Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2016

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

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

List of power stations in Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Rehman 07:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The previous nomination page had to be archived because it was opened for too long. Ping: @Dudley Miles:, @Giants2008:, @The Rambling Man:. Rehman 07:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I guess all issues are sorted? Rehman 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Since all possible problems/issues are attended to, can we pass this as FL? Rehman 23:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from  — Calvin999

• fossil-fuel → Link (and in the section below)

Done. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should a List of power stations actually mention some or their locations in the lead?

I'm not too sure... Sri Lanka is quite small so the power stations are not really located that far from each other. Do you think it would be better if it included? The table(s) does list the city... Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well considering this is a list of power stations in Sri Lanka yet no power stations are mentioned...  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999:. I don't understand your last comment... No power stations are mentioned? Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I personally find the graph in the lead too encroaching and I think that it would be better placed elsewhere.

Perhaps move the map up, and graph below it? Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a picture at all in the lead.  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I like that chart there, as it nicely summarized a lot details, which would otherwise need paragraphs over paragraphs if written in text... Will keeping it effect the list's chance in reaching FL? Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Does the map of Sri Lanka need to be that big?

Unfortunately yes. Any smaller, and the linked pogs would not work. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Bit of an OCD thing of mine (I don't actually have OCD, just a thing for neatness) but couldn't the columns for the two tables in the Fossil-fuel section be the same widths as each other?

I tried that too, but there there is no way... The closest I can get is to get the two tables have the same total width... Rehman

Yes, that is what I meant. It's not difficult, and is it possible. Look on Drunk on Love (Rihanna song).  — Calvin999 14:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Rehman 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I placed a 'clear' at the bottom of the section so it doesn't interfere with the section below.

Thanks! Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of calling this section Fossil-fuel, why not call it Non-renewable, so that it matches the antithesis of the Renewable section below?

Done. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from this, I think the list is really good and clean. The tables are really clear and well formatted. I'll be happy to support once my points have been addressed. If you wouldn't mind looking at my nomination, I'd appreciate it.  — Calvin999 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Calvin. I have responded to each point above. I will also have a look at your nomination soon. Regards, Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from NortyNort

Hey Rehman, I looked it over and agree with Calvin's points. The layout of the list is similar to Electricity sector in Sri Lanka and seems to duplicate that article purpose in areas. It is not as 'easy to navigate' as I believe it should be. The chart and hydro complex graphic, while very nice, clutter the article.

Moragahakanda and Broadlands have no coordinates and I saw your response to a similar query in the original nom... but both articles have coordinates themselves. Why are those not on the list?

I am on an SD monitor now and the three pictures in hydro and wind leave a substantial amount of white space in the section.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi NortyNort. Thanks for reviewing. I agree with you that the chart needs to be removed; I shall do so today. The coords on Moragahakanda and Broadlands articles are of the dams itself, not the power station. The coords on this list are of the power stations. The white spacing issue was also discussed in the previous nomination, by Dudley (Point 5). It doesn't seem like its something that can be completely avoided... The only other way I could think of is to reduce the table's width, and that by removing the "date commissioned" column. Rehman 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed the chart. Rehman 09:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a lot of comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 20:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not 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. --PresN 16:59, 29 March 2016 (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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

Tom Mix filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Tom Mix was a major and influential star of the early days of American cinema. He warrants having an outstanding filmography. I strongly believe that what is offered here is of FL status. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Jimknut (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• Comma after the phrase "Soon after" in the second paragraph in the intro.

Fixed.

• Remove hyphen after the word "one" in that same paragraph.

Fixed.

• Comma after the phrase, "With the coming of sound" in the third paragraph.

Fixed.

• Comma between "1935" and "he" in that same paragraph.

Fixed.

• Comma between "this" and "Mix" in the paragraph about his 1910 filmography.

Fixed.

• Comma between "1911" and "Mix" in the paragraph about his 1911 releases.

Fixed.

• Comma between "1912" and "Mix" and "this" and "Mix" in the paragraph about 1912.

Fixed.

• Comma between "1913" and "Mix" in the paragraph about 1913.
• "In January 1913 Mix accepted an offer from Selig to return to acting in films as part of a production unit in Prescott, Arizona, until the supervision of actor-director William Duncan." Do you mean under the supervision?

Fixed.

• Comma between "time" and "Mix" in the paragraph about 1914.

Fixed.

It's mostly grammatical errors that plaguing this article. Otherwise, it looks good.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

All corrections made. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ojorojo

This looks very thorough and well-referenced. My questions are about the layout, etc.

• Links, especially in the lead, may be overused. Words such as star, showmanship, physical fitness, bartender, peace officer, 2nd. cowboy, 2nd. director, and most city and state names probably do not warrant linking.
  • Unlinked.
• The "Archives with Mix films" section appears first, before listing the films. Wouldn't this be better at the end?
  • Archive listing now moved to the end.
• In the first group of tables, "Yes" is highlighted in green, which gives an unbalanced look (no other colors are used). I don't think this adds anything. Also, why use capital "Y" in yes, but all caps in "NO"? This may present better by a "" mark for yes and "blank" for no. Or to save space, combine the three columns into a "Contribution" column and write out "actor, screenwriter, and director" as appropriate (with line breaks so they are "stacked" and not horizontal). Or use codes (for example: ACT, SCR, DIR).
  • "Yes" and "no" formating removed. Information now added into the notes.
• Starting with the "Fox Film Corporation", the table format changes (Actor and Screenwriter columns are dropped, "Survival status" is added). A consistent format throughout is preferable. Or include a paragraph that introduces the new "era" and information about the films to ease/explain the transition to the different format.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Text added to clarify this.

Follow up comments needed! Please help if you can. — Jimknut (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support – My comments have been addressed. Expanding the "Notes" section and removing the "Yes/NO" columns (and color) is an effective solution. The earlier tables are now easier to read (less busy) and more consistent with the later ones. Good work! —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2016 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of cricketers who have taken two five-wicket hauls on Test debut

Nominator(s): User:Joseph2302 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The groundwork on this list was done by Joseph2302, I tweaked and tidied and expanded the prose a little. This is a niche club of bowlers, a handful have achieved this feat and the list should be good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment – Not sure if this is a 3(b) violation. We have debut-fifers lists for almost every team (may not be for every team but for Australia, England, India, South Africa, and West Indies). Apart from India and South Africa (which are FLS), the rest are potential ones. Don't you think it's a safe option to merge this with the corresponding lists? —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• A fair point. Perhaps we both need to look to see if this record has been covered sufficiently to warrant its own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been here for 2 months without much comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 15:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC) [4].

---

Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this list as my first attempt on the Latin Grammy Awards (special awards are my specialty). I asked for input from Another Believer and Jaespinoza and both have provided positive feedback to the list. Per AB's suggestion, I used the Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year as the basis of this list as it is a featured list and they both worked on it. I will keep touch despite my busy college schedule. Erick (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - It is strange to see a list without a single picture. There is room to the right of the table for some photographs of notable winners. Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've thought about adding pictures prior to nominating for FL, but then I realized I would have to justify why one artist has their picture added and not the other among the 70+ artists who were given the award as well. I can foresee editors changing and removing pictures just because their favorite artist wasn't included in the gallery. They are not always needed, see Latin Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Tropical Album, which is as FL and has no pictures of any artist who won. I'm not against it, but I would need ideas on how to implement them since adding too much would clutter the whole page. Erick (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose What an uninformative and dull list. I'm not given a single piece of information about any of the people in the list apart from their nationality - nothing about their instrument/voice or career or the reason they were given the award, no birth/death dates, no photographs (and photographs can easily be integrated into the list itself, as in Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year), not sortable. Three names are given with no article or redlink - how can they not be notable enough for an article if they've won a lifetime achievement award of this nature? This doesn't currently deserve to be held up as an example of Wikipedia's finest work - it's simply a list of names on a page. Bencherlite^Talk 10:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, well okay, you do have a point. I will withdraw the nomination so that I can work and the list again based on your comments. Erick (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing, per nominator. --PresN 02:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [5].

---

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally added in all known colleges and universities that have operated in the state, with a recent focus on closed institutions. I don't know why I did not address those issues during the nomination process, but I would like to give this another run, as I feel that it meets the criteria laid on the relevant page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Just had time to look at the first 2 paragraphs. Prose needs a bit tightening up. Here are 2 suggestions

• Para 1: second mention of "listed under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education" can be removed as redundant.
• Perhaps rephrase to merge those two sentences to be something like "are public excluding the private Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was originally a public school..."
• Para 2. Oddly structured first sentence. Maybe something like: Harvard University is Massachusetts' oldest post-secondary institution and was founded in ...

More coming later. Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is much better... review continuing:

• Para 3. "multiple Judaic", can multiple be changed to the exact number?
• Para 4. Needs some work. First, I'm not overly sold about the inclusion of college rankings, but I agree that it is important to highlight MIT and Harvard in the lead as they are internationally respected. Is it possible to link a few lists of top universities from several sources and say that they are both recognized as top 10 global universities? Either way, you must change "college" to "university", since you are comparing internationally. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead now, good work. Some more changes:

• last para still needs rewording, for example: "the state is also known for its academic strength"... well it's not literally the state, but the institutions found within the state... So, something like "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized top 10 universities including MIT and Harvard" or something like that would be a better sentence. I would also remove the "As such" from the next line, as it's not really adding anything but filler.

Have another look at that first sentence, I think it's much worse now.

Still does not make sense, sorry. "This includes Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are ranked amongst"

Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would still include Harvard in that last sentence of the lead along with MIT. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

*I like the first table, but the enrolment should have an obvious year attached since they change so much. I'm not sure how you can do this without messing with the formatting, but can you think of a way? I think that is good for the first section

• Featured lists no longer begin with the sentence "Below is a list of..." as it was removed some time ago as tautological. So that needs to be reworded. You can just go right into the meat of things. This section would have to be be re-written to reflect this wikipedia custom. Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I will conclude my review next edit. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing review:

• First paragraph is almost perfect, just a strange discrepancy. It says "Massachusetts Institute of Technology was originally founded by the state legislature in the spirit of a land-grant institution" but then later says "UMass Amherst is the state's sole public land-grant university".

I'm still confused as to what is meant by "to be akin to a land-grant institution" but not a land-grant institution. This needs to be made clear if it is to be included. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the contradicting sources, as some say that it was founded as one, while others say it was not. Needless to say, the federal government said it was, so I'm going with the Library of Congress for that one. Let me know if it works, as that should clear up the confusion there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Second paragraph needs a good copyedit. Just the first sentence: "Since the Worcester Medical Institute closed in 1859, multiple institutions have closed over the years" is needlessly passive. Maybe something like "Multiple colleges and universities have closed over the years beginning with the Wrocester Medical Institute which closed in 1859." Even better would be starting that paragraph with "At least x colleges and universities have closed...".
• Second paragraph is better in terms of conforming to wikipedias "this is a list of..." policy, but there are still parts of the paragraph that refer to it, see "Also listed" and "However, this is not inclusive ", what is meant by "this". This paragraph needs quite a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried my own copyedit, what do you think of the changes.

• Final comment: Final two sentences are both unsourced and confusing.
  • "Also excluded are the Bussey Institution, which functioned under Harvard University, and Crane Theological School, which functioned under Tufts University." - No explanation given as to why they are excluded.
  • It also excludes institutions which operated as part of larger for-profit corporations, such as Empire Beauty Schools, as they were not operated as separate college campuses, but as larger corporate schools. Citation? Also what is "it". I'm fairly sure you are referring to the list, but I believe Featured lists try to avoid "this is a list of...", "this list contains.." etc, preferring to have a paragraph that describes the content, not the list of the content if you know what I mean. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and included them, as they are in the category, and I hope that clarifies things. In terms of the other part, I changed the wording, although I may be just missing the necessary word to replace "it" and am instead walking around it without changing the theme to something better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is still some sloppy writing. Use of multiple twice in 2 sentences. This phrase doesn't make sense: "The below also excludes"....Mattximus (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Still outstanding issues with writing. " However, this excludes institutions which operated".... what is meant by "this"? Mattximus (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to the list below, although maybe you know of a better way to write that, as I am stumped at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed the wording issues, but if you think it needs another one-over, I'll have others do a copyedit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now, its been 10 days and there has been no response. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and condensed the prose in the spirit of what you wrote above, so I hope that helps a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• That should work now, as I reworded the areas in both paragraphs, although I suspect there are only a few lists being used and people are parroting them online. Let me know what you think though, and thanks for the comments! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Done, as I had a date in there at one point but took it out per a previous review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• I just took another stab at it, so how does the last paragraph work? The first sentence on the first paragraph is modeled after similar recent pages, so I'm not sure what else you might want done there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• How about now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging @Mattximus:, just in case you didn't see the above comment. I added the Harvard bit as suggested, but I'm unsure about the intro, per what I wrote above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Still have those two outstanding recommendations that were not struck out. Not sure about your harvard comment as "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which are ranked amongst the top ten universities in the world" is where I thought you should include Harvard in addition to MIT. The second section still begins with an outdated "this is a list of..." which is no longer accepted in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean there, as I missed the second section and somehow worded the last paragraph in the intro to include Harvard, but somehow forgot to add it. Either way, let me know what you think, and thanks for the help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely missed that Mattximus (talk · contribs) when I was doing the below review, so let me know if that all works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

• The last paragraph of the lead is stubby, at only one sentence. Would it be possible to merge this with the previous paragraph, or expand upon it a bit?
• "amongst" → "among".
• Defunct institutions: The Stanley College founding date is missing. If you don't know what it is, put an em dash here like you do elsewhere in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, as I merged the last paragraph up one, although I am not sure if it will make things a bit too long at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thematically it's more consistent in the second paragraph, which is about largest/oldest universities. The third is about accreditations which has little to do with rankings. Made the change myself. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Bermuda hurricanes

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time building this list up from scratch over the past few months, and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. The list roughly follows the model of existing regional hurricane FLs (such as List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present) and List of Delaware hurricanes), and covers an important aspect of Bermuda's history. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This looks good, although I wonder if it would be possible to add more images to the list as large bits of this feel barren. I also have done a minor date correction to a caption, so just make sure that things match up on the dates. I would also suggest fixing the one link to Hurricane Humberto, and adding alternate text to the existing images. There are also five dead links to fix, although four of them went dead eight days ago so I can't fault you on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. The file caption actually was correct to start with (the image even has the date on it). As for more images, I'm afraid that anything useful has already been included. High-quality satellite images are pretty hard to come by for storms before, say, 1990, and free-use damage photos are always a scarce commodity. I have found some useful illustrations that could be strong candidates for fair use, but I'd rather avoid that. I suppose I could add more track maps to spruce up the place, but I don't think they add an enormous amount of encyclopedic value. Three of the five deadlinks fixed... I'll need some time to sort out the others. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments and image review from Cyclonebiskit

Comments – Disclaimer that I helped out in a relatively minor capacity in getting this behemoth of a list together. My contributions account for less than 10% of the article's total byte size, with the majority stemming from the creation of the landfall table and the 1813 storm. Images should have alt text (your favorite, I know ) Regarding a dead link which a substantial portion of this article is based upon, an earlier version (.doc file) of this document does exist but it lacks all the necessary details. I can vouch that all information cited with this presently unavailable source is accurate. For citation purposes, I've changed the ref to a general citation until (hopefully) an online document is restored. Strictly speaking, only nine landfalls have occurred during years included in the official Atlantic hurricane database. – Might be worth specifying that the database begins in 1851, either by way of a note or prose. The most recent storm to affect the islands was Hurricane Joaquin in October 2015. – If you want to keep Joaquin, this sentence should specify its the most recent tropical cyclone...otherwise Alex should be here per its inclusion on the list. Regarding the October 1926 hurricane, the reanalysis writeup indicates that the 128 mph measurement in Hamilton was a 5-minute sustained wind; however, it had a known high bias and was at an elevated location. A surface corrected value of 102 mph (1-minute sustained) is provided in the writeup. Additionally, the ...strongest recorded storm to strike the territory. bit is outdated as the accompanying source was written before the reanalysis was publicized; the 1899 and 1926 hurricanes are tied as the strongest landfalling storms, both at 105 kt. In response to the hurricane's destruction, the name Fabian is retired and replaced with Fred for 2009. – A reference is needed here Image review – All images are good to use, details below File:Bermuda hurricane landfalls map.png, – Created by yours truly, public domain work with base map from NASA's Blue Marble File:Floating Dock BERMUDA Tafel3.jpg – Copyright expired decades ago, public domain work now File:1915 Atlantic hurricane 3 track.png – Created by yours truly, public domain work with base map from NASA's Blue Marble File:The Loss of the Valerian.JPG – Created by Aodhdubh and licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 File:Hurricane Dog (1948) analysis 13 Sep.png – Public domain work by NOAA File:Inga 1969 track.png, – Created by yours truly, public domain work with base map from NASA's Blue Marble File:Hurricane Grace (1991).JPG – Public domain work by NOAA/NASA GOES 7 satellite File:Pre Karen ET storm.jpg – Public domain work by NOAA/NASA GOES 8 satellite File:BDA Fabian damage3.jpg – Taken by JGHowes and licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 File:Large waves in Bermuda from Hurricane Igor.jpg – Hosted on Flickr by Lee & Chantelle McArthur under CC BY-SA 2.0 File:Fay storm damage Bermuda.jpg – Hosted on Flickr by Chad Sellers under CC BY-SA 2.0 Overall an exceptional and comprehensive list that is well-deserving of featured status. Proud of ya for sticking through this beast and seeing it through to the end, JC! I'll be more than happy to support once the few comments I have are addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC) @Cyclonebiskit: thanks for taking a look! Good catch with the 1926 reanalysis data. I think I've fixed the above problems. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support (pending any further comments from Giants2008 below). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick question - on my screen, "Recorded tropical cyclone landfalls in Bermuda" appears below the column for "Number of recorded storms affecting Bermuda", but it should be above the right column. Is that just on my computer, and if not, is it an easy fix? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine on my screen (PC/Firefox) but I know the wikimarkup that I stole from other lists can be buggy. I'd appreciate any help from someone who knows more than I do about table formatting. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting the same issue as Hurricanehink and wouldn't know whether it is an easy fix. Do any of the other hurricane editors have any ideas? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Titoxd: – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the same issue on my browser (Safari 9.0.3), and it is caused by the use of {{div col}} to create auto-balanced CSS columns. However, we are using two different tables of different height, which cannot really be balanced automatically by browsers without splitting the long table into two segments—which is what we're seeing some browsers attempt to do here. Sadly, there is no easy fix here. We would need something like {{no col break}} that implements the CSS break-before or break-after properties. However, browser support for that property is spotty at best. An alternative would be to wrap the second table (the recorded landfalls table) into a single-use template, then wrap its transclusion with {{no col break}} to signal to browsers that this particular table should not be broken up. (I tried wrapping the wiki-table in {{no col break}}, but wikitable syntax is not really compatible with the template syntax.) Titoxd^(?!?) 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've switched it to using {{Multicol}} which also manual breaks to be inserted. Harrias ^talk 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments – I really wish the opening didn't remind me of the old "This is a list of" beginnings. Can we make it a little more interesting? While doing this, you might want to prevent Bermuda from both ending the first sentence and starting the second, therefore appearing back-to-back. A fix to the first comment should help address this naturally. I've only read through the 1910s so far, but it's been a great read so far. I'll continue as time permits. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Good points - is that better? Thanks for reading through the article, and I look forward to any more suggestions for improvements. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 1930s: "The slow-moving storm delayed the arrival of ships into port." If you want to maintain a current tense throughout, then "delayed" should probably be "delays" instead. You missed this one, unless you intended to have this wording. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Heh, whoops... I fixed the wrong one last time. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC) July 4, 1973: Add "a" before "few trees and powerlines"? The hyphens in the titles of refs 3, 8, 110, 116, and 119 should be en dashes instead. Ref 49 needs a publisher (The Royal Gazette). If ref 87 from The Royal Gazette has a date listed, it would be helpful to include it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Done – Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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