve. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support this as I believe that all of my major concerns have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. I'll put this onto my watchlist so no need to ping me when they're done. Comments generally resolved, Supporting. Slightlymad (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Don't feel obligated, but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd advise the nominator to take a look at this thread, as a bunch of us were concerned about episode titles, directors, and writers not being cited in the list in question, which is similar to this one. I'd feel uncomfortable promoting the list if the information remains uncited; I'm willing to say that plot information can be assumed to be covered by a given episode, but for these items I'd want to see sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just so I'm sure I understand what the discussion was about. You want me to find a source that cites the episodes' titles, directors and writers? Because something tells me it's gonna be near impossible. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @PanagiotisZois: I think that the consensus from the thread was to cite the episodes directly (and correct me if I am wrong about this @Giants2008:). I just do not agree with that method personally, as it is already assumed that the episodes are the primary sources themselves, and it would also unnecessarily bulk up the references section. If this is to become the new standard for these types of lists, then I would imagine a large discussion and consensus would need to be developed in the future. Just wanted to help out a little with this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The clear consensus from that discussion was that some kind of reference should be provided for verifiability. I wouldn't say that there was a strong consensus in favor of a particular citation method, though. One user suggested citing the episodes directly; others suggested using general references for the purpose. The latter method was ultimately used, with references to episode lists from TV Guide and Futon Critic. This offered the advantage of having refs from third parties, and was less work for the nominator than citing all of the individual episodes would have been; it also didn't add much of the bulk that Aoba is concerned about. Perhaps this idea could be considered here? The delegates can do what they like and I'll support their decision, but I'm not planning on promoting the list myself if some sourcing is not provided. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: I checked Futon Critic and it doesn't provide either the directors or writers of the episodes. Some episodes don't even have their own page there. As for TV Guide, for some reason I can't currently access the site as it's taking too long to load but if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't offer that information either. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there must be something reliable that can source such basic facts. The episodes themselves should suffice if nothing else is available, but the details really should be cited by something. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I just don't see why we need to cite the writers and directors when the episodes themselves provide that type of information in their credits. Depending on the show we're talking about we would need to add an extra 100 citations just for that and for old or obscure shows, it's likely meeting that criteria would be next to impossible and highly limit the number of pages who can become featured lists. So, unless citing directors and writers has 100% become a rule for features lists, I'm gonna have to decline following through with that suggestion. Besides, this is Transformers: Robots in Disguise we're talking about, not Game of Thrones. Even if I wanted to, which I did try, there just don't seem to be any reliable sources that provide such information. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're going with the "general ref" precedent Giants is trying to set, the TV guide ref works fine for this- the information isn't all on one page, you have to click cast and then select which member you want and it tells you what episodes they worked on, but if that's fine elsewhere then it's fine here. I've added it, spotchecks work out, source review passed, lets get this off the bottom of the FLC list. --PresN 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm? Hopefully, I've got a bit more time at the moment, and I can give this the go it deserves this time around. I've looked over the previous nominations, and tidied up what I think needs doing. Pinging @Ianblair23, Vensatry, and NapHit: who all reviewed before. Harrias ^talk 12:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the standards. 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

• having previously only played Australia → shouldn't there be "against" before "Australia"?
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• some of the country's best batsmen → I think it's more encycolpedic to say "major batsmen" here
  • I think "major batsmen" is a less well-defined term that isn't commonly used in cricket, so it would be likely to cause confusion. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• they won 8 matches and lost 3 → ...eight matches...lost three (numbers are not above ten)
  • These are comparable figures to the figures against Australia, and so by WP:NUMNOTES should be represented in the same format. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• while they won by 10 wickets → ...ten
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Everything else seems kinda flawless (I think there were lots of improvements from the last 2 nominations)

@Harrias: Here are my comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Thanks for the review – I've addressed some of the points, but don't completely agree with a couple. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me too. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this last time and can already see that my concerns have been resolved. My only issue at the moment is that the penultimate sentence (in the lead) looks too lengthy. Perhaps, the "all-time record for any team" bit could be moved to a FN. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, please find my comments below:

• Lead:

• England played 120 Test matches, resulting in link Result (cricket)

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 41 victories, 49 draws and 30 defeats replace with this ref

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The emergence of Don Bradman as an extraordinary batsman fix link to Batting (cricket)

• Not done: WP:NOTBROKE specifically says not to. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The tactic, which involved bowling fast deliveries link delivery (cricket)

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• while against the West Indies they won 8 matches and lost 3 add this ref

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• England won 14 matches by an innings link innings and add this ref

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• while they won by 10 wickets on two occasions add ref from above

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Table:

• These three points below were raised at the previous FLC as still need to be addressed

• Test no. 172 and 173 in the table – at first glance it seems like one of the dates are wrong but as it turns out two English sides were playing at the same time! This definitely needs to be explained. I found this ESPNcricinfo article which explains the situation. May I suggest just add a note after the date in both rows to explain the situation.
• Added a note, how is it? Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Test no. 178 and 214 – a comma is required between Bourda and Georgetown
• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Test no. 205 – change Kolkata to Calcutta (name didn't change until 2001)
• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary table

• Make the table sortable

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold all the figures in the total row

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the teams

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the refs, you only need the totals which ref 3, 25 and 26 give and the breakdowns are 1, 2 and 3. Lose the ref column and add appropriate the pair of refs after Total matches, Home matches and Away matches.

• Just (frustratingly) ran out of time to do this one now. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: I think I've ticked them all off now, just worked out the last one! Harrias ^talk 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one, this should be called "England cricket team Test results (1920–1939)". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man looks like that one changed since I last worked on these significantly. Harrias ^talk 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear reliable and well-formatted, and spot-checks of refs 8 and 10 revealed no problems. I'll be promoting the list shortly. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the necessary criteria. The list consist of the discography of Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, who became famous in 2014 thanks to her song "Habits (Stay High)". This is the second list I have nominated for FL; the first one was promoted months ago. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would imagine that the infobox image will need ALT text. Done
• I would use Tove Lo's full name in the infobox image's caption. Done
• Eighteen and fifteen have to shown as numerals (i.e. 18 and 15) given the style guide stating that all numbers above 10 must be shown as numerals. Not done According to WP:NUMNOTES, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures; five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs".

• That is strange as I have received this note in the past, but thank you for pointing out the policy behind it. It is very helpful, and actually cleared up this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add EP in parenthesis after the phrase extended play in the lead just to make it absolutely clear that the acronym is referencing this. Done
• Please identify the year in which "Heroes (We Could Be)" was released. Done

Great work with the list. Once my minor notes are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for your review. I have addressed all of your comments. Have a nice day. Paparazzzi (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderful work with this as always. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

Well done on a very comprehensive discography with a well-written introduction. I support this nomination. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my FLC here. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only saw a couple of things worth mentioning:

• As an unexplained abbreviation, RIAA could stand to be spelled out.
• The all caps in ref 83 should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I have addressed your comments. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Since my only couple of small issues have been fixed, I think this meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I've become a little fixated with cricket lists again, and for a while now, Australian ones. I picked this one up in a reasonable state but polished it a little in an attempt to please our readers and please you, yes you, good reviewer. As usual, I offer my guaranntee that I'll fix anything that's picked up as soon as I practically can, and will work tirelessly to achieve a positive result for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is a little "bullet point" towards the end of the second paragraph; "Team X's Player Y has the most/best Z." Could it be reworked to flow a bit better?

  I'm not sure, I tried reasonably hard to include the pertinent facts about the trophy's history in a prose-ish manner, perhaps you could suggest an example of how to improve what's already there? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not fair, turning it around on me! But seriously, I think one of the things I found odd about it was that neither the list itself, nor the history section discusses individual records that much. Generally the lead is supposed to summarise the content, but here it is listing individual records that aren't otherwise mentioned. Actually, re-reading it, it probably flows as well as such a list of records is ever going to. So from that point of view, if you want to keep the information about them in the lead, it probably is more or less as good as it can be. Harrias ^talk 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The History section in general uses two paragraphs to talk about six series, and then another two (shorter ones) to talk about the subsequent eleven. Have they just been that much less exciting to warrant that ratio?

  Indeed, a quick glance at the table which describes the results demonstrates that recent history has been utterly dominated by Australia, and you won't catch me harping on about that.... in all seriousness, I think the point is that it's just "more of the same" for the last few series, hence the reduced "deep dive" coverage. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder whether the previous point can partly solve this one: whether the personal records can be merged into the history section. Many of them occur during the later (more one-sided Australian) series, and so if they records are listed when they happen, it might help to make it look more balanced. Without reading in depth about the series, I would agree that otherwise, the actual series results do bear out the current balance, odd though it seemed on initial reading. Harrias ^talk 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick query - why is no player of the series listed for some series? Is the information not available, or was there simply no award? If the latter, it might be worth specifically stating it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No sources stating there were any awards for those years. Will add a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  On that basis happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks ChrisTheDude, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another fine list. Well done TRM. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

lede

• "...although six series between" - six Test series

(because A v NZ existed in first class cricket way back in the late 1800s, NZ granted Test status 1930)

• fellow countryman - always seems a tautology to me but s'pose it's common use:)

history

• "A man-of-the-match performance from Mark Greatbatch in which he batted for 655 minutes ensured the draw." - would read more easily with commas
• "latter being a 3–0 whitewash" - wlink whitewash
• "The series was drawn and, once again, Australia retained the trophy." remove once?
• In prose there are 3 players for whom it is not clear which team they play for... David Warner, Mark Greatbatch and James Pattinson.

main and summary tables

• might be just my browser settings but the background grey for NZ cells seems too dark. The grey used in Chappell–Hadlee Trophy has much better contrast.

refs

• 5 ESPNcrcinfo - cric
• 25 Wisden - Cricketers'
• 31 link Brydon Coverdale

Sorry, I have one more comment to come, just trying to word it concisely. JennyOz (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

• The second para of the lede talks twice of "the 2015-16 series". But makes mention of events in two separate series - NZ in Aust, Oct-Dec 2015 and Aust in NZ, Feb 2016

1. "As of February 2016, Australia hold the trophy following their 2–0 victory in the 2015–16 series." - maybe could read ... in the second series played in the 2015–16 season. (or ... in the 2015-16 Australian tour of New Zealand. or ... in the February 2016 series.)

2. "New Zealand's Ross Taylor holds the record for the highest score in the trophy's history, with 290 in the second innings of the second Test of the 2015–16 series. Taylor's score surpassed the previous record set in the same Test; David Warner struck 253 in the first innings."

(These 2 high scores occured in the other 2015-16 series i.e., the first series, (NZ in Aust). Both in same match, the 2nd Test. Warner in Aust 1st innings then Taylor in NZ 1st innings.)

So needs link to the first 2015-16 series i.e., New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2015–16?

That's me done now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz Pretty sure I got the easy ones, could you check the "Confusing" stuff has been resolved to your satisfaction? I'm completely easy if you wish to re-jig it to suit? Thanks for the review, much appreciated as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely satisfied, thanks! Another polished trophy! Happily signing support. JennyOz (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After expanding nearly all of Oh Land's articles within the past year or so, I decided to tackle her discography page which is quite extensive. The above discography includes all of her music and all of her guest features; it is cited well and accurately as well. I do honestly believe this satisfies the required criteria for featured lists. Thank you to all who leave me comments too. Carbrera (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For the caption of the infobox image, I would identify where Oh Land is performing.
• I believe that the number sixteen has to be represented as "16", and thirteen as "13". I believe that it is a policy to have all numbers above ten be shown as numerals and not spelled out.
• Fauna should be linked in the lead.

Great work with this list; once my relatively minor notes are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 – I believe I addressed all of your issues; thank you yet again. Carbrera (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my concerns; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsguy17

@Carbrera: I have a few minor comments for this article.

• In the lede, change "October 2010" over "late 2010" when talking about the "Sun of a Gun" single.
• In the final sentence of the lede, a reference citing its number six spot on the component chart, if one isn't included in the article already. It's usually better to cite those kinds of things. Also cite anything else in the lede that isn't verifiable from anything found in one of the tables below.

If you get those few small things sorted out, I will 100% support the promotion of this nomination. The list is already looking quite good, keep up the good work. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsguy17 – I switched from "late" to "October" per your suggestion. Thank you. The tidbit mentioning that "Love You Better" charted at number six is actually available in the "Other charted songs" section below – Ref #41. Thank you for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Thank you very much! I support the promotion of this FLC. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

Having reviewed one of your Oh Land GANs, I'm happy to find this list meeting the same high quality I found there. I am happy to support this nomination. Don't feel obligated, but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Freikorp (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I'll take a closer look at it later today when I have more time on my hands. In exchange (if you'd like/be willing to), could you take a look at this FLC and/or this FLC? If so that would be much appreciated. The former in particular is in need of some new commentary because the page hasn't even been edited in a solid month now. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take a look at at least one of those nominations tomorrow. :) Freikorp (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because it is a unique list that I believe meets featured standards. Freikorp (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapido comments

• Don't start lists with "This is a list..."
• Age should be in the table.
• "Executed for" column should either be unsortable or sort properly.
• Could put table in its own section and add a few images down the right-hand side.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed the first 3 points, and am currently adding images. Have a look at the article now. Is this the kind of setup you were hoping for regarding images? Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not The Rambling Man, but I just wanted to point out that image descriptions that are complete sentences (as opposed to sentence fragments) should end with a full stop. Sandvich18 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's too many images now. They appear near the references on my screen. In my opinion, it would look better for more people if you removed, say, 3 of them. By the way, there's a typo ("Georgie") in one of the cells. And - couldn't "1954 c." be replaced by "c. 1954" (as with other similar dates) using the following code: <span style="display:none">1954</span>c. 1954? Sandvich18 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments. I've implemented all your suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Maybe you would like to add a "see also" section to this list? With one or more of the following: Lists of people by cause of death, List of deaths from legal euthanasia and assisted suicide, List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, Capital punishment in the United States, Capital punishment in China. Sandvich18 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is horribly incomprehensive, to the point that I'm wondering why it even exists. Capital punishment in the United States says there have been 1,700 executions just since reinstatement, nearly all of which were by lethal injection. Your list only includes a single person from 2017, yet according to List of offenders executed in the United States in 2017 there have been fifteen so far this year. What are the inclusion criteria here? Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Did you read the lead? It states, "This alphabetical list features notable cases only", and also explicitly states that the US had executed 1,212 people via lethal injection as of October 2014. By reading the lead, one clearly becomes aware that many people are executed by lethal injection and that this is a collection of notable cases. The criteria for inclusion is exactly the same as my last featured list nomination to be promoted: List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. It's not a list of everyone who has died from a drug overdose, it's a list of everyone who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article who has died from a drug overdose. Likewise, this is a list of every single person who has a Wikipedia article about them who died from lethal injection. I thought that should have been obvious, but I'm happy to reword the lead to make this clearer if you like. Freikorp (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at featured lists like List of people with brain tumors, List of people with hepatitis C, List of HIV-positive people and List of poliomyelitis survivors. Even though they don't explicitly state it, it's quite clear that they don't contain every single person on the planet who has a brain tumour etc, and it's obvious from the context that it's a list of famous people with the condition. While I think the criteria goes without saying in my new nomination as well, nevertheless I'd already taken it upon myself to explicitly explain the criteria to the reader. Freikorp (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Freikorp, notability in this list is sensible and well-defined. By the way, now that there's a "See also" section, maybe there could be a link to Portal:Death, too. Also, I don't think Nazi Germany needs to be linked in the table since it's already blue in the lead. Sandvich18 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see seven bluelinks on List of offenders executed in the United States in 2017, but only one is on your list. You have 5/6 from 2014, 3/6 from 2013, and 2/3 from 2012, so there is some incompleteness. This also only has one of the three people linked at Capital punishment in Guatemala (why should the other two sharing an article exclude them?) I do not think that this is a direct comparison to the others you have linked. The others are compilations of people notable for their own various reasons who happen to have a health issue in common. There are millions of non-notable people with these so the criteria for a single list are obvious, whereas these people are notable for a reason directly connected to their execution. However, in this case it is also a much smaller amount of people who fit the category, the vast majority of whose names are known are already listed on Wikipedia. This simply copies the information from Lists of people executed in the United States but condenses it to those with articles, adding a handful of known names from other countries. My point is: why do we need a separate list only for those who happen to have articles when they're already in more comprehensive lists on Wikipedia? Reywas92^Talk 07:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also then suggest a rename to List of people executed by lethal injection because you are focusing on notable people, not the executions themselves. A list of executions should include all executions, whereas better terminology emphasizes the focus. Wikipedia can be fickle on what people are notable; sufficient sources for an article could conceivably be found for many criminals executed who don't yet have articles, but not as much so for non-notable people excluded from your other linked lists (OTOH, many included here who do have articles aren't really that notable - several have brief stubs). Also, there should be links to the aforementioned lists that are actually comprehensive, such as Template:CapPun-US. Reywas92^Talk 07:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deliberately exclude anybody from this list. I populated the list by adding every single person added to the category Category:People executed by lethal injection. Thanks for pointing out there are other people executed by lethal injection who haven't been added to that category; I'll go through and add them all to the list. I'd like to point out I did not throw in a "handful of known names from other countries"; I added every single person who had been listed to the aforementioned category, irrespective of what country they come from. I'd also like to state I did not "copy" the information from anywhere. For starters, only five of the people listed at List of offenders executed in the United States in 2011 have sources, and even then they're all bare URLs. This new article is 100% sourced and formatted consistently. In that regard at least, it's a huge improvement on those articles you've mentioned above. This article is also unique in the fact it lists all notable cases, not just those in the US. Wikipedia is in general too focused on US subjects and articles often, unfortunately, lack perspective from the rest of the world. I firmly believe this list offers something new to Wikipedia.

I do accept, however, that many people who were executed by lethal injection who don't currently have an article could potentially have one made. In building this list, my goal was simply to collect all the people who already have articles on them. Should my nomination be penalised because there are people who could be added to the list if only someone took the time to create articles about them? It's a fair question, and I don't know the answer to it. I'm not really sure what the going policy is on that, but I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter. Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Most of the blue links you were complaining about not being in the list were just redirects. The only 'missing' blue link from List of offenders executed in the United States in 2012 was a redirect. Only one of the three blue links you mentioned from 2013 was missing from the article; one of the other two was executed by electrocution and the other was in the article under a slightly different version of his name. The only missing one from 2014 is a redirect. Two of the missing ones from 2017 are redirects, three of the others were executed after I wrote the article last month, and one of those was executed after this nomination began. Any concerns that a considerable amount of notable cases had been left out of this list are not valid, in my opinion. But in any case, I've added everyone who meets the criteria from all the lists you mentioned now. Freikorp (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still hesitant to support because it is still somewhat arbitrary whether executed individuals have their own articles, which is not necessarily related to their method of execution, but I appreciate the changes made and the clarification of the list's criteria and do not oppose the promotion of this list. Reywas92^Talk 05:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This will most likely be my last minor comment: I think refs in the "Ref" column should be centered, just like here. Other than that, I believe every issue has been addressed and I'm happy to support this nomination under the new title. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks so much for your suggestions and support. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• This is very close to getting a support. My only minor quibble is a typo in note 16. My main objection is that you clarify the criteria for notability above, but not in the article. There are no deaths listed after 2010 outside the US, and none at all in Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. This obviously reflects the fact that it is based on coverage in English Wikipedia, which means that very minor American figures have articles but major Vietnamese ones, for example, do not. This should be clarified in the article, and also the cut off date. I suggest changing "This alphabetical list features notable cases only where lethal injection can be reliably sourced to be the method of execution." to something like "This alphabetical list features notable cases up to July 2017, and only those where lethal injection can be reliably sourced to be the method of execution. The criterion for notability is an article on the individual in English Wikipedia, which inevitably causes a bias towards US executions, as notable individuals in other countries such as Thailand and Vietnam may only have articles in their own language." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Dudley Miles. Thanks so much for your comments. I've fixed the typo, and I've also reworded the criteria in the lead as per your suggestion. It's a bit of a long-winded explanation but it is an accurate description, so I'm happy with it. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Paparazzzi I read the list and I think it meets the criteria since I couldn't find any mistake, it has been reviewed already and it has improved a lot since that, so I'm going to support this nomination. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cartoon network freak

• As of 2017 the method → comma before "the"
• The US and China → write "US" out here
• in the US can be found here. → write "US" out
• Everything else seems to be fine

@Freikorp: These are my comments. I will support once you answered. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: I assume this is the change you wanted: [9]. Thanks so much for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Concerns from above seem to have been addressed, the inclusion criteria works here, and the list is well-written. I do however have two questions/comments:

• Should it be "legalise" or "legalize"? Either one is appropriate for this article, but I am curious as to whether or not there's a reason for using the British English spelling vs. the American English spelling? Or is it standard practice to use British English in articles?
• Since "US" is an abbreviation for United States, shouldn't it be "U.S."? I feel like that's pretty standard but maybe there's something about it in the MoS?

Beyond that, I find no issues with the article and the points above are very minor and are more of questions than they are comments. Good work on the list. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Articles can use either British or American spelling (or other variations of English), though since this article mainly deals with a US topic I think it is most appropriate to use American English so I've just changed it to "legalize" accordingly. I've also changed all the mentions of "US" to "U.S." as this seems to be the preferred term as per MOS:US. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 00:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Dempsey recently tied the goalscoring record for the United States, set by Landon Donovan (the subject of my sole featured list), so it was finally time to create this list. Dempsey has scored some important goals for the United States in a variety of competitions, including World Cups and their famous run to the Confederation Cup final in 2009, and this list covers them all. (Note that Dempsey could become the all-time scorer anytime between today and the 2018 World Cup). SounderBruce 00:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Maybe personal pref, but I would prefer "who has represented the..." instead of "who has played for the"...
• " among active male goalscorers" -> " among active international male goalscorers"
• "behind Cristiano Ronaldo (75) and Lionel Messi (58)." perhaps say "Portugal's ... and Argentina's..."
• You could link "assist".
• "three goals against Egypt, Spain, and Brazil " potentially confusing, I guess you mean one goal against each of those teams?
• A bit of overlinking in the lead, 2015 CONCACAF, friendly etc.
• Not sure why you need a full stop after every number in the No. list.
• You have two July 22 "as ofs" and two July 28 "as ofs", suggest it would be neater for them all to be the same.

That's all I have right now, nice list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All fully or partially done. SounderBruce 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Any more comments? SounderBruce 00:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the few concerns I had were addressed very quickly. This is a quality list and I'm more than satisfied for it to pass. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support --Cheetah (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you use "As of July 28, 2017"? I mean why that date? The USMNT did not have a game on that day. I'd suggest use the date when USMNT last played (September 5, 2017).
  • The lead states 137 appearances, but the tables below state 138. Why the difference? Also, in the "By competition" table, I add all the caps and get 134 appearances, not 138 as you have it there.
  • "On June 22, 2017, during a 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup semifinal against Costa Rica..." - The game was in July
  • 99% of readers know that "No." means "number". I'd suggest changing "number" to "Cumulative goals total" in the "abbr" template.
  • Since you're linking the word "cap" in the table, I can't see the "A cap is awarded to a player for an international appearance" part when I hover over that link. Either remove the explanation or the link.

--Cheetah (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crzycheetah: Fixed the caps and date errors (now pegged to September 5's game, which conveniently had game notes with updated cap information). Also fixed the hover abbreviations as you suggested. SounderBruce 19:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Vibhijain (talk) and Khadar Khani (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated back in 2015, the list got sufficient 'supports' from reviewers but couldn't get through. Again, I would like to have Vibhijain as co-nominator since he has created the list. Comments and suggestions from anyone are much appreciated. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at this, and can't find anything that's an issue. Please compare this to the issues raised at the West Indies FLC, esp. any style issues raised by The Rambling Man. Should be good to go! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: already done with row and col scopes. Thanks for the comment! Khadar Khani (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: To open a second nomination, the unwritten rule is that the first candidate should have a minimum of three supports with no outstanding concerns. Btw, welcome back to FLC! —Vensatry _(talk) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thank you and I think your concern is resolved! Khadar Khani (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my only query at the moment is that the last paragraph of the lead seems to essentially be there to clarify why there are no ODI fifers on the list, but there isn't an equivalent bit of wording for T20. As far as I can see he never actually played in a T20 international, but as he did play in the era when they existed it might be worth mentioning........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: added "Kaneria never played Twenty20 International matches." Khadar Khani (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work, I was happy to support last time, and I'm happy to do so again now. Harrias ^talk 13:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work —Vensatry _(talk) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references look reliable and well-formatted. I spot-checked refs 19, 22, and 24, and have a question. Is the Innings column supposed to list the total number of innings in the match, or the innings when the haul happened? If the latter (which is implied by the key), then I'm confused because the references imply that the hauls I checked occurred in the first innings of the respective matches, not the second innings as the list says. This is unless I'm reading the cites wrong, which is possible as I'm not familiar with cricket stat-keeping. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's innings of the match. Kaneria's five-wicket haul came in Australia's first innings, which was the second innings of the match, coming after Pakistan's first innings. Harrias ^talk 06:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same applies for ref #22 and #24. Khadar Khani (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job Vibhijain and Khadar Khani. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been significantly reworked from its original state and now I am convinced it satisfies the criteria. Tables have been merged in order to show in a good way Leto's different activities. Earthh (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Good work on the article. You have my support. Good luck with the nomination! Mymis (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead (lead only)

• "The show was praised for its portrayal of adolescence and gained a strong cult following, despite being canceled after only one season." Maybe omit strong as a peacock term, and explain why the show was canceled after the first season (no finances, low ratings, something else?)

• Fixed.

• The prose in the introduction is flawlessly written, so bravo for that. Maybe you can find if some of his music videos earned him an award (thinking of MTV Music Video Awards, the Grammy's, etc)

• I mentioned the MTV Video Music Award for Best Direction.

• Overall, pretty solid article considering it's in the list's category. Here's my support for your effort.--Retrohead (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the refs look solid in terms of reliability. Ref 19 doesn't give the last name of Leto's character in Urban Legend, which is needed for verifiability. I don't see his name or character in the ref for Sunset Strip, which is another problem. Of the three sources I checked, only ref 30 (for Alexander) verifies everything, so some fixes are required. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008, I checked the sources and replaced some of them with new links (mostly AllMovie and NT Times' articles) in which credits and roles are both verifiable.--Earthh (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes look good. I checked the cites for Panic Room and Lonely Hearts and those turned out fine. I'm going to go ahead and promote the list now. Do be aware of this issue for your future work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the required criteria; I followed the style of my previous featured lists. A previous nomination of this has been failed because of very few reviews, but I hope it gets better this time.

• If Viva Comet Awards doesn't have an En-wiki article, I don't think it should be included here.

It has a Wikipedia page on Polish, so I think it is notable in a sort of way. Also, according to the Polish page, the awards gala appears to be important in the Polish music industry. Additionally, the prize is international and is presented by VIVA Media.

• "she met native producing trio Play & Win and adopted " odd jump from born, brought up...

What information should I fill the space with?

• "Eska Awards" appear to be called "Eska Music Awards".

Done

• "Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2010 and Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2011" probably can avoid repeating here, "Best Song in the Balkans from Romania for 2010 and for 2011"?

Done

• Elle Style Awards is linked from "Elle Style Awards România" but that page doesn't mention Romania at all. Is this varianet notable enough if it's not even mentioned on English language Wikipedia.

Same as with Viva Awards. It is the Romanian version of the award, compiled by the Romanian language version of Elle. The award also has the same nominations and stuff like that.

• (if it stays) "at Polish Viva Comet Awards," needs a "the" in there.

Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I answered to your comments. Thank you very much for your time, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Any updates? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced by the arguments about Viva Comet and the Elle Style awards. If these aren't notable enough to have English Wikipedia articles, or even redlink to them explicitly, I'm not sure why they're notable enough for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Removed both awards. How does the article look to you now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Please specify if you support or oppose the nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither at this time. As a delegate it's best if I keep my options open. You'd be better off seeking further review rather than worrying about me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the following phrase (which was later changed to "commercial" minimal-infused house music.), I do not believe the "commercial" quote is necessary as the focus should be kept on how the artist's musical style evolved/changed.
• For this sentence (Inna's debut studio album Hot, including her breakthrough single of the same name, was released in August 2009 and won the Romanian Music Award for Best Album.), I believe that you need a source to support the claim about "her breakthrough single".
• In the part (the same year a collaboration with Moldovan musical project Carla's Dreams on "P.O.H.U.I." received the Media Music Award for Best Zonga.), I would add a comma between "the same year" and "a collaboration".
• I was a little confused by the following sentence (Inna released her eponymous studio album in October 2015, which spawned the single "Diggy Down".) as the part about "Diggy Down" seems to imply it was the only single when that was not the case. I would change (which spawned the single "Diggy Down".) to something along the lines of (which spawned several singles including "Diggy Down".)

Wonderful work with this list. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Aoba47, I will respond once I'm back from holiday. Thank you!! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that you are having a wonderful holiday. Aoba47 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aoba47, Everything done! Thank you for your time! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great work with this; I support it for promotion. Good luck with this nomination this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All looks good to me now. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive3. Harrias ^talk 18:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the caveat that I think you should explain what a "Zonga" is. I've never heard that term before, so it's quite confusing to learn there's an award for the best one of whatever it is. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my FLC here. Freikorp (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Thank you very much! Unfortunately, I don't know what "Zonga" should mean either. On Wikipedia, there is a page named like that, but it redirects to an article about a roller coaster. A Google research showed a Romanian radio station named "Zonga", but I'm not sure it refers to that. Thank you again, and I'll look over your FLC in the course of this week. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've spent several hours working to bring this article to its current state, compared to how it was previously. I believe it meets featured list criteria. Lizard (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – This is a strong list that in my opinion meets FL standards. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – The images could do with alt text, but otherwise this is a good quality list that I'm happy to support. Harrias ^talk 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Mainly per Harrias. I would like to see a couple more images to the right of the table and see alt text, but otherwise, I found the list to be very organized and well-written. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add alt text. As for more images, for articles like these I prefer in-game "action shots," which are unfortunately pretty scant for pre-21st century players. Just having a head shot of the player in retirement doesn't add much value in my opinion. Lizard (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Comprehensive list with a well-written introduction. Don't feel obligated, but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cute one, I found it, twerked it, sorted out the various MOS issues, made it look pretty and checked refs etc. Of course, any and all comments welcome, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "The trophy was re-instated in 1966 by Brian Thornton" - Who is Brian Thornton? Compare with the previous paragraph, which explains who Sir Walter Lawrence is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question, all the reliable sources I have found relating to the WLT state he inherited the trophy upon the death of his father-in-law, Guy Lawrence who himself hadn't bothered keeping the trophy going upon the death of Walter Lawrence. There are mentions of "Brian Thornton" with relation to the Lords planning committee, but I can't find anything to definitively link the two. Any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure. I think you've covered it now with the re-write, so should be OK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look at this, and can't see anything of concern now. So that's a support from me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work, though I'd expect nothing less from you. Consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive3 for me? Harrias ^talk 13:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, will do. As long as you return to the Trans-Tasman Trophy FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job TRM on this list! I must admit that I was ignorant of this award before you brought it here to FLC. Thanks for the interesting read. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting trophy - and good to see some Aussies included.

• "The award was made every season up to and including 1939, but in that year Lawrence died, and for some years after the Second World War the trophy was not awarded. The trophy was re-instated in 1966 by Brian Thornton, who had inherited the trophy from his father-in-law and Walter's son, Guy Lawrence." - with the coincidence of Lawrence dying, the cricketless war years and the son's disinterest, the 'but' and the 'some' are not clear.

How about something maybe more like...

The award was made every season up to and including 1939 when Lawrence died. When first class cricket resumed in 1945 after the Second World War, Lawrence's son Guy left the presentation of the Trophy in abeyance. It was finally re-instated by Guy's son-in-law, Brian Thornton for the 1966 season.

(This also keeps the three blokes chronologically mentioned.)

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• crease - wlink?

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four batsmen have won the main award on more than one occasion, twice each: Ian..." - why not just "have won the trophy twice: Ian..."?

• Just in case someone thinks it might have been done three times. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...who stuck 127 in 54 balls..." - is that struck?

  Yes, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• what is diff Australia v Australians (ditto India/ns)?

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• add something re awards ceremony at Lord’s per here?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• refs

20 - charles

• Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 - link BBC Sport

• Alreay linked in the lead ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM JennyOz (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz Hi Jenny, thanks for you review comments! I've acted on them and responded inline above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some tweaks didn't save? I've done the ref 20 (now 21) typo - but not the mention of trophy presentations which was only a minor suggestion. Very happy to now support and thanks for buffing this trophy article to a shining feature! JennyOz (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of all her releases accompanied with albums/singles main charts. Everything is referenced. The lead includes the most important information about her releases. ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Please use a better description for the ALT text, instead of "Refer to caption".

 Done

• I would spell out "extended play" out in the first sentence with (EP) in parenthesis following it.