Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2019

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) 21:07:18 29 September 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 Pacific hurricane season was one of the most active seasons in recorded history. This timeline documents the formation, intensification, weakening, landfalls, and dissipation of all 31 systems that formed during the season. I have been working on this list for several weeks and I would now like to put it up for featured list candidacy. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is inconsistent date formatting in the references (archival dates). Noah^Talk 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Miles needs to be abbreviated (one occurrence). Noah^Talk 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricane Noah: both fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That should be it. Noah^Talk 10:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's one sentence under June 7 which is in the past tense, whereas the rest is in the present
• "Tropical Depression Fourteen-E develops from and elongated area" - typo
• That's all I've got......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: corrected both. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks great to me. – zmbro _(talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are all reliable and well-formatted. The link-checker points to one potential issue: the Weather Underground link (ref 12) is showing up as likely dead. Please add an archive link to that reference if necessary. Otherwise everything looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked and realised the website had moved, so I've replaced the url accordingly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for fixing that. With the new link in place, I'm calling this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 25 September 2019 (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) 21:07, 29 September 2019 (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) 21:02:33 29 September 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My previous nomination here, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League rushing champions/archive2, is at three supports with all comments resolved, so I figured I'd nominate another list. This is the discography of Steven Curtis Chapman, one of the best-selling contemporary Christian music artists and the single most awarded figure in industry history. This list categorizes his major studio efforts and certifications along with chart positions for his studio albums as well as compilation albums, holiday albums, other albums (EPs and side projects), and video albums. It also includes a list of his singles and charting songs going back to 1987. Both of these sections are large, but I think they are summarized adequately in the lede, which notes his first albums, his major successes in the 90s, and his recent albums in the 2000s and 2010s, as well as brief mentions of his singles. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I have only had time to look at the lead so far, where I have noticed the following:
  • No need to repeat his entire name at the start of para 3
  • "Chapman’s next two albums, Declaration (2001) and All About Love (2003), become" => became
  • "peaking at Nos. 14 and 12" - no need for a capital N
  • Same in the next sentence
• I hope to get to look at the tables later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected all of these now. Thanks in advance for taking a look! Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing I could spot on the tables is that I strongly suspect that "Speechles" is spelt incorrectly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And you’d be correct... fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

• The prose would benefit from some fine tuning. "Chapman" begins 7 out of 10 sentences, and some are quite long. Also, the uses of "would" and "became" don't really add much, when "Chapman released" and "Real Life was his first" are more direct.
• The "Certifications" and "Albums" columns in the tables sometimes appear much wider than the "Titles" columns (the 2001–present singles titles are squeezed into a very narrow column). This gives an unbalanced look and draws attention away from the titles in the first row. Also, more consistency in column sizes from table to table is easier to follow (there's quite a jump from the first single table to the second).

Obviously, these are personal preferences, but something you may consider. Otherwise, good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. Did not notice the "singles" table does not have any length requirements - I've added them so they are consistent now (with the exception of the 2001-present table, as it has a certifications row). I've also removed several Chapmans from the lede and a few uses of the unnecessary phrasing. Toa Nidhiki05 20:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. In looking over the citations, I noticed many of the "Album details" entries use AllMusic reviews or the RIAA awards list. AllMusic is only considered a reliable source for its reviews. It's not clear where its sidebar info (dates, genres, etc.) comes from and is frequently incorrect. RIAA only shows the labels and album or single; the certification dates are not applicable. Amazon.com "should be avoided" (WP:NOTRSMUSIC). Release announcements, "breakout" entries, etc., in Billboard, genre magazines, or Chapman's own press releases are better sources.

  I’ll see what I can find but there is some contradictory advice at wp:NOTRSMUSIC (which advises against Amazon but does advise using Allmusic for internet-area releases). The RIAA sources actually do show release dates, though - if you click “more details”, it expands out to include the dates of certification but more importantly it does show the actual release date. I have access to Newspapers.com so I’ll see if I can find dates there. Would Chapman's website be a reliable source for this? He appears to have all the release dates listed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, my computer won't show certain info, which is the case with the RIAA "More Details". If RIAA shows the release date, that's good enough. I think the first AllMusic sentence in NOTRSMUSIC is outdated (and out-of-place) and is contradicted by the following paragraph. Until this can be corrected, it is best to avoid the AllMusic sidebar info, especially when other sources are available. The Chapman website info should be OK for dates for the albums that RIAA doesn't have (I wonder how the three compare?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all of the Allmusic release dates and corrected the dates as well; there are still two albums cited to Amazon, but I could not find any other non-retailer sources that gave exact release dates. Regardless, both are out of print so I do not think the conflict of interest in selling still exists, and the dates line up well with other retailers as far as I could tell. Chapman's website does have a page that lists his long-form videos, but only the year of release. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In looking for better sources for videos, I noticed some more.[3][4][5] Are these just earlier editions of the three you've listed? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the ones you listed:

1. The Videos is already listed.
2. I actually own the Live DVD so I know it exists, but it did’t chart and I couldn’t find much if any coverage on it.
3. The Christmas Is All In The Heart VHS is, AFAIK, just a VHS music video released for promotional use, maybe in video stores.
4. The Great Adventure VHS was bundled with some versions of The Great Adventure CD. Maybe a pre-order bonus?
5. The Live Adventure was released as both a VHS and CD release, but since it charted on CD I included it in live albums while noting it was also released on VHS.
6. Christmas Child was a made-for-TV movie he was in as an actor, so it’s not a video album.
7. CCM United was a large compilation project with a ton of different artists, so not a Steven Curtis Chapman exclusive project.
8. Front Row is an ancient VHS (1990, maybe)? It didn’t chart, and it didn’t receive much (if any) coverage.

Toa Nidhiki05 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The singles and charting songs show the references for peak positions, which may be sufficient for years. But if there is a general source for years, this could be added at the top of the "Year" columns (missing for "Other charting songs"). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed the lack of year in “other charting songs”. There is not a general source for years, the year column comes from the earliest date the song charted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This came up in a recent review, so I'll add it here: all the tables indicate "selected chart positions". I'm not sure where to add it, but a statement regarding the selection criteria should be given.

  Not sure what this would look like. I mean if there’s a criteria I guess it’s relevant, major charts he showed up on a lot? There’s not really a criteria since the number of charts he has appeared on is actually fairly limited due to him being a Christian musician (no international charts, no Hot 100, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not actually excluding any major charts that he appears on and including the ones he shows up on the most, then you've covered it. If he appears a few times on the Billboard 200, Hot 100, or RPM, these may be added as footnotes. The "selected" qualifiers should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. Aside from excluding charts that are typically excluded from discographies (Billboard 200 component charts and catalog charts), there was no real editorial decision here. The AC chart is the only mainstream singles chart he's appeared on AFAIK. I've removed the "selected" qualifier. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my concerns have been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have two suggestions for the image caption. I do not believe it should end with a period because it is not a full sentence. And second, I would add the year that the photo was taken if known to provide some context to the reader.

  Unfortunately the year is not listed in the image, and the flickr source is gone. I have removed the period, however. Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Understandable. Thank you for clarifying it though. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would provide some ALT text to the infobox image.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never seen the first sentence of a discography list explicitly mention the word "discography" before. Usually, the first sentence is "X has released Y". Here are some examples: Taylor Swift discography, Meghan Trainor discography, Lorde discography. I am not saying the current phrasing is wrong per say, but I think it would be better to go with the more accepted and consistent language from other discography featured lists.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (in addition to multiple holiday albums, compilation albums, and video releases), I would use the exact number for these rather than "multiple" since an exact number is known for each of these release types.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies if this is very obvious, but what do you mean by "Other albums"? The table includes an extended play (Safe in the Arms), a live album (The Live Adventure), and two studio albums (Deep Roots and Deeper Roots: Where the Bluegrass Grows). I do not understand why the Cracker Barrel albums are not included in the "Studio albums" chart as they both appear to be studio albums. I would put Safe in the Arms in an "Extended play" subsection and The Live Adventure in a Live album subsection for clarity.

  It's moreso for organization - having a lot of tables with one item doesn't seem that friendly to readers, at least to me, and the Deep Roots albums, while recorded in a studio, aren't main releases - they are side projects. The second one even has half the songs of the first one. I figured it would be misleading to categorize them alongside the main albums. Toa Nidhiki05 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree. I think the "Other albums" subsection and table are not particularly friendly to readers because it is never clearly defined what an "other album" is. Having an extended play (Safe in the Arms) in this subsection makes it even more confusing because an extended play is not the same thing as an album. I also do not fully understand the difference between a "main release" and a "side project". I could understand Deep Roots and Deeper Roots: Where the Bluegrass Grows being put into a separate subsection and table entitled "Bluegrass albums" as you have done with the compilation albums and the holiday albums. I can understand your concern about having multiple tables with one item, but I think the vague "Other albums" title is not an ideal alternative. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I will leave this point up to other editors and the FLC coordinators. I will not press the point further. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I plan to fix it, just a busy few days! Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Take as much time as you need. There is no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the list. You definitely inspire me to work on a discography list in the near future as I have not done an FLC in a while. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time and interested, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: I have competed this change now I think. There are now separate bluegrass, extended play, and live albums. The other comments should be addressed as well. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would wikilink "Amazon" in the first reference that it is included.
• The sources are all reliable and properly formatted, and from my brief spot check, everything seems to be accurately supported through these citations.

Once my minor suggestion is addressed, then this pass my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is now linked. Toa Nidhiki05 03:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing that. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 29 September 2019 (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) 18:30:33 27 September 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far 31 of these country number ones lists have been promoted to FL and another one looks on course, so here is what I hope will be #33, covering a year in which the King of Rock and Roll had a country number one more than three years after he died...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I do not see anything that needs improvement. Wonderful work with the list as always! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – great as always. – zmbro _(talk) 02:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The sources are all reliable and properly formatted. Reference 9 leads to the AXS home page instead of the cited article, but that is the only issue that I can see in the sources.
  • Fixed that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. This passes the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2019 (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) 03:29:57 24 September 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the style of several successful FL nominations for European countries. The latest two promoted were List of World Heritage Sites in Albania and List of World Heritage Sites in Malta. Austria has even more sites listed. As usual, some copyediting is expected to take place during this nomination. Tone 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using "In the following table" is outdated phrasing that is no longer used in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, fixed. --Tone 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The notes section normally goes before references.
• As there are only two notes, they look odd in four columns.
• You are inconsistent whether locations are linked. It would be helpful to link them all.
• "Salzburg was the meeting point between German and Italian cultures". Between when and when?
• "The region built itself around salt mining". A region building itself sounds wrong to me.
• "While only some of the sites have been excavated". This comment is superfluous as it would apply to any such set of sites.
• Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests. The citation for this site links to a Chinese site.
• Late Middle Ages could be linked.
• "called Thalers". I do not think thaler should be capitalised.
• You are inconsistent whether to capitalise Gothic.
• "The Danubian Limes, a network of fortifications along the Danube river, was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire." "protected" would be better than "was protecting".
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2019, Austria has 10 total sites inscribed on the list and further 12 on the tentative list" - I think the word "total" is redundant here, and also "further 12" should be "a further 12"
• "which began as early as 2,000 BCE" - dates don't usually have a "thousand separator". Nobody would write "we are currently living in the year 2,019".
• "The Semmering Railway was built" - the title of our article doesn't have a capital R - which is correct?
• "This project was undertaken in the early days of railroad construction" - article doesn't seem to be written in US English, so "railroad" should be "railway"
• "around 5000 to 500 B.C." - earlier you used "BCE" - be consistent
• "The site is a part of transnational site" => "The site is a part of a transnational site"
• "functioned both as a spiritual center"......"The historic centre" - article is inconsistent as to whether it uses US spellings or not
• "was protecting the borders of the Roman Empire" => "protected the borders of the Roman Empire"
• "a visual school of nature" - literally no idea what that means
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: are you still active? You haven't edited in nearly two weeks......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I haven't noticed the comments, I'll take care of them soon. Thanks :) --Tone 13:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:, @ChrisTheDude:, thank you for your detailed comments. I think I addressed all. I rewrote some sections, locations are now linked in a way that they are linked the first time in the section only (Vienna shows often, for example), the part about the meeting point of cultures does not give precise times in the source but it indicates that the main product was seen in the Baroque style. Ready for next round of checks. --Tone 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You could say "Schönbrunn was the residence..." for a complete sentence.
• Hallstatt: "The mining of salt deposits, being exploited...". "The name of the town gave name..." No comma after society; this is a restrictive appositive
• Beech forests: doesn't need "a part of a transnational site"

Reywas92^Talk 05:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Reywas92: Fixed, thanks for the comments! --Tone 06:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another great list Reywas92^Talk 07:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A short list, but a high-quality and informative one. Morgan695 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:29, 24 September 2019 (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) 03:29:56 24 September 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows all Featured List criteria (very similar to other FLs about footballers’ international goals) and it would be nice to see an Aussie who plays soccer on Today’s Featured List for a change. KingSkyLord (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that Cahill has retired, I think you need to change a lot of the tenses e.g. "Cahill has scored against Japan" => "Cahill scored against Japan", "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals have been scored" => "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals were scored" and so on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done @ChrisTheDude I updated the tone and the tenses so that it could be read better. KingSkyLord (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments
  • Photo caption - it's the Confederations (plural) Cup
  • "first international hat-trick, where he scored three goals against Fiji" - I would say "when" rather than where
  • "scored his 29th international goal against Costa Rica on 19 November 2013, equaling Damian Mori's national record of 29 goals" - if he equalled the record by scoring his 29th goal then obviously the record was 29, you don't need to state it again
  • "On 17 November 2015, he would score" - "he scored"
  • "his second (and last) ever international hat-trick" => "his second and last international hat-trick"
  • "where he scored the first three goals of the match" - "when he scored the first three goals of the match"
  • "Cahill scored more goals against Japan than he has against any other side" => "Cahill scored more goals against Japan than against any other side"
  • "subsequently nominated for the FIFA Puskás Award for 2014" - might be worth a very brief explanation of what this award is for
  • "both of whom are the two cities" => "which are the two cities"
  • "that Cahill has scored the most international goals in" => "in which Cahill has scored the most international goals"
  • "He has also scored against nations" => "He scored against nations"
  • "The second of these was Cahill's 50th (and last) ever international goal" => "The second of these was Cahill's 50th and last international goal"
  • "This made him the 59th man to reach 50 international goals." - source?
  • "Cahill also scored at three AFC Asian Cups"
  • "He was also named Oceania Footballer of the Year for 2004" => "He was named Oceania Footballer of the Year for 2004"
  • "Updated to game played 10 October 2017" - you may as well show it as updated to the date of his last international game (as in fact the other section already is)
• Think that's it from me - can't see any issues with the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done @ChrisTheDude, I fixed all of the issues you mentioned. KingSkyLord (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a couple of minor tweaks and now am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits of my own to the lead to organize things a bit better but I still have some questions:

• 1st paragraph: would be good to mention how he retired (when it was announced, what his last game was, possibly mention length of his career)
• 3rd paragraph: I'm guessing it is somehow meant to center around the idea of where he scored the most int'l goals of his career? If I am wrong then my apologies, but the way the information is organized makes it difficult to determine what exactly the reader is meant to understand the point to be.

• You open with the most goals he ever scored against a side was against Japan but follow up with "He also scored against Serbia during the 2010 FIFA World Cup and against both Chile and the Netherlands at the 2014 edition." - what is the relevance of this sentence in connection to the opening sentence? Are these teams his second most scored against sides or something? If so, how many goals did he score against them to warrant being mentioned here?
• The Puskas award seems out of place here. Shouldn't the information in the lead (after the opening p'graph) either be organized chronologically so that info from like years ends up together, organized by a theme or central idea, or a separate p'graph be created for the awards/accolades he received as relates to this list? (or even noted somewhere in the opening p'graph if this is not how these sports related lists are written)
• It continues with "More than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia" but then you say right after "He scored six times in Adelaide...and...in Sydney, the two cities where Cahill scored the most international goals." - To me, placing both of those sentences one after the other is a bit confusing (maybe even a little contradictory?) because both of the cities where he scored the MOST int'l goals are INSIDE Australia after you just said he scored MOST ("more than half of" to be precise) of his int'l goals OUTSIDE of Australia. I think the paragraph probably should have started with "More than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia" (if that is the point of the p'graph) and then you tie in the Japan goals and other relevant info. Or the two sentences could be merged and reworded to instead say, "Although more than half of Cahill's international goals were scored outside of Australia, the two cities he scored the most in were Adelaide (all at the 2004 OFC Nations Cup) and Sydney with six goals at each." or something along those lines. Again, this is all dependant on what the point of the p'graph is.

• 4th paragraph: I assume this p'graph expounds upon his '50 international goals'? The first 3 sentences all connect to that theme so they're good.

• This sentence seems out of place, "During his career, Cahill scored at three AFC Asian Cups (2007, 2011, 2015) and one OFC Nations Cup (2004). His late equalizer against Oman at the 2007 AFC Asian Cup was Australia's first Asian Cup goal. Doesn't clearly correlate to the '50 int'l goals' at all. You need to mention how many of them he scored at both cups, ie. 'Cahill scored sixteen international goals at three AFC cups and one OFC cup".
• "Thirteen of Cahill's fifty international goals were scored in friendlies. He scored against nations from each of the six FIFA Confederations." - this sentence perfectly mentions how his 13 friendly goals relate to the 50 int's goals and that's what you need to do as I mentioned above.
• The Oceania accolade mention seems out of place here. (refer to my note about the Puskas award)

The leads of the lists for Drogba, Henry and van Persie are good examples to look at for how they address the things I've mentioned for your article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (noticed the improvements you made and the lead reads much better now -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• I've decided to do a full review after all, since I keep commenting on this list.

Lead

• • @Teratix: Fixed essentially everything. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Teratix: Fixed all of those as well. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table

• • @Teratix: Fixed all of your major issues. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Teratix: Fixed all of those new issues as well. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

• • @Teratix:  Done Fixed issues and replaced FFA link with a link of Tim Cahill's goals at FIFA competitions. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Teratix: Fixed that last issue as well. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

I've found I don't have the time to conduct a review with the depth I would like. Adding small bursts of comments like this instead of taking the time to do a complete review is not fair on the nominator, and @KingSkyLord: I apologise for this.

These few points are the absolute last I will post here, and I support assuming they're fixed. – Teratix ₵ 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• •  Done KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My couple of little nit-picks have been adequately addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Since nobody else has done a source check for this article yet, I'll volunteer. Here's what I found:

• A bunch of references are missing access dates. By my count, refs 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 26, 51, 54, and 55 all need them.
• Refs 1, 10, 15, and 53 should have en dashes in their titles instead of hyphens per the Manual of Style.
• Other than those points, the formatting looks okay and the references are all reliable. The link-checker tool and spot-checks of refs 32, 34, and 41 showed no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Fixed your main issues. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The couple actionable points I've raised have been resolved, so I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:29, 24 September 2019 (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) 22:05:04 15 September 2019 (UTC) [9].

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first episodes list of an Indian series to be nominated for FLC. I believe it meets the criteria. All the criticisms are welcomed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The first season episodes have descriptions which (on my screen) are ten lines long, but for season two each episode is just a single sentence. Any reason why? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be a content dispute on the article regarding plot of the episodes and the season two plots are significantly shorter than Anon IP's version of the season one plot. Also, stuff like "Unsettling truths, complex betrayals and unforeseen connections emerge for Sartaj, Gaitonde and Shahid Khan as doomsday descends on Mumbai." sounds like it's directly lifted from the episode trailer and very non-neutral; probably shouldn't be in the plot summary section at all. Rest looks good to me though. A logo would be look lot better than a captioned poster but isolating the logo and creating a svg would take a lot of time. TryKid (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude and TryKid Your queries have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Yashthepunisher:. I was waiting for what Chris had to say before commenting so forgive me for not responding. I think the episode summaries need to be expanded quite a bit. Maybe it's possible to completely remove episode summaries in favour of season summaries or is that only for shows with different season articles? But the episode summaries are currently too short. TryKid (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid I am following the similar existing FLs and I don't see any issue with the current version. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see Gunsmoke list is similar but that was promoted in 2010. Other mainstream lists like GoT and Office (British) have much longer episode summaries. Can you provide some recent-ish FLs that have short episode summaries? Apparently the ping didn't properly go through (my signature got messed up). Let's try again: @Yashthepunisher:, hope this works this time. TryKid (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[10] There are no rules as such. Some lists have long summaries, some short, some with no summary at all. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: If episode summaries is not a problem, I support the nomination. TryKid (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Resolved the above mentioned issues. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few little tweaks which it would have taken longer to explain here than to just fix. My one remaining comment relates to the final episode of season 1: He eventually finds an underground bunker with Trivedi and filled with weapons - this wording is slightly confusing. Does it mean that he went with Trivedi to find the bunker? Or does it mean that he found the bunker and Trivedi was in it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He went inside the bunker after getting a clue, where he finds stashed weapons and Trivedi tied to a chair. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying/amending. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would include ALT text for the logo.
• I am wondering if you could expand more on this sentence (Gaitonde tells him to save the city within 25 days.). Why only 25 days? Is Gaitonde threatening to destroy the city within 25 days or is there something else threatening the city? Some more clarification would be helpful here.

That's the whole suspense on which the entire story is build as Sartaj tries to find the answers and the meaning of the '25 days' mystery. Gaitonde tells him to save the city and then shoots himself. It's only revealed towards the end of the second season. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (The series was conceived after Erik Barmack, the Vice-president of Netflix,), I do not believe "vice-president" needs capitalization.
• I think this part (contacted Motwane to create Indian content for the platform in 2014.) would read more smoothly for the "in 2014" part was moved directly after "Motwane". The date is more connect with the time Motwane was contacted. The current wording could imply that he was contacted to make Indian content for Netflix only for 2014.
• I have two comments on this part (they opted to adapt Chandra's novel in the local Indian language,). I would specify the exact language rather than "the local Indian language", and I would also clarify that the novel was in English. Without the point of reference that the original is English, it is not really clear why the language choice is important.
• For this part (The first season of the series was mostly shot in Mumbai; the second season was shot over different locations of Delhi, Mombasa, Nairobi, Cape Town and Johannesburg.), why are multiple geographic areas linked, but not Delhi or Mumbai?
• For this part (Each episode of Sacred Games is named after a story or character derived from Hindu mythology.), would a link to "Hindu mythology" be helpful?
• Any word on a third season?

Nothing yet. But I will mention it when its announced. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you mention the critical reception for the first season, has there been any reviews for the second season? It has just been released so I understand if there is not enough to form a consensus, but I was just curious.

There is no clear consensus available yet for the second season. Not even on RT. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am wondering if a source should be used for this sentence (The second season premiered on 15 August 2019.^[7] A total of 16 episodes have aired over the two seasons with eight in each.) since the rest of the lead has citations.

Wonderful work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 The rest has been resolved. Thanks for your comments, and sure I will look into your FAC. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for covering everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – There's one issue that needs a look:

• Formatting-wise, the references are full of red error messages because of recent template changes that may or may not stick. For now, I'd be inclined to ignore them for the purposes of this review, as a relevant noticeboard discussion on the subject is still in progress.
• Reference 9 is to the Daily Express, an English tabloid newspaper that I wouldn't typically consider a reliable source. Other than that source, the reliability looks okay.
• The links are all in working order according to the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Done. Thanks for the review. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• remove the unused "date=" from ref 4
• for the image license replace {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{PD-textlogo}}.
• shouldn't the "External link" be "External links".

There is only 'one' external link and that too, not any more. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• add a short description. i.e. "List of Indian web television thriller series episodes"
• alt=Sacred Games logo|Sacred Games logo from the opening sequence of the first season -> alt=Sacred Games logo|thumb|Sacred Games logo from the opening sequence of the first season

That's not how the logo's are represented on such lists. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• external IMDB link gives an error.

Removed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In episodes section heading, "Season 1 (2018)", and "Season 2 (2019)" is the year necessary. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to give a clarity to the reader. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It already mentions year in the table.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 08:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher:___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue if the year is mentioned in the season heading. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA Rest is done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – looks good to me. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 15 September 2019 (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) 03:30:03 24 September 2019 (UTC) [11].

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently expanded this discography to include inline citations for each release, added several charting albums, and revised the lead. Muddy Waters is one of the most important blues artists of all time and I hope to make this a featured list. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Alright all good for me. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 17:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Firstly, great to see a bluesman getting recognition at FLC!
• What's the criterion for "selected" live and compilation albums i.e. why are these selected but not others?

• Since there is such a large amount of questionable material out there, I tried to include the ones that 1) were issued by his official record companies, 2) appeared on the charts, or 3) noted in his bio by Gordon or other references, such as the All Music Guide to the Blues. I used the same approach with the Elmore James discography. The many releases by Charly Records and related labels were excluded, because it lost the copyright infringement lawsuit over its unauthorized releases of the Chess catalogue.[14]—Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that that discog has a couple of sentences at the top of the relevant section explaining the selection. Would something similar be possible here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some explanations, while trying to avoid WP:SELFREF. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In some cases where multiple refs are together they are not in numerical order

• Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref columns are usually centred

• Fixed, although most discographies lack inline citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "as accompanist - singles" table, not a single one charted, so is there really any point in having the chart peak column?

• It gives a more consistent, professional look, IMO. I'm not a fan of jumping to different sized tables with different columns from section to section. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be tempted to show the two versions of "The Last Waltz" as "The Last Waltz" and "The Last Waltz (deluxe re-release)" or "...(box set re-release)" rather than use the dates, as using the dates doesn't rule out the possibility that they are two completely different albums that happen to have the same title.....

• Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some (although not all) of the notes are complete sentences so need full stops

• Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Ref 46 doesn't include the publication year in the cite, which is causing a nasty red harv error message to appear. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed (mine doesn't show in red). Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DISEman has created several new Muddy Waters album articles and added links to the discography. However, some didn't use a sort key for titles beginning with "The", etc. (see WP:SORTKEY). These have been restored to the reviewed version. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DISEman (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one took a while, but source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:30, 24 September 2019 (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.