Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2016

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

List of songs recorded by Olly Murs

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC) and Tom^(T2ME)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive list of every song recorded by the English singer Olly Murs. He has released four albums and appeared on other songs, and there is a good sized list of his songs here.  — Calvin999 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Famous Hobo I'm willing to take a look at this

General Comments

• Every picture is lacking an alt text
• I am a little concerned about the length of the lead. While it was fine with the Little Mix list as they had recently released a new album, Murs said he was going to be doing a new album this year (or at least that's what I found from a quick Google search). With a new batch of songs, the lead may be too long to handle it. So while it may be fine for now, the lead will need to be condensed quite a bit with the next album.
  • I'm not worried about that. Until an album is actually released, it's not worth thinking about. Albums can be delayed, and they are more often than not, not released when they are originally slated for. When an album is released, the lead can be condensed down.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• A bit in conjunction with the previous point, the lead seems a bit sporadic, jumping from talking about lyrical content, composition, and co-writers at random. However, I don't see as a problem, since the list is about the songs themselves.
  • That's because it's per album, not all together.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The singer came to prominence after he came second on the sixth series of The X Factor in 2009, losing to Joe McElderry. Reword to "after he finished in second place..."
• Despite being the runner up, Simon Cowell's record label Syco revealed that they had signed Murs as a joint-venture with Epic following the show in February 2010. link joint-venture, as some people might not know what that is.
• Written by Adam Argyle and Martin Brammer, "I Blame Hollywood" draws influence from pop-rock. Link pop rock
• "Dance with Me Tonight" is a 50s saxophone style record with elements of Doo-wop,[11][12] while the track "Just Smile" is reminiscent of the work of Burt Bacharach.[12]The disco-pop Add a space after ref 12
• Murs co-wrote the track "Let Me In" with Paul Weller, which was described by Neil McCormick of The Daily Telegraph as "unexpected". Can you go into more detail about why the reviewer found it to be unexpected?
  • The reviewer doesn't say, and I can't speculate on what why myself.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Digital Spy writer Amy Davison likened the disco track "Did You Miss Me?" to Justin Timberlake's song "Take Back the Night". Link disco, and the sentence is missing a ref

Songs

• I believe "Inner Ninja" should be below "In Case You Didn't Know"
  • It is?  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Instead of just BBC, Ref 1 should be BBC News, Ref 4 should be Newsbeat, and Ref 7 and 12 should be BBC Music
• The name in Ref 10 is messed up
• In Ref 22, it should be The Daily Telegraph, not just The Telegraph
  • I'd piped it to omit 'Daily'.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all I can see, nice list as always. In exchange for this review, would you mind taking a look at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you Famous Hobo. Yes I will.  — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for letting this sit for so long. It appears that every issue I had was at least addressed, so I do feel comfortable giving this my Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated

List

• "The one" sorts by like it comes after "Y"?? Not sure how
• The ref columns are usually not sortable
• The reference for "you are not alone" should use the previously defined refernece "You Are Not Alone".

The text

• "runner up" should be "runner-up"

Other stuff

• first image needs alt text
• The link in reference 1 and 25 have changed, they still redirect but it may be worth updating the link to the current version to prevent future link rot.

• @Calvin999: - That's all I got, not really a lot of issues, good work so far. MPJ-US  11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've done all.  — Calvin999 15:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well shoot I totally forgot about this one. Yes everything I pointed out was addressed - Support  MPJ-US  00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments – "Whilst" → "While" in the first paragraph. "while Flo Rida's delivers a rap verse...". Rida's shouldn't be plural here. I don't get what you mean. You mean no apostrophised?  — Calvin999 21:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, and the s shouldn't be there either. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Tom did this.  — Calvin999 09:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC) In the Ryan Tedder photo caption, there should be a comma after "Seasons". Notes d and e could use periods at the end. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Done all Giants2008  — Calvin999 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Do I needs supports for this to be promoted despite everything being done thus far Giants2008 ?  — Calvin999 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you will need supports soon. We clearly can't promote something without any support, as there's no way we can say that a consensus was achieved. I don't want to see this archived unsuccessfully, but if support doesn't come soon that will most likely happen. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've accrued four supports now Giants2008.  — Calvin999 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "English singer-songwriter Olly Murs" -- Since this is for a British guy, the article should really be written in British English. This opening line is the American English way of introducing a person. Using the definite article is certainly BrEng and should be used here and from herein.
  • Really? What was American about it?  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that, but without "the" it did not read British. FrB.TG (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The singer came to prominence after he finished"
• " in which the woman he was seeing did not feel for him as strongly as Murs did for her; Murs asks her to not to let go of him so soon" – this sentence needs to be rephrased and not too detailed; "seeing" is not encyclopedic.
• "is a 50s saxophone style record" → 1950s.
• "His fourth studio album, Never Been Better, was" – surname is more preferable while introducing a new para.
• Try to trim some excessive description of the songs.
• Ref 1 is not formatted properly.
• You forgot a [ while linking Newsbeat in ref 4.

Don't worry this nomination is not going to trash. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I made a couple of minor tweaks (which I now see FrB.TG picked up on too). Solid work otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you.  — Calvin999 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Nice work on yet another songs list. FrB.TG (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Spot checks on five refs are good - information supported and no copyvios seen
• Formatting and linking appears good

- SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. --PresN 01:38, 27 April 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Continuing my obsession towards cricket lists, I'd like to nominate this for FLC. I've modeled this based on the existing FLs. This is my first FLC in three months, so I'd like to have a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• "India's Gundappa Viswanath and Mohammed Azharuddin had scored the most centuries at the venue with three each." "had" → "have"?
• "As of February 2016, 35 Test centuries have been scored at the stadium." The list and lead photo caption both give a figure of 32 centuries.
• In the Azharuddin photo caption, "had" can be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Fixed all. Thanks —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Really poorly written article with non reliable sources. 213.205.251.56 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Struck vote of a vandal only IP which has been blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• @FLC director and delegates: The page has been constantly vandalised by a sock. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• This page, or the list? This page has been edited by an anonymous editor four times, most of that edit warring within a short period of time. Disruptive, but not at "protect the nomination" levels — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I meant this page. Just wanted to leave a note - it's a vandal (possibly a sock). —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Feel free to revert the vandal IP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: - The edits are becoming very disruptive. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Some facts in the lead need "As of".
• "The record for the highest score by an overseas player" --> "The record for the highest ODI score by an overseas player"
• "is the highest score by a batsman at this ground" --> "is the highest ODI score by a batsman at this ground"

Good work! Bharatiya29 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed all. Thanks! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Bharatiya29 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on that short "capacity" sentence. Removed. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Could link West Indian cricket team in India in 1958–59. Done —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Faoud Bacchus' (of West Indies) " is an odd construct, particularly with that apostrophe being interrupted by the parenthetical note. Done —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Is the total of 32 centuries referenced explicitly anywhere? Put it in the lead prose as well as the table caption. Added one for the caption. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "during the Nehru Cup (1989)" - would be better as "during the 1989 Nehru Cup". That would imply that the tournament was organised periodically. AFAIK, it (that year's ) was the only such tournament. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Then why is the year in the title of the article? Sounds like it needs to be moved, it's an unnecessary disambiguator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Not very sure about the title, but adjusted the 'year' in the lead. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Probably should be noted that Result is relevant to the team of the century scorer. Done —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Shahid Afridi's 45-ball century " table says 46. Is this "fastest" claim referenced anywhere? Yes. He reached the milestone in the 45th delivery. This is covered in the ref. in the lead. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments I don't think it should be referred to as 'The' Green Park Stadium, simply Green Park Stadium should suffice. In general, we use 'the' before the names of establishments, where a part of the noun denotes the kind of it (establishment). That said, I'm not sure about the common name of the article. Although our article retains 'Stadium' as a proper noun, the Cricinfo page just uses 'Green Park'. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC) It really doesn't read right to me with 'the' in front of the stadium name. This isn't common in England, for instance, you wouldn't say the Old Trafford, simply Old Trafford. So, I think it should apply to this as well. NapHit (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC) If 'Stadium' is a part of the noun, 'the' is mandatory I guess. We say 'the MCG', 'the SCG', 'the Wankhede Stadium', etc., —Vensatry (Talk) 04:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) That is true, case closed then! "the first in 1952 when India played England." add since to the start of this "batsman in the ground." -> at the ground "at this ground." -> at the ground, this applies to all usages There's no need for the font size of the table to be less than 100%. This could also affect users who are visually impaired. NapHit (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @NapHit: Fixed the rest. Thanks very much! —Vensatry (Talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Source review – I'll recuse myself from closing the list to provide a needed source check. All of the references appear reliable, work properly, and are well-formatted. Spot-checks of some citations (numbers 4, 8, 12, 19, and 31) revealed no issues with verification or close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: - note that we decided that you can still close nominations if you give a source review (assuming you feel comfortable with it); that said, I'll close it while I'm here. --PresN 01:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a wider effort on improving Wikipedia coverage around F.C. United of Manchester. The list has been significantly improved by myself and @Delusion23, and has been kept updated ever since it was split out from the main article by @Sloclops in November 2015. We have modelled the list after other English football clubs' seasons lists, and I believe it meets all the criteria. Over the past few days, the list has had the lead added, and I have verified and referenced all data included in the list, and archived all references used to ensure stability of information. This is my first nomination for a featured list, so apologies if I got anything wrong. Suggestions and corrections are welcome, and either @Delusion23 or myself will be quite happy to implement them. Thanks for reviewing! odder (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comments
  • A couple of quick drive-by comments, mainly to remind me to come back later and do more :-)
    • Seasons which are in progress are never normally included in lists of this type, suggest you remove it until the end of the season. If it is left in, change the league name to just National League North, rather than the odd-looking "National League National League North" as it is at the moment
      •  Done Removed the current season but moved the info to the talk page as it would be a shame to lose the work done. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
        • We need to amend the lead a little bit, then... odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
          • … and this is now done. odder (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • "The club is owned and democratically run by their supporters" - you are referring to the club as both singular and plural in the same sentence, this is a grammatical nightmare :-P

      • In my defence, I couldn't decide on either form and apparently left it in mid-state :) Thanks for spotting this, Chris! odder (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

      •  Done For consistency within the sentence I have changed "their" to "its". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Back with more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Cheers Chris, looking forward to more help getting this work to FL status :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose How is this nota fork? This club is semiprofessional with 10 seasons and gets a separate list???? Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Nergaal: While F.C. United is indeed a semi-professional football club, there is no doubt about their notability, despite the club only being founded in 2005. F.C. United consistently draw the highest home attendance at this level of English football, beating many clubs in the National League (level 5) as well as many clubs in Leage Two (level 4); they also consistently draw (relatively high) away attendances. The club is also immensely popular with the media, and has been the subject of books, short documentaries, and an uncountable number of press articles, reports and mentions. So that's it for the notability aspect; I don't think it's ever been debatable.

• As for this list being a fork: I am aware that it includes some information that is already present in the main article, however I have modelled the introduction after similar season lists for other English football clubs, and thought it was necessary that the introduction provide a short summary of the club's main achievements (I think the articles that I got this from were List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons, perhaps also others). As this is my first nomination for a featured list, I realise I might have gotten things wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm very open and happy to fix them. If you have any particular suggestions in mind, please share them so I can improve the list. Thank you, odder (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Not saying the club is not notable. What I am saying is splitting a 10-entry list on such a low notability item is a fork. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Very brief, inclined to give the lead a once-over as it could be tightened and can't be bothered to list everything.... As far as I can tell the 'This is a list of...' style intro has been deprecated; Villa's list was promoted in September 2007 before it became standard practise to just state the club and summarise its history. See List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons and List of FC Barcelona seasons.  Done Thanks; I reworded the intro to fit the current standard. odder (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "F.C. United were formed in June 2005...," the club was formed, surely? In British English collective nouns can be referred to in the singular or plural (see second para). This is particularly common in sports (e.g. Chelsea F.C. are the champions of England). Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Would it be more benefical to readers to have the key section above the table? I guess so;  Done. odder (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) References look fine at first glance. For Ref 1, BBC Sport needs 'publisher' parameter, not 'work'. Remove the 'publisher=BBC' parameter, BBC Sport is just fine as it is. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)  Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - happy with changes, feels this now meets the criteria based on sourcing, structure and style. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy that this meets the FL criteria. I don't have any concerns about the content split, as the main article is reaching the size where such splits should be expected. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comments
  • "F.C. United are owned and democratically run by their supporters and operate" - you're still referring to FCUM as both singular and plural within the same sentence
    • Uhm, unless I'm missing something, these verbs are all in the plural... odder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there, feel free to disregard that one :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "F.C. United reached the Second Round of the FA Cup " - no reason for capitals on second round, these are not proper nouns, likewise first round shortly afterwards and fourth round a bit further on, etc
    •  Done 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In the key the football is shown to indicate "league goals". Are the figures in the table definitely league only? If so, change the heading in the table to "top league goalscorer"
    •  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Is a Russian fan site (bit random :-)) really the only source for (presumably) the top scorer in the first season?
    •  Done The same data are available to download on F.C. United's own website in the form of a spreadsheet (see bottom of this page). I have added this to the article to supplement the Russian fan page version. I kept the fan page version as I believe it shows the same information in a more "user friendly" form. I have also added the references to the other rows as they are used for the source of all the top scorer stats. Hope this makes it less ambiguous. Thanks for the feedback. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments Sorry I'm late to this, a few comments

• I think the sentence about the multiple stadiums should be referenced.

• Reworded to mention the Tameside Stadium instead of Moss Lane, and  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• The table really ought to be sortable, see here for an example

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• It also shouldn't be less than 100% font size, as readers who are visually impaired may struggle to read it

•  Done odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• ref 30 needs an en dash

•  Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks in good shape! NapHit (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over the article in such detail, @NapHit! Everything appears to have been taken care of now. odder (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The position column isn't sorting properly, otherwise everything looks in order. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@NapHit: Whoops! Fixed. odder (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Changed a few things to comply with accessibility guidelines, but happy to support now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! odder (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: Checked 6, 31, 45, 63; all clean
• Formatting: Every cite with "Pitch Hero Ltd" should just be "Pitch Hero"; wikipedia typically does not use incorporation statuses in company names
  •  Done odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comprehensive: Well, nothing is missing, but... www.tonykempster.co.uk/? Looks like someone's personal site. How is it an RS? --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Tony Kempster, (…) a pioneer of online news for the grassroots game. Tony was a very well-known, and highly respected figure, due to his website www.tonykempster.co.uk. To say that [Tony's website] was an invaluable resource to fans of the non-league game is no understatement. Tony’s website provides unmatched information on results, gates, tables, fixtures and even distances to grounds, from the Premier League right down to step seven of the football pyramid. The site is an invaluable source of information for thousands of football fans each week and carries a huge amount of information which no other site can match. … and that's why it's an RS. odder (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Allright then, source review passed, and promoting. --PresN 12:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [4].

---

Roald Dahl bibliography

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roald Dahl was a superb writer and story teller. Depending on your taste and age, he was either the man who gave your childhood reading matter a dark and macabre twist, or he was the man who gave some adult short stories a dark and macabre twist, which translated well into television viewing too. This new bibliography of his work has been split off from the main article, and has been much expanded, updated and provided with citations—which were sadly lacking in the original. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dahl is of course one of my favorite writers, looking through this reminded me of my childhood favorites that I read numerous times. This looks great, though I'd love to see Roald Dahl short stories bibliography merged into this article. It's not that long and would fit into the main list well to be comprehensive. Reywas92^Talk 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Reywas92. I think the reason the short stories bibliography is so short is that it's not complete, as far as I can see. I think there would be a lot of work to do to ensure it is a full and accurate record, and to bring it up to scratch. I have plans to do that in the future, but I think it may possibly be better as a separate list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well short stories are still part of his bibliography, so the main list is simply not complete without them; you can't just leave those on another page and only include the full books. The sublist does say it's comprehensive with two books cited but that would have to checked. Also, it mentions two compilations the main list misses: The Great Automatic Grammatizator and Skin and Other Stories, plus the navbox has Roald Dahl: Collected Stories, The Roald Dahl Omnibus, and The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl. These and whatever they include all need to be added. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as the bibliography is complete with the full books, and the short stories can just as easily be separate (there are other FLs that follow this pattern). I've looked at the sources again on this, and none try to include full lists of short stories (two have a "selected stories" section, but they consist of only a handful of books): te remainder list only the books. As to the other books you have listed, they are re-hashes of material already published in book form, but collected in a different order. As they contain previously published material, and as they were collected and published post-mortem, they do not need to be included (they represent ways forthe publishers and estate to try and extract more money from "new editions"). Again this is a fairly common practice and there are several other FLs that follow this pattern. – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Though the biographical detail is probably slightly more than I would have expected, this looks a sound list well worthy of promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Glad someone decided to work on this; Dahl is one of my favorite childhood authors. Not missing the opportunity to review! Anyway, here's my comments: The following life detail is better for his main bio: His birth location His heritage The types of stories his mother told His marriage to Patricia Neal The number of children he had Points 1, 4 and 5 done totally; 2 partially; and point 3 left in. I've trimmed out what was obviously, the superfluous stuff, but I've left in the Norwegian story influence, with their dark tales, which I think were a strong influence on the young boy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) In that case, the lead should specifically say so (it currently doesn't) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "he was asked by the writer C.S. Forester"..... try using active voice; C.S. Forester asked him Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Matilda is his most popular works and should be included in the lead Really no idea why this one was missed! Now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Only one image of Dahl is really needed Probably, but without the other two images in there, we'd be left with the one in the IB and his gravestone at the bottom, with little to break the tables in between. Personally I prefer to put in a couple of decent book covers in there to show the artwork used, but he's still all in copyright at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) In "Scripts", why is an exact date given for "William and Mary" but only years for all the other entries? No idea! Now trimmed to the year. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Needs a bit of work but there are no major concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Cheers SNUGGUMS, much appreciated. I've followed all your advice bar one and a half bits. I could be persuaded on those too, but hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from with the explanation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Yes I do understand. At least fix up the influence his mother had (see above) and get rid of the stray comma in "when he was three, gave his writing". Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Cheers SNUGGUMS; both points now dealt with. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I can now gladly support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• This infobox violates two style guidelines:
• "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" (Purpose of an infobox).
• "infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative" (Style, color and formatting) – the colors serve no purpose.

• The guidelines on the three comments above are not binding on any article, and this IB format is used in several lists, including a number of FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually this kind of design was also used before in artists' discographies but was changed per the aforementioned guidelines. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The format is used in numerous lists, including several FLs; it may not fit with one dubious guideline from elsewhere, but that's for a wider audience than one FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Consider adding alt text for the image and make sure it offers something different than the caption otherwise what's the point
• File:Roald Dahl (1982).jpg - ditto.

• I'll consider it, although alt text is advised, rather than required – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I said "consider". -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

ALTS now added to all images. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The death of an elder sister and his father within" – a verb is missing between father and within.

• No, it's entirely correct as it is - there is nothing missing – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, my bad! After rereading, it looks completely fine. I think I didn't read the complete sentence and jumped to a conclusion. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Consider linking World War II in the second paragraph.

• I considered it, and decided against it per WP:OVERLINKING – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "As at 2015" – as of is more preferable.

• Not in BrEng, where "As at" is correct. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest not using {{Sort}} for years in the tables as they serve no purpose in this case. -- Frankie _talk 15:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I could taken them out, but that serves no purpose either, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case it unnecessarily increases bytes. -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I'll consider the alt text point, and probably add some description shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FrB.TG: I've now added alts to the images. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments. Clearly to be supported – an excellent piece of work, but I have few small queries first:

• There is a comma splice in the first sentence of the second para of the preamble; a semicolon would put it right.
• "The following year he edited a book on ghost stories" - did you mean "on" rather than "of" here?
• In the short story collections table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is wrong, as the column includes three New York firms.
• In the non-fiction table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is also wrong: the column includes Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
• Is the publisher variously called "M Joseph" and "Joseph" in fact Michael Joseph? They printed the full name in the volumes on my shelves.
• "Puffin Books, London" in the third table is just "Puffin Books" in the the sixth
• Similarly, "Jonathan Cape" sometimes has "London" after it and sometimes doesn't.
• On a point of purely personal preference, I wouldn't give each section both a header and an immediately-following title for the table: e.g. "Novels" followed by "Dahl's novels", but I don't strongly object, and if that's the usual form then I'm happy to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 08:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim: I've addressed all your points bar the last. I'm not too keen on the duplication either, but it's the way we're supposed to do things (or so I'm told!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough on the last point. The "All London" is still in place in the non-fiction table. Tim riley talk 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oops! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Adding my support now. This page certainly meets the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 12:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: Solid list. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Passed

• Spotchecks: checked 13, 14, 16, 18; all clean
• Formatting: I see that you're not linking publishers that are linked in the main text (The Times); not a fan, but consistent. You have a couple cite errors, but I've fixed them since they're hard to see unless you turn on the big red messages
• Comprehensive: Looks good, nothing striking me as an obvious missing source. --PresN 20:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Lady Gaga live performances

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC) and GagaNutella (talk)

I and the co-nominator have worked tirelessly on this newly created list for a couple of weeks. With some assistance from fellow editors, IndianBio and SNUGGUMS, I believe we are finally ready to present the final list from Lady Gaga at FLC. I think this would sit quite happily with the other four lists. Thank you. Note: It has sources from publishers like Daily Mail, which is often considered unreliable but it should be noted that they are only for her live performances and not other controversial information. -- Frankie _talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - the lead mentions that she was the support on two tours before her first headline tour, but there is no sign of these in the tables. These may not have been her own headline shows, but they were still live performances by her, so surely they should be included.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes they they were still live performances by her that's why they are mentioned in the lead and in the table under the The Fame Ball Tour entry. It is not known on how many shows did she accompany them so it is difficult to create a table for those performances. I think just the lead is sufficient. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPJ-DK (addressed)

------------- As a thank you for your FL input on my FLC for the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am more than happy to provide input on this list. Grammatically I don't have a lot that stands out, so that's a good start. Image needs alt text I see the phrase several times "at awards ceremonies" or "at tv shows". Not sure but should that be "on" instead of "at"? I don't know but "at" seems more correct to me. Even its parent article uses "at". "At" is correct. GagaNutellatalk 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "critically acclaimed, and" does not need the comma "received positive response from reviewers" - should that "responses"? plural right? Is the award called the "Concert Marketing & Promotion Award" with the &? Yup, that's what ref 18 says. It's on the Billboard's official site GagaNutellatalk 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Large portions of the lead is unsourced, for FL all claims in the lead needs to be sourced, not just the tables. That is because WP:LEAD advises against sourcing the lead when they are sourced in the main body of an article. I am also surprised to not see the supporting act tours listed in the table, even if you cannot pinpoint how many she performed on they are live performances. If it's unclear how many then that can be noted in the list. If I create a table on them, it will be an almost-empty one (even the names of the tours are unknown) as I have nothing to add there besides the fact that she supported certain artists. We usually don't have a table just for opening act. That's mentioned on the lead and sometimes on the description of the tour. GagaNutellatalk 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Tables sort okay, content, layout seems to be consistent. Like I said, not a lot of issues as far as I can see, mainly sources in the text.  MPJ-US  19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, all replied. -- Frankie talk 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Frankie has resolved them. GagaNutellatalk 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Alright I will do one last check today, to verify that all claims in the lead are sourced in the tables. If that checks out I will be happy to provide my support.  MPJ-US  12:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Ok, MPJ-DK, thank you!!! GagaNutellatalk 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support  MPJ-US  20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Just a question, but does this article even need to exist? It just feels like a fork of every album and single/song article, where all of this info is available on much more informative level. I don't see the relevance of it.  — Calvin999 18:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: yes, it does. There are already many lists about tours and live performances from other artists on Wikipedia, and Gaga is a tour force and her live performances are one of her identity. This list is cohesive, well sourced and complete. GagaNutella^talk 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally don't think it's that necessary, regardless of who it is for. It's nothing that isn't included in the respective articles as I mentioned previously, and in more details. I'm not denying that is cohesive, well sourced and complete; I wasn't and am not commenting on those aspects, just it's relevance. The article hasn't existed long enough to even view it's daily totals either to see if anyone is actually reading it. Also, I would have made the title read List of live performances by Lady Gaga, so that is matches that of the songs list.  — Calvin999 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

By no means is this list or any other live performances list cfork of anything (live performances promote albums and songs). Her tours do exist but where did those last two sections exist before? If it is a cfork anyway, where should it be merged? If this list does not say anything new that her existing tours don't, artists' videographies do not either so I don't see the point of those lists. Besides, readership and age of this article got nothing to do with cfork. -- Frankie _talk 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Calvin999, but I believe this list will grow on Wiki. Also, there are many "bad" sourced and written lists here, like List of Selena concert tours, List of Shakira concert tours, List of David Bowie concert tours, but they are still active to people read. Lastly, the name we followed the "standard", which is "List of name of the artist tours/concert tours/live performances". GagaNutella^talk 19:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As Gaga is a notable artist and has performed on many occasions, I think this list may be incomplete. Why don't we change the title to "List of concert tours by Lady Gaga" (can include residency show and promotional concert as well)? As far as I can see, the title "live performances" may be not fully exploited as Gaga had performed "live" in bars or clubs prior to her debut. Simon (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but I think it is impossible to keep track of her live performances before she was an established artist. This is as comprehensive as possible list of live performances by Lady Gaga at her concerts and notable events. -- Frankie _talk 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I think this list should change to List of concert tours by Lady Gaga to make sure that it is fully comprehensive. I once nominated List of Christina Aguilera concert tours a FL but it did not get promoted because of the section "Notable live performances". Simon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If I move it to concert tours, there will be little left, making it a pure CFORK. We have added performances that have been reported in the media, and like I said above, it is impossible to have her pre-fame performances. -- Frankie _talk 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this list is exhaustive for all the live performances Gaga has done and pretty much a good indication of it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree; this article would have a very limited scope with only five tours if moved to that title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: and @HĐ:, can I request for your assessment now? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

---

To be honest, it does meet all of the criteria, it's well put together and sourced, so I guess I Support.  — Calvin999 09:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Very well written article, but all of Gaga's articles are.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, both of you. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• To be honest I am still reluctant to vote per my comment above. Perhaps I'd keep neutral in this discussion and let others vote instead. Great list anyway, Simon (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you @HĐ:, we would be glad to hear if you have any other comment for betterment of the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you to all of you for the support!!! GagaNutella^talk 19:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• The above comments say this list is exhaustive but I disagree. According to this list Applause only had one televised performance, a quick youtube search reveals many more. There are many radio performances which have not been included. I presumed festival performances are intentionally not included as they are considered a tour date, however what about the likes of radio ones big weekend, the capital ball, itunes festival etc which are slightly more unique? What about the Christmas and Thanksgiving specials she did? What about performances at night clubs? Performances on the Alan Carr show? I have limited knowledge of her live performances and can quickly identify these gaps so I'm sure a more thorough investigation would discover more.

• I was also thinking about the festivals. Maybe creat a new section. I will add more performances too. GagaNutella^talk 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: why the only mention of the touring locations is in the Born This Way description and the Promotional concert subsection? Every other tour FL (even this less detailed approach) says where the performers went! igordebraga ≠ 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is because her concert tours were worldwide, which will read repetitive if I add. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

But that Michael Jackson article I linked there also put it. Anyway, included, and am willing to Support this list (like other pop singers, Gaga has a really dedicated fanbase on the wiki). igordebraga ≠ 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, that she does and count me among those. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: checked 3, 23, 72, 124; all clean
• Formatting: good, but consider archiving your references so that they don't get taken out by website closures or changes.
• Comprehensive: The sources used seem comprehensive. --PresN 21:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, going ahead and promoting- I reviewed through the newer changes by GagaNutella, which were just adding a few minor performances. --PresN 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [6].

---

List of accolades received by Selma (film)

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Selma is a 2014 historical drama directed by Ava DuVernay. It received many awards and nominations for its direction, David Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr. and the song "Glory" by John Legend and Common. As always looks forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt

• There's one dead link.
• Need to mention if its a Hollywood/French/Russian movie. Not clear by name. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vivvt: Sorted the above points. Please continue the review. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mention "As of XXXX" for Rotten Tomatoes as number may change in the future.

@Vivvt: Done. Cowlibob (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Support All my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-organized, comprehensive, and solidly referenced. I can find no issues with it. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek/archive1. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

• Oprah Winfrey is wikilinked twice.
• Since it's mentioned that Common won a Supporting Actor award for the film, it will be wise to mention him in the cast listing in the first paragraph.

Just these two minor issues. Good work! Happy to support. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Made the fixes. Cowlibob (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Spotchecks: checked refs 3, 9, 20, 36, 44, all clean
• Formatting: uses "link the first" for work/publishers, seems to be all correct; all dates appear to be mdy, all clean
• Sources: all sources appear to be reliable; nothing is striking me as an obvious missing source

Source review: Passed --PresN 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The reviews are a bit short, but nothing jumped out at me when I looked through the list, so I suppose it was just that solid to start with. Going ahead and promoting. --PresN 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. --PresN 20:14, 19 April 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 promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [7].

---

World Fantasy Convention Award

Nominator(s): PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, almost done with this latest article group: at #10 out of 10 in the World Fantasy Awards, and #36 overall in my perpetual sci-fi/fantasy awards list FLC series, we have here the World Fantasy Convention Award. Why is there a special convention award, separate from the general "did neat stuff in the past year" professional/non-professional awards, or the life achievement award? Unclear, since the WFAs seem to be allergic to writing down their own rules; which is perhaps why it has only been given out 11 times, the last in 1997. It's still an official category, though, and long enough to be the final WFA list to come to FLC. As always, the formatting is identical to other WFA/sci-fi awards lists, and I've brought forward comments from prior FLCs in the series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So since you broke the ice with your review of the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am returning the favor with your nomination.

• Is there no images at all? Not even an award winner?

• Not at present; I'm still working on getting a free-use photo of the trophy to put in these lists.

• "More regular special awards are given out for professional or non-professional work in the prior year in" - I assume that since you worded it like this that the Convention Award does not follow that pattern? It is an assumption though, not actually stated in the article.

• Reworded to "Other, annually-given special awards"; it's meant to contrast with the "in some years" from the prior sentence.

• "Less than half of the winners are primarily known for their writing, as opposed to editing work or artwork." Since we have a definitive number perhaps it would better to say that X out of the 11 winners are primarily known for their writing, while the remaining are known for editing or artwork" or words to that effect.

• Changed to be explicitly "five". I was trying to fudge because Wollheim did write things, eve if he's much better known for founding DAW and being an editor, but I agree it's awkwardly worded.

• "In some cases the winner is well-known for their non-fantasy works," - Looking at Stephen King being on the list perhaps "best known" is a better term than "well-known"?

• Eh, because the WFAs consider horror as a subgenre of fantasy he wouldn't be better known for non-fantasy, just also known; and besides, Norton wrote sci-fi and Brennan wrote poetry, but both were better known for fantasy.

• While all awards in the list are sourced, the "work(s)" column seems to be totally unsourced and the award source does not list it.

• Yes; this is based on the precedent from World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement (and several other similar FLs). The works are explicitly not meant to be a "reason" for the award, and are composed only of works that are plainly and uncontestably written/done by the person in question before the award was given, and are only there to provide some context and are not primary parts of the list or the award.

• Sources. During a previous fantasy ward FLC I commented on it was established that the Science Fiction Awards Darabase is considered a reliable souce. Looking at the rest they look reliable too. Dates are consistent etc So sources check out.

A good list with just a couple of adjustments.  MPJ-US  01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: responded inline. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: remindin you of this; have I addressed all of your concerns? --PresN 18:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes i believe it's all covered, great work. Support  MPJ-US  18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just a couple of comments from me - is there any information on why the award was given so intermittently?
• Does the column need to be "Winner(s)" since there is only a single winner each year? I guess Arkham House might warrant the plural but even then its a single entity. Miyagawa (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa:

• None in the slightest. The WFAs are annoying at the best of times about actually publishing information about the awards, but there's nothing about this one anywhere- not why the conventions themselves decided to give out an award that entirely duplicates the existing ones, not why the WFAs have it as an official category instead of ignoring it, and not why it's still listed as an official category, nearly 20 years after the last time it was given.
• It's there because 1982 had 2 winners. --PresN 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough - I hadn't spotted the two winners! In that case, I can Support. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

• One too many given in "Other, annually-given special awards are given out...".
• Another couple of givens in the next sentence as well. More variety would be nice if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Cleaned out some givens; sorry for taking so long. --PresN 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Aside from those little complaints, the rest of the list looked fine to me. It's another great sci-fi award entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Spot-check: ref 9–19; all of the sources cite the winners.
• Formatting: for consistency, add the publishers for The Guardian et al. Though the date format is somewhat outdated and not something I prefer, previous lists by World Fantasy Awards with this format have been promoted and so is fine. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: it's been brought up at previous FLCs, but with the review asking for the removal of the publishers - The Guardian's publisher is Guardian Media Group, The Star's is Star Media Group, Chicago Tribune is Tribune Publishing, and Locus publishes itself, so the "publishers" are excluded for being roughly the same as the "works". --PresN 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} also advise to ignore publishers that are basically the same just with "Ltd", "Inc" and such. Anyway, source review passed. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 11 April 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 promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [8].

---

Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the format and level of quality of several other Mexican wrestling championship lists that I have brought through the FLC process. This version benefitted from ever single piece of feedback I have receieved so far, ensuring that it is consistent with previous submissions and deal with certain issues up front. ...  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Doffing my delegate hat to review.

• "From its creation in 1943 it was not promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions among others Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..." -> "Since its creation in 1943 it has not been promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions. Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..."

• Fixed

• "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately" -> "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately"

• Fixed

• "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre but they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship." -> "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre, though they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship."

• Fixed

• "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns, Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign with no more than 11 days." -> "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns; Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign at no more than 11 days."

• Fixed

• Note 6 says that the date when the championship was "vacated" is not known, but is that the right word? Wasn't it won by Guzman from Anaya? Vacated to me implies that there was a champion, then there wasn't.

• Fixed, quite a few of the notes were apparently copied and just had the dates updated, but some bonehead (that would be me) forgot to adjust the text. I believe I have made each not more specific to the champion it is associated with.

• Notes 7 and 8 have the same problem, except more so- 7 is about a reign that ended on an ambiguous date, while 8 is about one that started on an ambiguous date; they can't both be "vacated". This goes on for the next few notes- please come up with standardized wording.

• Fixed. As above

• In the Reigns by combined length table, reusing the same notes doesn't make sense because now the context is lacking as to which reign you're talking about out of several.

• I will take a look at the approach to notes for combined reigns, see if I can come up with a good solution to this.

• The 1951 vacation has a hyphen in the reign number column, instead of a dash like the others

• Fixed

• That's about it, since references is it's own review type now; didn't look closely at them. If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• @PresN: - Thank you for your feedback, I will get to your list once I figure out the best way to tackle the notes for the combined reigns list. I appreciate your input and help to make this a better article.
• I think I got it figured out, simply list the figures used whenever there is a question of how long the reign really was.  MPJ-US  22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good, Support. --PresN 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I know little to nothing about wrestling so please help to clarify some of my comments. "singles professional wrestling championship controlled by Com..." perhaps organised would be a better word than controlled? How about "sanctioned"? "Since its creation in 1943 it has not promoted by one specific promotion..." think there is a missing word in this sentence. Reworded, is that clearer? "Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL), Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) and in recent years in the ENSEMA promotion and the Independent circuit until December 2007 where Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) gained control of the championship". I think recent years is too vague. Perhaps say the something like EMLL, AAA, ENSEMA, Independent circuit have organised it in the past but since December 2007 it has been organised by CMLL. I reworded that. I think it's clearer. The line about it all being scripted probably needs a reference. Done According to our article the EMLL 9th Anniversary Show was in 1942 but this list says the first tournament was in 1943. The text is when it says 1942, it was created in 42. "among others..." perhaps "including" would be better phrasing. Done "From AAA's creation until 2002 the title was exclusively defended in AAA" What does this sentence mean? Reworded "From AAA's creation in 1992 until 2002 AAA had exclusive control of the championship." better? Also at a loss about what this sentence means "In 2002 El Dandy won the title and used it as one of the focal points of the ENSEMA promotion that operated from 2002 until 2004". Reworded, hopefully that's better? References G1, G2 maybe general references but they information related to them should be linked to specific pages of the source for easier verification. You can use the Template:Efn for it. For G1 it's one page in the book, it has the list through 2000. G2 is a magazine, it covers the championship over a couple of pages - the list and notes on various bits of history. So while I can break it down to each of the three pages I am not sure what it would add? I did notice that I forgot to put the page numbers on G2, rectified. What is Lucha 2000? Why is its date format different from the sources? It is a Mexican wrestling magazine, the date format was a mistake on my part, I fixed it so they're all consistent. That's it from a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC) @Cowlibob: - Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate your input and I think it's especially important that I get the non-wrestling fan point of view. I have tried to address all concerns, it may not be 100% right yet so if you could give me your take on the updates that would be appreciated.  MPJ-US  00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC) "From AAA's creation in 1992 until 2002 they had exclusive control of the championship. In 2002 El Dandy won the title, which marked the end of AAA's control of the championship, transitioning control of the championship to the ENSEMA promotion" I think these two sentences can be combined into one and you wouldn't need to repeat the losing control bit. Reworded. Not sure if HowStuffWorks is a reliable source. Is there a better one like from a book on professional wrestling? There's probably lots which describe its nature of being scripted. I have quite a few books, I am sure I can find one that covers it. Found a book, it mentiones that Lucha Libre is scripted just like all other pro wrestling. Need reference for the fights being decided by best two-out-of-three falls rules. Found and added. Cowlibob (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC) I will re-read the Luchas 2000 magazine, it may be in the section for one of the other championships. I will get those addressed tonight.  MPJ-US  00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC) @Cowlibob: - I believe I have addressed the concerns

• Support Good list on a lesser known topic. One minor point, the PDF refs should have a page number listed where the information is found. Also that I have not performed a source check as the majority of the sources are in Spanish so I couldn't be confident that it would be valid but I accept them in good faith. Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input and I have added the page number.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments by FrB.TG "Since its creation in 1942 the championship" - comma needed right after 1942. Fixed "Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de " - I am not so sure if you need "among these" when you have "include". Fixed I don't know why are the numbers in the table in bold. Any specific reason for that? That is the standard for pro wrestling championship tables, not sure of the exact reason but I am following the styleguide. You do not need to wiki-link the entries under "Location" as they all border on WP:OVERLINKING. I did notice the note in that article on linking to "united states", you're probably right that they all could go. I will unlink them. Ref(s). → Ref(s) Fixed I am not going to comment on the references as I am not aware of any of them. I have seen your QPQ requests at FLC (reminded me of myself). Anyway, I know very little about wrestling so that's all I could find. -- Frankie talk 10:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your input, the FL process relies in great wikipedias who are willing to comment on subjects they're not too familiar with and I appreciate it.  MPJ-US  12:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC) @FrB.TG: - I believe I have addressed all your comments.  MPJ-US  13:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Thank you for responding to my comments in a timely fashion. As a QPQ, I would appreciate it if you comment in my nomination. Not mandatory though. -- Frankie _talk 13:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you and I will look at your FL in the next day or two.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Miyagawa

• There's a bit of repetition between the first and second paragraphs in that you explain that the title is shared across promotions including Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre. Would it be possible to rephrase the lines in the second paragraph simply to state that Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre was the main promotion using the title during the first few years, although not exclusively. I don't think you need to reiterate the shared nature so quickly after doing it the first time.

• You are right, especially since it's that close together. I have tried to reword it, is that better?  MPJ-US  22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Image licences appear to be good. There's one which is own use rather than grabbed from Flickr, but it's such a close crop that I'm inclined to believe it.
• No issues with the table, all appears to be good. Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Godot13

• Initial comments (more to follow)
  • Table sort functionality looks good.
  • When you refer to promotion, do you mean the match promoters/organizers?
    • The company that the match promoters/organizers work for - like WWE is the promotion, short for Professional wrestling promotion.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • For the Days held column, would it make sense to put the actual range in the column (along with the note), but keeping the sort parameter the same as it is now?
    • I have never thought of doing that, the version used is the general format used for wrestling championships. I believe the choice was to use a note because the date ranges are so uncertain and not to lead credence to a specific number. This is the version used for all the 15 FLs I have produced and I'd hate to be inconsistent between them.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In location, both Mexico and Mexico City are used. Do you have the city or state location for those listed only as Mexico?--Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the entries that just list "Mexico" do not have a mores specific location listed in the sources, primarily due to limited documentation of title change itself - often newspapers would report "Luchador I defeated Luchador II on January 1, 1901" when the champion would come to town to defend the title.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Godot13: - I hope I have answered your concerns.  MPJ-US  04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am out of town until Saturday evening. I will go over it again by Sunday. Sorry for the delay...--Godot13 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the content of the other reviews, and your responses to my comments immediately above, I can Support this for FL.--Godot13 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd only complain about an unreferenced sentence in the lead, but fixed that myself with something from later in the article. igordebraga ≠ 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review: no issues as far as I could see, so:

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 11 April 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 promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because last nomination was archived, mainly because of the delays in resolving comments due to my wiki-inactivity. This time I hope to get it to its desired status. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments by FrB.TG: I don't see why you should hyphenate second-highest. Done "The Awards Committee later submits their" – correct me if I am wrong (as it looks like a proper noun due to the capitalization) isn't it the Padma Awards Committee? Rephrased "The criteria includes "exceptional ..." - isn't criteria plural? That's correct. But I didn't get your concern. Can you elaborate? Some words used repetitively in the prose, such as "confer-ral/ment/red" (11) and "includ-e/ing" (5). In-Progress Done I think the lead is very long for an article that lists the recipients of Padma Vibhushan and ironically it is longer than the lede of its parent article. That's because the parent article has multiple sections of the elaborated content. I didnt want to make separate sections here in the list but still want to present all the necessary content. Any suggestions are welcome. The captions read quite repetitive: "Awarded in 123, abc is best known..." In-Progress Done Since there are alternative texts for the images of the recipients, I think you should also add one for the lead image. Done Otherwise pretty good work. Sorry I didn't leave comments in its previous nomination as I was a little bit late. Anyway, hope these help. -- Frankie talk 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I have addressed some of your concerns. Please let me know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Per my resolved comments at its previous nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support the nomination. -- Frankie _talk 19:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. My two cents were incorporated in the earlier nom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 13 needs spaces after each comma. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. Please let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review by MPJ

So I will be looking specifically at the sources to help ensure it's meeting the FL criteria.

• The "External Links" tool shows that everything is live and well so that's good.
• I am seeing official sources, news sources ,books etc. nothing that is not a Reliable source
• Formatting is okay, dates consistent etc.
• Generally the recipients are sourced, all spot checks confirm this.
• The only statements made in the article I do not see are the "Posthumous honors" part prior to 2015 - the sources confirm they were awarded the Padma, but not posthumous? No sources on their death listed.

• The date of death sources seems to be the only issue I can find, otherwise it all looks good to me.  MPJ-US  13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In Progress Done @MPJ-DK: Please check now. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

All deaths do look sufficiently sources, reliable and well formatted. I figure it would not be hard to get the sources since the subject articles most likely had them already. Good work. From a Source standpoint I can give this my Support Y  MPJ-US  19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 11 April 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 promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal. Having checked the names, nationalities, and numbers, I feel this meets the criteria, hence the nom (hopefully someone here will cross check for any clangers). Again, I've modelled this on lists which have been promoted, and used the same database source for players as the main list. Welcome any sort of feedback, cheers...Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments, will return later.....

1. The article says "Since Arsenal's first competitive match, more than 500 players have made a competitive first-team appearance for the club", but above you say "Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal". So which is it?

The latter, corrected now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Have done. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

1. In "They became the first southern member admitted into the Football League in 1893", why do the words "southern member" link to Southern Football League, a competition Arsenal have never played in or been associated with ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed it; wanted to link Arsenal's southern ties to the 'Football in the south of England' section, but that might just be confusing altogether. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there are a particular reason for the omission of the goals column? This is standard in all lists of this type. Seems strange to me. NapHit (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Silly me, have added them now! Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The list is ordered first by number of appearances in total, then if necessary by date of debut." It appears to be ordered by date of debut first to me
• Shouldn't all defenders prior to 1960, have FB as their position instead of DF? Seeing as that is what the position key states.

• Changed. Done the same for midfielders.

• "and defunct competitions the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." this doesn't seem right to me. Need a better way of introducing the defunct competitions

• I removed the defunct bit as it reads better just listing the competitions.

• I think the position key should be sorted by position. So GK, FB, HB etc, would be more beneficial to the reader in my opinion

• Done, feel free to change the table if something's wrong.

• link for 1893–94 season in note 1?

NapHit (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NapHit:, cheers for your comments as ever, think I've addressed all your points now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite "Despite finishing fifth in the Second Division in 1915": I'd state the season they won it, rather than the year. I feel the positions key should be like that used on other FLs, e.g. Birmingham and York. It makes it clear to our readers when the positions change. I'm not sure about using the precise positions for the old positions, those wing half, inside forward and winger. You've not done the same for modern positions, not that I would encourage you to do use them. "The list is ordered first by date of debut": how is it orderered after date of debut...? "This feature of the game was introduced in the Football League during the 1960s": could you be more specific? The aforementioned Birmingham and York lists include markings for current players and loan players (see "Player" section in key of Birmingham list). Do you feel this list would benefit from doing the same? It would be beneficial, but I don't think distinguishing current from former players is necessary given it would almost defeat the purpose of having a club career end date. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Total appearances and Total goals: Personally, I would list the competitions by league and cup, and then chronoligically. Also, Arsenal only played in the Europa League when it was known as the UEFA Cup, and you've not included the European Super Cup. So, I would write "Football League, United League, Premier League, FA Cup, FA Charity/Community Shield, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Football League Cup, European Cup/UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy and European Super Cup". "London League Premier Division" (division) should be just "London League" (league), for consistency with the other leagues. Per WP:RED, we should wikilink non-existent articles when the "subject is notable and verifiable". I would argue that all the players in this list without articles who played in the Football League should be wikilinked; it is a fully professional league, meaning they pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Some flags are anachronistic, e.g. the flag of Ireland (introduced 1922) and the flag of South Africa (introduced 1994) are used incorrectly in some instances. Accuracy of content: you define the club career as "the first and last calendar years in which the player appeared for the club". However, there's several players who are supposed to have played for the club over more than one year, despite making only one appearance, which is impossible using your definition. See James Charteris and Edward Williams as just two examples. Sourcing: this is probably my biggest concern with the list. From examining the general refs, I take it the one you're using for the player positions, dates and apps/goals is the Arsenal Player Database. However, the dates they provide appear to be contract dates, and not debut to last app. That might explain the wrong dates referred to above? Just a quick note: debut dates are from The Arsenal History. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Right, I've now gone through the entire list, changed end dates where where necessary, cross referenced them with Andy Kelly's lineup site (which is the main source for apps/goals), double-checked dates with 11v11, as well as nationalities with Soar/Tyler's illustrated book. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Further to these points, I did a spot check on Sebastian Larsson, and his years and apps/goals are wrong. Per Soccerbase, Larsson debuted in 2004 and last played in 2006, and made 12 appearances. I feel the entire list probably needs running through, to ensure accuracy and verifiability, before I can confidently support this nomination. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Cheers for taking a look at this @Mattythewhite:, I think I've answered all of your concerns, particularly the main one about sourcing. Hopefully there aren't any major issues when it comes to spotchecking, ta Lemonade51 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Wikilinks that need redirecting: William Scott (footballer), William Stewart (footballer), Edward Williams (footballer), James Clark (footballer), Thomas Hamilton (footballer), James Ferguson (footballer), James Caldwell and Jack Lee (cricketer). I've checked the ordering, years and apps/goals for the post-1996 players by cross-referencing the line-ups site with Soccerbase, and have corrected quite a few errors. This makes me worry the same is likely the case for pre-1996 players, which I haven't checked as Soccerbase only do breakdowns for post-1996 players. Are you classing wingers as midfielders or as forwards? I ask because Ryo Miyaichi is listed as a midfielder, while Ainsley Maitland-Niles is listed as a forward. What source are you using to reference nationalities and positions post-2011? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks once more. For consistency purposes, all wingers are classed as forwards. I've cited the Spragg/Clarke book for positions since 2011, as well as the UEFA website for nationalties (though there aren't player lists for previous seasons, player profiles can be accessed through match archives), and Soccerbase. I would've sourced the Arsenal handbook 15/16, which also has statistics of every Arsenal player, but I don't have it on me at this moment. Gone through the list once more pre-1996 and cross-checked stats using Kelly's website, the illustrated book, 11v11 (which excludes Charity Shield matches), and the Arsenal database. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Thank for persisting, I feel this now now meets the criteria. One minor comment though: are wingers not generally regarded as midfielders rather than forwards? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! For reasons of consistency I've decided to class wingers as forwards, given their role in the team pre 1960s was forward-like; I feel it would be wrong to class them as half-backs. Plus there are players like (Alex Iwobi), who have been positioned as a wide forward, and not like a wide midfielder. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review - passed

• Spotchecks: Checked sources 2, 7, 12, 16 - all clear
• Formatting: formatting is fine, though I personally would use links for publishers. Consider archiving your refs, just so you don't have to deal with it if any of the websites ever change the way they structure their pages. --PresN 21:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I decided to take off my director hat to review this one and didn't find any real points of concern. Looks like a very nice list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 11 April 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 promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [11].

---

Jessica Chastain on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

After a long hiatus from Wikipedia, I am back with my 19th FLC nomination on the lovely Jessica Chastain. Hope to receive constructive criticism, as before. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - based on comprehensiveness and coverage. I don't find it very detailed, and that's partly because each table is quite short because of her comparatively few film appearances compared to others. I don't think it represents the best of Wikipedia, and it's quite premature in my opinion. I would rather see a longer list. I don't see why it's not just called "Jessica Chastain filmography" either. The wording of the current title sounds more like it should be a prose article, not a list, and that's actually what I was expecting to see when I clicked on the Wikilink. I find the lead a bit choppy too. it's just short, successive sentences that aren't that interesting to read, and it's more like a chronological re-telling of what we can gather ourselves from the list. I'd rather see more about the characters she has played and critical responses, awards and nominations, not just what year she was in each film.  — Calvin999 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: "_______ on stage and screen" is frequently used for actors and actresses with theater credits. A common alternative is "_______ performances". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know, but for me it sounds more like it should be a prose article. Using 'filmography', we know it's a table or list.  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Calvin999, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with Dr. Blofeld) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria.  — Calvin999 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Streep's one to me has more of an engaging and interesting flair to it. I enjoyed reading it and I found it informative. I didn't get the same feeling when I read Chastain's; it read more like a burst of short sentences. It's meant to be Chastain on stage and screen, but only one sentence out of three paragraphs actually mentioned stage work. I think also her comparatively shorter career doesn't help as there is less to draw upon and write about. But therein lies another issue for me which is bigger: I think this article could be easily merged into her bio. Lots of actors have select filmographies, and I think that the same could be applied to Chastain's. For me, that is a big problem, because I don't think it warrants its own standalone list at this point in her career because it's quite short. It's nothing to be taken personally, no nomination of any kind gets no criticism or feedback. It's not a critique on you, remember that.  — Calvin999 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The readability of the prose in the lead may be a valid point (I've not read it, so make no judgement myself), but the title is not a problem, as the format is used in several other FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment – The nominator has been indef. blocked. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NumerounovedantTalk 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Numerounovedant I agree that the lead could use some polishing, but with no major issues. The first sentence might look better if you add her stage credits to it as you did in that of Meryl Streep. Some of her notable stage appearances are already mentioned in the first and third paragraphs. you can mention an "American film and stage actress" or something like that. Added. Please help me understand the role of - "As a final-year student at the Juilliard School, she was signed on for a talent holding deal by the television producer John Wells." here. Okay, so while she was in her final year of school, a producer signed her on for roles in TV shows that were produced by him. "From 2004 to 2010," - "Early in her career" maybe? It's better to be specific I think. " Her next film roles were in Stolen (2009), a critically panned mystery-thriller, and in The Debt (2010), in which she played the younger version of Helen Mirren's character." - maybe a little about "the role" you mention, just a suggestion to improve the relevcance of the sentence. She had a minor role in Stolen, so I don't think it adds much to the lead. Then you should mention that she played a minor role. You don't want to attribute a critically panned movie to her resume with a minor role! Plus the sentence itself raised a question in my mind (as a reader) of her role in the movie. "Chastain's breakthrough in Hollywood came in 2011 when she had six film releases." - The year 2011 turned out to be the breakthrough year for Chastian" or something similar to that maybe. Your version somehow makes it sound like the number had something to do with her breakthrough. Agreed. I tweaked it a bit. " leading lady" - "female lead"? "Leading lady" is an acceptable term. Yes, but it's usually used to refer to a role where the lady is the protagonist of the film, I don't think that is the case here. Not really. If you see the wikilinked article it says it also refers to "the actress who plays a secondary lead, usually a love interest, to the leading actor in a film or play." Yes it says an "informal way" to refer to the... See, it is a trivial issue, and I don't want it to come in way of the flow of the rest of the Lead. It comes out odd to the reader because she was neither an established actress back then nor played a central role for the film, so I think it's better if the article omitted the "Leading lady" reference. "in 1960s America" - " in America in the in 1960s America"? "1960s America" is quite correct actually. "Chastain received her first Academy Award nomination, in the supporting actress category." Not sure what you mean here, because the additional comma would make it grammatically incorrect. I misread it, I though you had a comma there. Please ignore! "$747 million-grossing" - "top grossing"? Better to mention the figure, isn't it? I don't know, it reads awkwardly to me. You could ask for a second opinion here. "and played Maya, a CIA intelligent analyst, in Kathryn Bigelow's thriller Zero Dark Thirty. The latter was a partly" - "She played Maya, a CIA intelligent analyst, in Kathryn Bigelow's thriller Zero Dark Thirty, a partly fictionalized account. The sentence would be a bit too lengthy if I don't split it. "and garnered Chastain"- "She received a" "Garnered" is quite correct actually. I think I couldn't get my point across here. What I meant was that this sentence reads better if separated - "In 2012, she voiced the character of Gia in the $747 million-grossing animated film Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, and played Maya, a CIA intelligent analyst, in Kathryn Bigelow's thriller Zero Dark Thirty." Mainly because you talk about Zero Dark Thirty in the para further and it's better to keep it as an independent entry! Yeah, I've split the sentences. "in The Martain"- "in another science fiction film The Martian I deliberately did not mention "science fiction film" so soon after I used it to describe Interstellar. Fair enough. The rest of the list looks good! I hope my comments help make parts of the article better. NumerounovedantTalk 06:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, Numerounovedant. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC) I replied to your comments. Also if you feel it to be appropriate here, I suggest you add the Richard Roeper's comments post "Mama", describing her as "one of the finest actors of her generation." It would add to her credits, if you think it's appropriate. NumerounovedantTalk 12:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC) That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I'd like to repeat that quote here, since it's already being used in the lead section of her biography. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC) When the last three points have been addressed (The "minor role", "Leading Lady", and the gorss issue) I'd be happy to support the nomination! Good work! NumerounovedantTalk 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I've tweaked the two sentences to address your first two concerns, but I must insist that there is nothing wrong in mentioning the gross figure for Madagascar, since it is her highest-grossing film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Support All my comments were resolved, Good Luck with the nomination! NumerounovedantTalk 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Numerounovedant. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm sure neither the nominator nor the delegates are going to worry much about what Calvin999 has to say. The list is clearly comprehensive and of FL standard and you wouldn't want to bloat it with excessive prose anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, good doctor. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dan arndt (talk)

• the key about films that had yet to be released should go at the end of the table not proceeding it - is it possible to include as a separate row in the table rather than a completely separate line.
• the listing for Dark Shadows rather than an unaired pilot should read pilot episode with an annotation/footnote that the pilot episode wasn't aired but did have a limited release.

@Dan arndt: Both your comments have been addressed, though I'm not sure how to include the key as a separate row. Thanks for reading the list! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try and see if I can fix the table for you -

don't know why its bolded - will work on it.

Thanks!

• The Huntsman: Winter's War has had its cinematic release
• Ref 52 needs fixing

Done. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Stolen was originally known as Stolen Lives but was renamed before it received its theatrical release - notes should reflect this.

Well, several films have different names during production, but the name with which it is theatrically released is the only notable one.

Then maybe a footnote explaining that when it was first screened in 2009 it was called Stolen Lives but was renamed prior to its theatrically release - otherwise the notes column makes little sense.

• The Westerner she was a co-producer not the sole producer - notes should reflect this.

Generally, films have more than one producer. Each one of them are still the "producer", so I think it's fine.

It would be preferable then for a footnote to be included to this effect, as not all films have multiple producers.

• Texas Killing Fields was also known as The Dark Fields

According to IMDB, it released as The Dark Fields only in Australia. It also had different release names for other international markets. Is this notable enough to be included?

Maybe it is because I'm from Australia but you're right it doesn't need to be included.

• The Colour of Time was released in the UK as Love Forever. Was it released in the US under The Color of Time or Tar?

It was given a theatrical release in the US as The Color of Time, but premiered in film festivals as Tar.

Similarly to my preceding comments about Stolen, there should be a footnote provide greater explanation about the alternative names.

• The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby she was a co-producer not the producer, which implies she was the sole producer - notes should reflect this.

As above.

As per my comments on The Westerner.

• Wilde Salomé, was also released as Salomé, in 2013, essentially without the documentary elements - notes should reflect this.

Already mentioned this. Added the year of release in the footnote.

Maybe reword the footnote as 'entitled Salomé, was separately released in 2013.'

• Did she appear in the 2011 short film, Touch of Evil?

It wasn't really a short film, but a 40 second spoof for NYT. Is this notable?

You're right it isn't notable and shouldn't be included.

• Did she appear in the episode, "Eros in the Upper Eighties", of Law and Order: Trial by Jury in 2006

According to this, she wasn't a part of this episode. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

and yet there are these screenshots from that episode and IMDb which appear to indicate otherwise.

• Possibly where I was confused was in the footnotes you state 'Refers to the film's earliest release' whereas when you state the name of the film you use the date of its theatrical release as the correct name for the film, which for some of these films are different.

Dan arndt, all done. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support All my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time out to review this. Much appreciated. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 11 April 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC) [12].

---

Raveena Tandon filmography

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has also received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive commentsKrish | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Screen debut can be either on-screen or off-screen. Please clarify.
• Replace "won" with "earned" in the case of Patthar Ke Phool.
• "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films which continued with her 1993 releases"—I suggest you to rephrase it to "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films until the end of 1993."
• "Among these were two of the top grossing films"—highest grossing? If yes, also mention whether they were for that year.

Please read the whole text which says "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the top grossing films – the action drama Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale." So mentioning of year is not necessary Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Action film is enough for Mohra. Few thrills cannot make an action film an "action thriller".
• "Her other film was the comedy Andaz Apna Apna, which though initially a box-office disappointment, over the years achieved cult status"—"achieved cult status over the years".
• Again, Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi is just an action film.
• Remove action film for Ziddi. It shall avoid repetition and shall make the readers job a bit easy,
• Any reason for not mentioning her Tamil debut Sadhu, Kannada debut Upendra, Aalavandhan? The last is surely a notable one and the second is her only Kannada film till date.
• No mention of Bangaru Bullodu (1993) and Akasa Veedhilo (2001) in the list and the lead. According to this, the former is her Telugu debut and including Pandavulu Pandavaulu Tummeda (2014), which you mention in the lead, Tandon did three films in Telugu. I suggest you to document the other two correctly in the list and the lead, if possible.

Because it was her comeback film after a long hiatus. And, she is known for her Bollywood films, so its not really important to say she made her this language debut 5 times.Krish | Talk 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, i would ask you to list her three Telugu films with reliable sources in the list under filmography section. You have one, and two are left. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala Actually there aren't any sources for other two films. Hence, I was suggested to remove those films in the first FLC.Krish | Talk 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them. I will provide the sources. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala I have added the films, so kindly provide aources for the same.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is Laboratory her Bengali debut? If yes, mention it.
• Three dead links, one uncategorized redirect and one has connection issue. Fix them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

These links are for box-office figures and Box Office India is the only source which provides old film's box-office figures. As published in an article on the site, it will start working in few days.Krish | Talk 09:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, then please let me know once these links start working. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Replaced with the archives.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, Tandon didn't make a cameo appearance in a song in Bbuddah Hoga Terra Baap. In that, she had a small role, which cannot be considered a cameo appearance however. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Corrected.Krish | Talk 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Nice job on the list so far. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your detailed review Pavan. Krish | Talk 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review by FrB.TG:

• Reference 1 says that she received Filmfare's New Face Award for her debut film yet our article claims that it was Best Female Debut.

It was renamed. Look at Tabu filmography.Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, they are two different categories, see Filmfare Award for New Face of the Year.

This page was created in January 2016, without any sources. In other FLs, Best female Debut is used and the template is same for these awards because only the name was changed and that's it.Krish | Talk 05:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There were seven winners of said award, and on each article I find the name Lux New Face e.g. Juhi Chawla and Bhagyashree with the exception of this. Tabu, on the other hand, was the winner of Best Female Debut, unlike Tandon. --FrB.TG (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

FrB.TG Best Female Debut was first awarded to Preity Zinta, so you are telling that Tabu debuted after Zinta?Krish | Talk 03:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the first actress to win the award was Tabu. The Best Debut award (both genders combined to that point) was given to Ajay Devgan that year for his debut work than Tandon, who was honoured with New Face of the Year. Even the given source says so. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.Krish | Talk 12:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neither source 1 nor 2 support the claim that she had a number of flops until the end of 1993. Ref 2 does list her films' verdicts but they are only from 1994-present.

The NDTV source does say this "hereafter, the actress did several films like Parampara (1992), Ek Hi Raasta (1992), Divya Shakti (1992) and Pehla Nasha (1993). But it was her 1994 film Mohra which turned out to be a blockbuster hit."Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• You need to wiki-link The New Indian Express in source #8.
• Ref 36 and 86 - ditto.
• The reference for Vinashak – Destroyer says that the name of her role in the film is "Kajal" while our article claims that she played "Kajol"
• Ref 43 does not support the name of her role in Saalakhein.
• Ref 66 is supposed to be for the film Officer and is titled so, but the link goes to Aks.
• Ref 80 is the wrong link, like above.
• The reference for Pehchaan: The Face of Truth does not support the name of her role.
• The source for Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda does not say anything-the names of director and her role- that the article claims except that she was in the film. -- Frankie _talk 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rest Done.Krish | Talk 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Since Dus wasn't completed, is it wise to mention the release date?

The film was scheduled for a 1997 release. It also has a page on wikipedia and the film is still notable owing to the popularity of the song "Hindustani". The film wont release ever, so we can't even put after 2016. So, its fine.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest using an en-dash instead of the year.

• I think its better to mention the director's name of Satta in the lead. It saw one of her best performances.
• "..she starred as Choti Bahu". Can you remove "Choti bahu" from it?
• Why mention Ritu Ghosh in television section?

Not done. You can mention him in the lead like Bhandarkar, since he was a highly notable bengali director. But not in the table.

Removed.Krish | Talk 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Both reality dance/comedy show redirects to reality television.
• The whole film table seems to rely on a single source "BH". Am sure there are better sources avaliable for those films.

No, there is not a single source other than Bollywood Hungama, which provides the information about cast and crew. It's the only site and its reliable. It took me a day to put all the links together owing to her large filmography.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have worked on a much larger filmography with minimal use of "BH" as a source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see that. But I don't think that is a criteria. All the American filmographies have the same Rotten Tomatoes and AllMovie sources cited for films.Krish | Talk 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a good idea to rely on sources all from the same publisher. There is also a WP policy on it which I don't remember. You can have some different sources probably film reviews. -- Frankie _talk 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see But Kajol filmography, Preity Zinta filmography, Madhuri Dixit filmography – all written by you tells a different story.Krish | Talk 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, they don't tell a different story. Zinta's filmography has a variety of sources. Besides, it is not about me but this article. -- Frankie _talk 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, I have asked what I believe should be done. Just because you don't agree with me on a certain thing does not mean that you lash out on a me or other reviewers (that you disagree with). You need to calm down and asking reviewers to "put an oppose" and asking them to "leave" is not a good thing to do. -- Frankie _talk 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have written mostly contemporary actor's and musician's list. It's very hard to write and get sources for an Indian actress who has worked in several films in the 90s. There are not even reviews for most of them. Plus, some reviews dont say anything about her role, some dont say anything about the director and so on. There is not much information available for most of her films. That's why I'm saying this.Krish | Talk 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's not about me and it's up to you whether to resolve them or not. I think reviews on those films can easily be found. Anyway, one of my comments is still unresolved, see my source review. -- Frankie _talk 19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not even an issue.Krish | Talk 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Atleast add those sources that are available. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher I will not add or replace any source becasue this is a frivolous point.Krish | Talk 15:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then i can't support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Put an Oppose and leave.Krish | Talk 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Krish | Talk 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher and FrB.TG I have tried to replace BH links with others. So I hope you can put your final verdicts here.Krish | Talk 14:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. My major concern has been resolved, and i have performed some changes myself. But, please remain patient during a nom, instead of hastily reacting. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Serious sourcing issues outline below. On a side note, disgraceful behaviour above by nominator. "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly". Telling a reviewer "Put an Oppose and leave" doesn't quite meet that.

• Pehla Nasha source doesn't specify her character's name as Avantika
• Main Khiladi Tu Anari is a special appearance according to your source
• Sadhu does not specify name of character as Selvi
• Vijeta director is K. Murali Mohan Rao according to your source
• Rakshak is a special appearance and the song title per your source is "Shahar Ki Ladki"
• Anjaane doesn't specify director as Ravi Rai
• Dus source doesn't specify character name
• Deewana source specifies her role as "Sexy girl (special appearance)
• Upendra source doesn't specify character name as Keerthi
• Khauff source doesn't specify that she made a cameo appearance in song "Naach Baby"
• Ghaath source doesn't specify that she made a cameo appearance in song "Baba Meri Ye Jawani"
• Aalavandhan source doesn't specify that it was dubbed into Telugu and Hindi as Abhay
• Officer source says it's a 2005 film which is incorrect. This Rediff source also disagrees with it on the names of her character.[[13]]
• Akhiyon Se Goli Maare source says character is Kiran Bhangare
• Qayamat source doesn't specify cameo appearance in the song "Mujhe Tumse Mohabbat Hai"
• Police Force source says director is Dileep Shukla
• Pehchaan source says it's a 2010 film which is incorrect. These sources may help as they give 2005, character name: [[14]], [[15]]. She was also a producer on it. [[16]]

Character name still not present in list.

• Ek Din Anjaane Mein source doesn't specify character name as Keerthi
• Sandwich source doesn't specify character name as Nisha S. Singh

Ref needs author.

• Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda doesn't specify character name as Satya
• Bombay Velvet source doesn't specify that it was a cameo just that she played "Club Singer"
• Sahib Biwi Gulam doesn't specify her character as "Chhoti Bahu"
• Tandon judged the second season of Chhote Miyan (2009) [[17]]
• Also agree with the above editors, this list references too much to one source. Variety of high quality reliable sources should be present. I can understand the nominators worries that 90s film data is going to be hard to find but 2000s film should be more easily sourceable with alternative sources.

Cowlibob (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Cowlibob Done: Resolved all of your comments. I have replaced few Bollywood Hungama sources for variety. I checked other reviews for her 2000s films. However, some dont say about her character names or have some other problems. Still looking for other sources.Krish | Talk 17:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Probably should leave those "unknown" roles as empty as they are not unknown, we're just unable to find sources for the role.
• For the "series of unsuccessful films" highlight some examples
• It's not clear in the lead which film provided the turnaround after her "series of unsuccessful.."
• though initially a box office disappointment to performed poorly at box office
• No source that she played a club dancer in Ziddi
• "ventured into more serious dramatic roles and turned towards arthouse and parallel cinema". The source doesn't wholly support this: from source "opted for serious roles and offbeat films". Cowlibob (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Done.Krish | Talk 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the video ref for Bangaru Bullodu not directly linked?

Please elaborate.Krish | Talk 11:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a Youtube link so why can't we provide the Youtube link for easy verification like you've done for Ref 76. Cowlibob (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.Krish | Talk 14:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the 2014 film Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda mentioned? It would probably fit better if you mentioned the first film she made when she returned to film acting. Cowlibob (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed. She hasn't returened with a full fledged role since her hiatus. It's better now.Krish | Talk 11:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Good list. Would have liked to add the resolved comments template but for some reason it breaks. Cowlibob (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegate note: Still pending a completed source review; looks like FrB.TG has one final point they want addressed so it's not done yet. --PresN 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Continue to write more lists but be patient during the nomination. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If FrB.TG is fine with the source review, then I think we can close this up. --PresN 00:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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.