Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2013

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of NK Maribor players

Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every important NK Maribor player, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Also, the list was subject to a Wikipedia:Peer review, however, it seems that no one is interested in doing list reviews at this time (couple of other lists went without the review as well). Ratipok (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "Ales Krizan holds the club record for the most appearances in Slovenian top division, with 240." Needs "the" before Slovenian. UEFA should probably be spelled out in the second paragraph. In the key, each usage of "have" should be "has" instead. "played on two or more different positions during his career". "on" → "at"? The List of players section heading doesn't need the first two words. "This is the list of important players...". Why does playing 100 matches automatically make a play important to Maribor? I'm sure some of them played a minor role for the team, and this strikes me as needless POV. The table caption uses the word as well. "listed by the number of their appearnaces." Last word is a typo. Can we avoid having NOT fully capitalized? It's annoying enough to see that in references; it's certainly inappropriate in article text. If editors have trouble with this point, you could try an inline note to get the message across. "Season counts if a player has made at least one appearance during their respective seasons." The final four words or so are redundant to the rest of the sentence and can be removed. Bolding in discouraged in FLs. For emphasis, try italics instead. By the way, why is this whole lead-up italicized? Footnote B: "player's" → "players'", with the apostrophe at the end. Reference 21 (Wordpress) is not a reliable source. Something else will need to be found for the note that uses it. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Comment: Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them properly. If there is anything else, feel free to write me a msg as I will now follow this article more closely. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose could use a good hard copyedit. Lead could be considered as a little too big, but you could merge the first couple of paras. Bit of rewording perhaps: "The club was founded in 1960 and joined the FA of Yug the same year. It remained a member until the independence ... in 1991." You link Slovenia's independence the second time round. " had no major success" not sure we know what a "major" success is. "managers Bojan Prašnikar, Ivo Šušak and Matjaž Kek" all three at once? It's not clear. "overwhelmingly dominated" - really? Is this a quote? If so quote it, if not it's not encyclopedic. "became the dominant force" not encyclopedic. "Matjaž Kek also" don't repeat first names. Any reason you link Prosen in the table but not in the lead? Be consistent. Same with Horjak. "The current.." see WP:AS OF. " As of 6 December 2012..." well it's already "22 March 2013" so an update could be useful. "eight current players" (a) see the "current" thing above (b) why aren't all current players linked in the lead? "Former Maribor member" do you mean player rather than member? There are other instances of this. The en-dash for goals (for instance) shouldn't sort between 0 and 1. Shouldn't "Simeunović" be "Simeunovič "? Reword Pos to something else so it's not confusing with playing position. Avoid overlinking in the notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Comment:Thank you for your comments. I have changed the lead and made it shorter. Please look at it if it meets your criteria. I have also addressed most of the other matters, though there are still some things that need to be taken care off. For example, I have linked Tomislav Prosen and Branko Horjak in the lead but those two dont have Wiki articles (I will change that asap and made two new articles). The Simeunović and Simeunovič thing is a bit confusing. Vojislav Simeunović (ć also used in the official website) is a native of present day Serbia and is the former player/manager of Maribor and also the father of Marko Simeunovič (č is by Maribor's website) who was born in present day Slovenia and represented Slovenian NT on international level (Slovene alphabet only uses č and not ć -- I have changed his last name to Č though, because of its use on the official website of the club). Among the "eight current players" Marcos Tavares and Aleš Mertelj arent linked because they are already linked in the second paragraph (I could link them twice, if its not a problem). In the same paragraph I slightly changed the "Matjaž Kek also", but I am not sure if its OK now (let me know if it needs to be changed further). I know what would you like with the en dash sorting (between 0 and 1), but I am not sure how to change that and will try to look for help tmr. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Good work so far, I imagine you may be able to use the {{sort}} template on the en-dashes as something like – or similar to force its position? Have a play. Thanks. I have used {sort|-1|—} for apps and goals of the two youth players/internationals and it now sorts en-dash before zero and not between zero and one. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) No, looks good to me, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I will try to find someone who would be willing to do the review.Ratipok (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have asked the Wikiproject Football task force for help and hope someone will respond:) Ratipok (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now, on sourcing, probably MOS:FLAG compliance, and criterion 5a "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked".

• Prose: odd bits of English that aren't quite right: things like putting "the" when it shouldn't be there, or omitting it when it should, wrong choice of prepositions, the sort of minor stuff that comes of writing (very well, in general) in a language not your own. If you'd like me to do a very minor copyedit just to fix that sort of thing, I'd be happy to.
• Colour symbols. I think the symbol templates are supposed to be written out in words, as {{section-sign|alt=InternationalClub}} rather than {{§|alt=InternationalClub}}. And it might be better to separate the words "international" and "club", so that a screen reader can read it properly.
• Table column heading. "Retirement" is the wrong word, but I can't think of anything that's a proper opposite to "Debut". Perhaps someone else can. If it were me, I might have gone with something simple like "First" and "Last", or "From" and "To".
• The Rank column's going to be fun to update... Probably it should be centre-aligned, like the other numeric fields.
• You need to pick a single as-of date, and use it for everything time-dependent. At the moment, in the lead section you've got Marcos Tavares with 228 apps as of March 2013 and 84 players w/100 senior apps as of 16 March 2013, yet the main table is up-to-date as of 7 April. It's often a good idea not to include in the lead anything that's going to need updating every match.
• Colours. Personally, I find the gold and silver colours unpleasantly intense for such wide boxes, particularly at the bottom of the table where there are a lot all together. Do you think it might look better with lighter colours, or none at all?
• Note D. Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source (and certainly not for international caps for minor countries: it struggles enough with recent caps for well-known European countries). There must be some alternative to verify Mr Siberie playing for Netherlands Antilles, it's not as if you actually need the number of caps or dates.
• General ref. The accessdate needs to be updated when the stats are changed. Doesn't look very professional if the stats are supposed to be accurate asof April but the last time the source was consulted was January...
• Foreign-language sources. Can you add an English translation of article titles, for those that aren't just people's names. There's a |trans_title= parameter, if you're using citewebs.
• Player selection. I thought these lists were now intended to aim for a complete list of players, either in one article where feasible on size grounds, or split by number of appearances if size dictates, but without any extras like record-holders or internationals? I would ask for input from people who might know, but given the singular lack of comments on this nomination, wouldn't hold out much hope...
• Flags. Could you explain how flags are chosen for those players without international caps? I've read note B, and I'm afraid it sounds to me a bit like guesswork. Don't know how much you follow WT:FOOTY, but one of the perennial discussions is on how to allocate flags, and it's difficult enough without half the players coming from the former Yugoslavia... The approach taken in some recent footballer FLs is have an international representation column rather than nationality, so the only players who get flags are those who have actually been selected for international football, and they get flags for all appropriate countries. It's an approach that avoids having to guess FIFA eligibility for players born in a former country to parents of different ethnicity to that of the country in which the player later lived...
• More flags. What are your source(s) for player nationalities?
• Internationally capped players. Again, where are these sourced from?
• Playing positions. Again, where are these sourced from?
• Redlinks. About a third of the players listed are redlinks, which IMO is rather more than "a minimal proportion". Are all the players listed "notable" in a WP:NFOOTBALL sense? If any are not, then they should be unlinked, which would reduce the number of redlinks.

Sorry about the difficult questions, hope some of this stuff helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with many of the concerns listed above; most notable for me is the apparent OR for the playing positions and the nationality, while I also think that the rowscope should be the player's name (given that this is a list of players). I think "ranking" the players like this is undesirable: I have no issue with the list being initially sorted by appearances, but included a "rank" seems subjective and strange. As italics, like bold text, is often not picked up by screen-readers, it should not be used as a sole way of indicating something, such as current members of the club. Harrias ^talk 10:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Santana

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I recently improved the list and can't see any faults.Tomcat (7) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments by Hahc21

Resolved comments by Hahc21

*"Santana was formed in 1967" - You may want to state that it's a band. I rearranged the first sentences--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "and they, or their works" - Weird wording. I'd prefer to use a full stop before "and they" and start a new sentence here to the lines of "The band and their works". Also, maybe make a sentence for the inductions of the band, and another sentence for the induction of ther works. Done.--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "Carlos Santana was essentially acknowledged with awards." - Which is the value of this sentence? Removed.--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "He has also received non-musical accolades" - I'd prefer this: "He has also received accolades not related to his musical work" Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "for his social engagements." - Does this apply for both awards? I would say yes.--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "According to the official website" - Which official website? Santana's? Clarified--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) "Santana has sold more than 100 million album copies to date," - "100 million albums" may be enough. And I'd consider using a full stop here. Done and reworded the next sentence a bit.--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, most of the tables look good, although I'll check them later. I think that the lead needs to be polished a bit more, but it's close to it. I will revire the references soon. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're very welcome. More comments to go soon :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• The prose is poorly formed in the lead. Just a few examples:
  • The structure of the first sentence does not flow well at all, consider a complete rewording -- see other similar featured lists as an example.
    • The former sentence was moved to the first sentence and merged with the next one, a decision made in response to Hchc's aforementioned comments. --Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • See proposed opening below. Jujutacular (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Firm' in the first sentence is a broad term, a rewording would help clarify the meaning here.
    • I changed it to "constant"--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Latter' is used to clarify between two preceding points. There is no 'former' to refer to and so 'latter' is meaningless.
    • Santana and Carlos Santana are presented as the subjects--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I see that a rewording has eliminated the word, I maintain that 'latter' was ambiguous in the context. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The second sentence would flow much better if it was written in active voice as opposed to passive voice.
    • I disagree on the ground that it fully describe their awards, not the band. That's when passive voice should be used, if the object is more notable than the subject.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Owed' instead of 'owing'
    • Done--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Overall, the flow of the lead text is choppy.
    • Could you elaborate so I can understand what is choppy?--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I would specifically suggest rewording the first sentence still. Perhaps:

Santana is a Latin-influenced rock band, formed in 1967 in San Francisco by its one constant member, Carlos Santana. Since its inception, the band has won numerous awards, largely owed to 2000's Supernatural and its subsequent singles, especially "Maria Maria" and "Smooth".

• Let me know if that works for you, or adjust to your liking. I do still think the current opening doesn't flow well. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is lacking citations, see other similar featured lists.
  • The lead is meant as a summary of the article, so it does not need additional references. What other lists do is irrelevant. WP:V does not state that the lead should be referenced, except if the statements are controversial.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Other stuff is relevant if it is the best practices on Wikipedia, which FLs are. WP:V doesn't state anything about the intro. Sure, we don't need to cite mere summaries of the body of the article, but there are multiple pieces of information in the lead that are not present in the body. These need to be referenced. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • What should be cited? Everything is already cited below and nothing is controversial.--Tomcat (7) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Santana has sold 100 million album copies to date." -- this is poorly referenced -- to what date? This number may already be out of date but we can't know because the source is not dated.
  • Re-added "around" that was taken out after Hchc's review.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• No additional members besides Carlos are mentioned in the lead text.
  • It states that the band was not solid and had a lot of members (rather session musicians or guest members than real members).--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I would feel much better if the reader was presented with a few of the more important members that the group has had over the years. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This article is not about the members, but about their awards.--Tomcat (7) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • True, it is about their awards. So why not just list their awards and don't provide any background information about the band? The reason is that this is a nomination to be a featured list, Wikipedia's best work. A reader of this list may not know anything about the band. It is useful to provide some basic background information about the band in order to accommodate the reader. If they want additional information, they can read the main Santana article. I understand that their have been many different members of the band over the years, so I'm not asking you to name every one. Just the most important ones. Jujutacular (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I could mention the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees.--Tomcat (7) 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That seems reasonable to me. Jujutacular (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Grammy Award" -- heading should be plural
  • Fixed--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• "CHCI Medallion of Excellence Award" -- should be "CHCI Medallions of Excellence"
  • Done--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Write out and link Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
  • Not done, because it does not add anything, and writing out is not required.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It provides background information to the reader. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• As this is an active group, all instances of "Santana won X award" should be "Santana has won X award".
  • I don't agree, merely because they achived those in the past, not between past and present. If they receive additional accolades (which is unlikely) those can be easily added.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Every other featured list like this that I checked uses the present perfect tense. The reason for this is that Santana won those awards, and continues to produce music (so the potential to win more of these awards is there). If the band were to disband permanently, it would be reasonable to change the tense to simple past tense. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• http://www.rockonthenet.com/ -- please demonstrate how this is a reliable source.
  • It is used as an additional source for the sake of verifiability--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Only reliable sources should be included. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • There is not a single indication that it can not be used as an additional source. The results match with other reliable sources.--Tomcat (7) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Just because it matches in this instance does not make it a "WP:Reliable source". The information on that site could change. The point is that I have no confidence in its publishing process because I know nothing about it. I briefly looked around the site but didn't see much indication of its reliability. I'm not saying that it's not reliable, I'm just asking you to present the case that it is, if so. Or remove it, if not. Jujutacular (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • There is no reason to remove it, but I don't want to produce a huge discussion either.--Tomcat (7) 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• What year did they win CBS Record's Crystal Globe Award?
  • That is not known, that's why the cell is blank.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I finally found the date, it is 1977. Will add shortly.--Tomcat (7) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• What CBS Records is the award given out by?
  • I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean by whom?--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • "CBS Records" can be used to indicate several different entities. Which one are we talking about here? Please find out and link the appropriate one. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Who gives out the Chicano Music Awards?
• Ditto for the Echo?
  • I don't think that is relevant to their achivements--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • So why does the list include this information for the other awards? We could simply say "Jujutacular gives Santana X award". We need to know background information about these awards to know why they are relevant and worthy to be included in this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Doing.--Tomcat (7) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• VH1 is singular: "gives out"

• Fixed.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This list needs considerable work in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. Could you expand your current position? In which way it needs considerable work? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I copyedited the lead once again.--Tomcat (7) 14:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See above comments. Jujutacular (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes and responded to other. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I added information for the Chicano and Echo awards. I don't know who presents the Chicano awards.--Tomcat (7) 21:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I was asked to review this list, but I see there are initial concerns above that have not yet been addressed. I also notice there is not consistency with how references are used throughout the article. Personally, I prefer the look of the Grammy Awards section, with references displayed within cells. Otherwise, it can be difficult to determine whether references at the end of the award description is used to verify general information about the award itself, or the number of nominations and awards the artist has earned. (See how this list uses inline citations following award descriptions, then within tables?) Also, the lead does not mention the total number of awards and nominations. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It seems I addressed every comment, and I am waiting for Juju's response regarding the members. The Grammy Awards table is the only one of its type because a direct link to all nominees and awardees does not exist. Therefore I don't think your system is a good idea, because the same footnote will appear more than once in a table, and the in-line citations for the award introductions are sourcing the award summaries and/or the number of awards/nominations. Regarding the last point, it seems that the awards box already notes how many awards/nominations the band has proximately received over the years, so I find it redundant to include duplicated information in the lead. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Infobox: Image is clearly not a band, but an individual singer. Perhaps change to Carlos Santana live at Barcelona, 1984, or whatever the individual's name is. Done--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) formed in San Francisco by its one constant member - He formed a band with no members except himself? How can it be called a band? Latin Grammy Hall of Fame - Worth a redlink? Probably, although I think it is rather non-profit and independent.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) UCLA Cesar E. Chavez Spirit Award and Patrick Lippert Award, both for his social engagements. - Worth linking either award? ALso, by social engagements do you mean social work? Same as Latin Grammy Hall of Fame. Additionally, the Chavez Award is a special, inconsistent prize awarded to only Santana as far as I know. It is overall a little known award, so it is unlikely that it will pass the notability criteria. to date - When? 2013? Very likely, but I doubt that a definite number exists. --Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Arista Records records Shaman and Supernatural as selling a combined total of 30 million. The band's best-selling album to date is Supernatural, which sold over 27 million copies worldwide. - Is it worth including Shaman if it only sold 11 percent of what Supernatural did? Definitely worth a mention. As far as I know Shaman was their second best-selling album.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Added fact tag. The source may be found below the lead.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) And the others, for specific quotes? Just like at GAN, we should have cites immediately following any quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I am not sure that is needed, because the next footnote(s) already verify the content.--Tomcat (7) 12:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:When to cite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I am not satisfied with that essay. WP:CITE notes that "such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead.." That guideline does not exhamine that there should be footnote(s) directly after a quoted phrase. My common sense tells me to verify quoted material by adding sources, but not directly after it. What I may do is move the footnote(s) directly after the quoted material, and left the short summary uncited. --Tomcat (7) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I read "supported by citations" as immediately following the statement in question, as that's how it is usually applied by both direct quotes (as seen in the GAC) and controversial material (as seen in almost any article about Eastern Europe) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Although I am not sure why you noted Eastern Europe-related information as being particularly controversial and how GAN is relevant to FLC, I just moved them right after a quoted material.--Tomcat (7) 14:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC) As I said when reviewing List of awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns, a band is not a work. There should be a way to avoid this. I changed the template's column "Nominated work" to "Subject", does that work?--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Perhaps "Recipient"? Or do it like the Casting Crowns list and use a dash instead of "Santana", with the title "Nominated work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Changed to Recipient.--Tomcat (7) 12:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Facts on the awards are rather sparse. As the band is still active, I think we should be using the present perfect tense and not simple past (i.e. has won, not won) Done--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) GWR - What year(s)? The recognition may change between the years, or may remain constant. I sent a letter regarding that. I assume they still hold the record; while not covering all countries, List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States states that Shakira's Fijación Oral Vol. 1 may have surpassed the record, but very unlikely. One reason why that list does not include Supernatural is the fact that that album is not fully Spanish. Google Books gave only the 2004 and 2005 editions, one states that it sold 14 million records, but does not state where. --Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I received a response with the statement that it still holds the record, but not quite: Best selling album by a Latin artist: "Mexican born Carlos Santana's Supernatural album released in June 1999, has sold 14 million copies in the USA." --Tomcat (7) 12:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) The Latin Grammy Hall of Fame is an award given to musicians who have largely contributed to Latin music. One Santana song was inducted. - Spot the mistake... I will try to detect it as soon as possible :)--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I rewrote that sentence.--Tomcat (7) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Nope. You state the award is given to "musicians", but the next sentence says a "song" was inducted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, done--Tomcat (7) 12:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) arts motion picture, television, recording and literature, - Are you missing a comma here? I don't think, but I agree that sentence may be confusing. I removed "in the arts". I hope that solves the problem.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) they may incorporate different genres. - Perhaps you mean "genres other than rock"? Rock and roll is not rock music, two different genres, altough first is often simply called "rock". Changed.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Prose overall is fairly rough... I've tried to help by copyediting — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the copyedits. I made some changes here and there. Will revisit once again. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Alright, more or less ready to support, but one final comment: if a person or act cannot be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame more than once, why should we note they were inducted once? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Reworded. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose, looks peachy now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose quick run-through shows several issues for me:

• "the band has won numerous awards" followed in the next sentence by "The group has won numerous awards"... not good.

• ✓

• What is NAACP?

• I don't think that that abbreviation should be written out. It is generally known as NAACP, not National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

• I don't think you should assume everyone knows what the abbreviation means. I certainly didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• The award is known as "NAACP Image Hall of Fame", not "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Image Hall of Fame"

• "He has also received accolades not related to his musical work, including the UCLA Cesar E. Chavez Spirit Award and Patrick Lippert Award, both for his social engagements." what relevance does this have to the list of awards and noms for the band? If you include Carlos' awards, what about awards won or nominated for by any other members of the band, have you included those?

• Carlos was the band, all other members were rather minor musicians.--Tomcat (7) 12:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then the title of the list is incorrect, it should be "by Santana and Carlos Santana". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is better to suggest a move outside of FAC. But if needed I may move it.

• "to their official website" vs "It was inducted", plural or singular?

• ✓

• " Guinness World Records" in the lead, "Guinness Book of World Records" in the list...

• Both seem to be correct.

• Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• ✓

• "Santana received one ..." -> "Santana has received one..." (unless of course Santana can never win another one?)

• ✓

• "Favourite Artist or Group, Rock" really "Favourite"? If this is the US MTV award, it must surely be "Favorite"?

• ✓

• Some tables have an Award which spills onto two lines for no good reason (i.e. the table is nowhere need the width of the screen), why?

• ✓

• Would have though it worthwhile noting in the lead that Santana are a Mexican band.

• They are not a Mexican band. It was founded in the USA and their members are mainly non-Mexicans.

• The confusion arises from the fact that Santana was awarded a Mexican award, that's why. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think mentioning that it is a Mexian group will cause more confusion.

• Echo award, you say "Santana received one award" but it was Carlos. There are a few of these.

• ✓

• Ref 26 is called "Latin Grammy winners", not "Past winners search". Please check others.

• ✓

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so far. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Satish Dhawan Space Centre launches

Nominator(s): Jayadevp13 09:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a good and informative page giving details of all the launches from India's Satish Dhawan Space Centre - Jayadevp13 09:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Quickfail.

The nomination is premature. The article has unformatted refs and an undeveloped lead. The notes are not at all clear.—indopug (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead and references need a lot of work. Try to look at some existing FLs. Better luck next time! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Ireland

Nominator(s): Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is list of One-day international matches between Bangladesh and Ireland. It contains the 7 matches played between Bangladesh and Ireland. Also has references and it'll not have any edit war as this is not any scorecard. Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is hardly any lead and I don't think it passes 3b criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as User:Vibhijain, the lead is extremely short, and unrepresentative of the article as a whole. The tables are unreferenced throughout (although one does have external links) and none of them are sortable. The use of colour contravenes MOS:ACCESS. This, I am afraid to say, is another example of User:Pratyya Ghosh nominating an article for Good or Featured status when they fall far far below the required standard, something I have already mentioned to the user. Harrias ^talk 15:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Harrias and Vibhijain. As mentioned above, there is next to no lead and there are no references. I also wonder if perhaps the page title is a little long? Speedy fail with this one. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given above. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry Pratyya but the list is very unfit to be a featured list. Maybe next time. Mediran (t • c) 10:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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.