Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2018

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

Municipalities of Coahuila

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This list is modeled cloesly after two successful Mexican municipality nominations Colima and Aguascalientes, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 18 promoted lists of municipalities of North America all using standardized formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments No need for bold link to Coahuila (if that's happened in the previous 18 FLs, they need to be fixed too!) Strangely enough it was the only one that had bold link... fixed  Done You have two different piped redirects to the same article in one sentence, which isn't brilliant for our readers. I can see that, however I can't think of a way around it. There is only 1 article that lists both the states by population and the states by land area... I would only link one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I see what you are saying, but I wonder about a reader who wants to see which states are the largest by area, they will not know they can click on the list of states by population to get this information unless it is linked twice. Hmmm... Is there a way to resolve this? You could add some information about first/latest to incorporate in the lead as well, since that information is in the table. Done Probably also worth discussing the population change in general since that's in the table too yet not discussed in any way in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I thought about this, saying something like the state is growing faster than Mexico as a whole, or finding the average growth rate etc, but really the list is about individual municipalities, so generalizations for percent change are not super useful to the reader. For example, a small town with a growth rate of 50% is less significant than a large city with a growth rate of 10%, so it really depends on the row you are looking at in the list itself. This was about the incorporation dates, not the rate of growth. Unless you've got your "done" ticks the wrong way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Yes my mistake, I've moved it to the proper location, and switched the "done" to the correct spot. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions! I will add the date line to the other lists for consistency. I made 2/4 suggestions and commented on the other 2 for your consideration. Thanks again The Rambling Man! Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I think first-past-the-post voting is more widely understandable than plurality voting, but that may be UK bias.

• On the surface this works for me since I'm more familiar with first past the post terminology as well, however the source uses "plurality" and there are technically a few kinds of plurality that are not first past the post, and I'm not 100% certain that it is first past the post in local Mexican elections.

• It is not an issue for this article but it is curious that the Mexican lists are in Category:Lists of municipalities, but not the US and Canadian ones.

• They appear to just use topic boxes instead (which I actually prefer), whereas this one uses both (I personally find the category link at the bottom to be a bit redundant and ugly compared to topic boxes). I kept it since I had no good reason to remove some other user's work.

• I find both useful and always use them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'll keep both for all of these lists of Mexican Municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• The dagger for state capital should be on the municipal seat, not the municipality.

• It's the whole municipality that is the "state capital", the seat is the site of government for that municipality, which likely but not necessarily overlap.

• For consistency, you should give the date of the name change of Guerrero, as you do with the other ones. Done
• In note 4, you only give the second half of the book title.

• Interesting find! I did some digging and it looks like google books has the title wrong, here is the official title: [2]

• Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! If any of my replies are not satisfactory, I'm happy to revisit and make appropriate changes. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Note a: Space should be removed before the cite. Still see the space here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, there was another instance that I fixed thinking you meant that.  Done Note b: Typo in "municipalitie's". Done Note c could use a period at the end. Done Note d: First two words of "the 27 February 27, 1868" should be taken out. Done In ref 3, "on" should probably be removed from the access date for consistency. I completely agree, however I can't seem to figure out how! Does the cite act template for some reason use "on", but the cite web does not? Any idea how to correct this? It must, as I've never seen this template in use before and your formatting is normal-looking. I'll strike the comment to avoid punishing this article for a template's issue, but you might want to leave a note on the template's talk page about this apparent inconsistency with the rest of the templates. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I've made the suggestion in Template talk:Cite act, you are correct this one seems like an anomaly.  Done In ref 4, the publishing date could be fully spelled out, instead of the abbreviated Nov 12 form. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Wow, you have an eye for detail Giants2008, all other reviewers (myself included) missed these. Thanks for taking the time to review! All changes made but one that I couldn't figure out yet... Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Now all comments are addressed, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007 I would combine the first and third sentences of the first paragraph. "Coahuila is a state in northern Mexico that is divided into 38 municipalities."  Done I also would remove "located" as redundant to "in"  Done Should northern be capitalized? You capitalized Southern in Municipalities of Campeche. Don't know the MOS, but stay consistent. Done I changed the lists for all states to have the same format. In the first paragraph and the table, is there a need to go out to 3 decimal points on the land area? I would recommend rounding to one decimal (or even whole numbers). Not really, however this is exactly the accuracy published by INEGI and all these lists are populated with official government data. Some countries use only 1 decimal, most use 2, but Mexico seems to be the only one so far that uses 3. I like to just use whatever the official census bureau uses. Link Intercensal Survey  Done First sentence, third paragraph, you need a comma after "Abasolo" I added the comma just a bit before this, does that work? Second sentence, third paragraph, you need a comma after "Ocampo"  Done last sentence, last paragraph, you need a comma after "Madero"  Done That's it Mattximus. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks « Gonzo fan2007! What a great review. I've addressed all comments, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, all comments addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Google results suggest that "Northeast Mexico" is not consistently capitalized like that and should therefore be rendered "northeast Mexico" per MOS:COMPASS. I'm happy to make this change, but I'm basing it on the Spanish proper name for the region, which according to MOS:COMPASS, means it should be capitalized. I really don't care either way, however here is my source: [3] I think you meant to link [4], but no matter. I'm persuaded. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) A recurring issue is that of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. The land area is almost certainly not known to 1/1000 square kilometer precision, even if the source gives a figure with that many decimals. Even if it were, it would be very overkill to have that precision here. I suggest rounding to integer values for the area. The population is trickier, but again the figures given by the source are almost certainly overprecise. I don't quite know how to solve this in the table since the figures are used for calculations (perhaps write something in the header cell about the source being the official count?), but in the text I would simply write "The largest municipality by population is the state capital Saltillo, with over 800 thousand residents, while the smallest is Abasolo with one thousand residents." You brought up a very interesting problem with rounding areas! The land area *is* known to that precision according to INEGI, but the problem with rounding high precision area numbers is that you can't simply go up to 1 when it's 0.5-0.999, because areas actually *decrease* when resolution is lowered. This is counter intuitive, but consider a circle that is perfect. Ok that's 1. Now consider a circle with many little protrusions, it's now greater than 1, say 1.005. When you round you are returning it to the circle, which is 1, but actually mathematically rounding would bring it up to 1.01! Unfortunately, this would now fall under original research if we report a number different than whatever the statistics bureau reports. I stand by my original point. Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. I don't see that as being the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) However the act of rounding areas is actually generating *new* information, essentially made up by me, which is against WP:OR. It's not like rounding the population, which would not generate new information, just lose precision (and follows MOS:UNCERTAINTY)). For example 815 people could be rounded to 820 no problem, the 0 is your unknown. Do you want me to round area of 865 to 870? 860? The truth would probably be closer to 860, but the math brings it to 870. So I would arbitrarily have to pick one of those two numbers. Would you recommend I just always round down? Like 879 to 870? That would actually be more accurate, but again, OR. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I would simply use the parameter in the conversion template which determines the number of decimals and set it to 0. I don't find the argument that conventional rounding would constitute WP:OR particularly persuasive. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC) There is actually a wiki page describing this problem! Maybe it does a better job of explaining why this is OR than I did. It is found here Coastline paradox although it's focused just on coastline (2D) the same principal applies to area (3D). I am familiar with the coastline paradox, but that applies to the spatial resolution of the measurement (i.e. the method used), whereas this is a question of the precision of the final figure. An analogy using basic arithmetic would be rounding figures before adding them up (which would constitute WP:OR) vs. rounding the final sum (which would not). TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Maybe just a footnote explaining what you rounded to? I had the same comment above that TompaDompa is making. I don't think rounding is considered original research. Rounding is a matter of mathematical fact. 1.55 is always 1.6 when rounded to one decimal point. I understand your concern, but in an easy land-based analogy, if I own .95 acres of land, I can say I own about 1 acre of land and still be accurate, especially if there is a footnote explaining the rounding. Just say something like "all land areas rounded to the nearest whole number." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC) "Guerrero was originally incorporated as Rio Grande, changing its name March 18, 1834" – missing "on" before the date. Done "On August 7, 1827, the name of the town was changed from San Fernando to Villa de Rosas, and then to Rosas in October 4, 1857, and finally to Zaragoza on February 27, 1868." – "in" should be "on". Done I'm not a big fan of the gallery. I don't suppose the images could be placed on the side as the middle one is very wide, but I would at least move the gallery to below the table rather than above it. I would then also move the last paragraph of the lead to the "Municipalities" section as sort of an intro to the table. As for the gallery, I agree with you that it's nicer when it's down the side (which is how I originally had them), however after many of these reviews, the gallery is placed where it is due to accessibility issues brought up involving small screens/low resolution. Is WP:ACCESSIBILITY affected by moving it below the table? If it is I guess the table will have to stay where it is, but I don't see why that would be the case. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC) It is possible to place at the bottom, but I'm just following the format of all of these other pages. It would be weird if this is the only page out of 114 list of municipalities in North America to have it at the bottom. But you are right it would still follow WP:ACCESIBILITY but just be really strange compared to all the others. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Very well, then. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your excellent review TompaDompa! I've done the easy ones, but asked your opinion on the more controversial changes. The capitalization I really don't care about so if you have strong views after seeing the Spanish reasoning I'll just change it. The area though is trickier as I mention above. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC) OK TompaDompa, I've went through every list and rounded all areas. That should be the last outstanding comment? Mattximus (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC) I think two decimals is still overly precise, but it is the last objection I have, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Now that Mexico has been changed, two decimals is the standard for all featured lists of cities (*List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, List of municipalities in Nunavut, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Yukon, List of cities and towns in Alabama, List of municipalities in New Brunswick, Cantons of Costa Rica, List of cities and towns in Montana, List of municipalities in Maryland, List of municipalities in Mississippi, List of municipalities in Louisiana, List of municipalities in Nova Scotia, List of municipalities in Rhode Island, List of cities in Nevada, Municipalities of Colima, Municipalities of Aguascalientes, List of municipalities in New Mexico, List of cities in Alaska, List of cities in Alberta, List of cities and towns in California). It would be strange if only these two were different than all the others, no? Mattximus (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I think they should all be rounded. I won't press the issue, however. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article rightfully deserve to be renominated. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments "women's national teams" is piped to a redirect. " title Sher-e-Bangla ("The Tiger of Bengal")." needs an inline ref. Link "Test" first time. "As of May 2018, the ground has played host to 16 Test matches and 98 ODI matches" the archived sources need work because they have been archived back in 2016 and don't verify the claim. Cricinfo currently showing 27 fifers. In fact, Cricinfo is showing updates to numbers of Tests and ODIs too. " Shakib Al Hasan is the latest Test bowler to take five wicket " beyond the grammar issue, this isn't correct, the latest was A Dananjaya in Feb 2018. In general I think the lead needs to be completely re-reviewed in light of the time that has clearly passed since the majority of the prose was written. Tables need to be fixed up too. Let me know when that's done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi TRM, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed all these issues. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: ^^ --PresN 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments –

• "to take a five-wicket haul at the ground during an One Day International match". Since you gave the abbreviated version earlier, the shorthand ODI can be used here.
• The shorthand WODI is used in the photo caption. As it isn't explained in the lead, I suggest adding the abbreviation to the lead or writing this one out in full in the caption. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Giants2008, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed the above comments. Sagavaj (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Support – Everything looks good after the fixes. Thanks for stepping in on behalf of the nominator. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I made one tiny grammatical tweak myself, but that was all I found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I'm guessing "The other was Bangladesh's lost to India [...]" is supposed to read "The other was Bangladesh's loss to India [...]". Fixed. Sagavaj (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "The current Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan" – whether he's the current captain seems less relevant than whether he was the captain at the time, so I'd rephrase it without "current" (which also has the added benefit of not getting dated). Fixed. Sagavaj (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC) It would seem more natural to me to write which country won in the "Result" column (e.g. "Bangladesh won") rather than the result for the team for which the five-wicket haul was taken. I notice that the other WP:Featured lists for five-wicket hauls at specific locations do it the former way (for player-specific lists, the latter would seem more natural, however). Since it was already pointed out that the same format used in the previous featured lists, I didn't change anything. Sagavaj (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I have made it clear in the key that the result is for the team for which the five-wicket haul was taken. Dropping the team name also makes sorting easier so that readers can see if the result was a loss or a draw. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC) The image quality for the photograph of Shakib Al Hasan is not great. It should be possible to find a better image. Replaced with the other image from Wikimedia Commons. Sagavaj (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I'm afraid I can't judge anything that requires an understanding of cricket itself, but I will say that the linking of esoteric terms/jargon to articles that explain what it all means is exemplary. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @TompaDompa: Fixed all the issues. Sagavaj (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC) A few more things I noticed: The last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of WODI matches as well (and perhaps also the number of T20I and WT20I matches). The above mentioned statistics were actually mentioned in the last paragraph. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I know, but I feel it makes more sense to have it all in one place (perhaps not T20I and WT20I as there have been no five-wicket hauls in those formats). TompaDompa (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Tests and ODIs make up the majority of the matches played in cricket. Paragraphs two and three cover the five-wicket hauls taken at the ground in these formats respectively. The final paragraph covers T20Is, WODIS and WT20Is where only a handful of matches have been played. This is how most of the lists are formatted. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Try to shorten the WP:LEAD by moving some of the contents to the respective sections below. @Ikhtiar H: and @Ianblair23: added most of the text and nominated this article for the featured list. So, I hope they will look into this comment. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC) WP:LEAD states that "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article complies with that. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC) "Date", "Inn", "Overs", and the rest should show up in the same order in the key as they do in the table headings. Changed as per the comment. Sagavaj (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Good pick up! I have also add Team and Opposition to the Key – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Hi TompaDompa, thanks for the review. I have added to Sagavaj's comments above. Please let us know whether you have any further comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2018 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC) [6].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Kanye West

Nominator(s): AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC); — Bilorv_(c)(talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is one of the most comprehensive musician awards pages, and has been completely updated since demotion from featured lists. AlfonsoTheEditor (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC) AlfonsoTheEditor

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude

Figured someone ought to finally kick this one off :-) "previously aforementioned fields" - the word "previously" is completely redundant/unnecessary here, as that what's the "afore" part of aforementioned means "The same year cumulated" - "cumulated" makes no sense at all here. I think you may have meant "culminated", but that isn't appropriate either, as it means "ended" and the album came out in February. Just say "In the same year he released.....". I'd also suggest joining the next sentence on to this one..... In para 2 "Diamonds...." should be in quote marks as it's a song title "Winning in four out of the five rap categories, as well as becoming the first solo artist to have his first three studio albums be nominated for Album of the Year." - this sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. It should start with something like "the album won in four...." "collaborative album Watch The Throne (2011) with Jay-Z, earned" - no reason for that comma to be there "He repeated the feat a year later, when he joint lead" - "led" spelt wrongly "The albums merchandise released released via" - missing apostrophe in "album's" and word duplicated That's what I found in the lead. I will look at the tables later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Making a start on the tables: ASCAP London table is missing a ) after McCartney BET Hip Hop table is missing a space before the ( in 2015 Billboard Mid-Year table: "performances of the first half of year." => "performances of the first half of the year." "The Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop Awards honoured the most popular albums" - have they been discontinued, or is the past tense a typo? Looks like it was a typo (and also not the correct American English spelling). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The Danish Music Awards (DMA) is a Danish award show organised by the IFPI Denmark in 1989" - that makes it sound like it only took place once, in 1989. Maybe replace "organised" with "established"? "The ECHO Music Awards were organised in 1992 by German Phonoakademie" - again, replace "organised" "The Esky Music Awards were awarded annually by Esquire magazine" - again, is the use of past tense correct? I think this one is correct—the awards seem to be defunct. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The Footwear News Achievement Awards established in 1986" => "The Footwear News Achievement Awards, established in 1986" "that honor the footwear industry’s best shoes" => "that honor the industry’s best shoes" (avoid having the word three times in one sentence) "The Fonogram Hungarian Music Awards was founded in 1992" => "The Fonogram Hungarian Music Awards were founded in 1992" "The award is presented by Mahasz" => "The awards are presented by Mahasz" "and are considered the industry's highest music honor" => "and are considered the music industry's highest honor" "The Groovevolt Music and Fashion Awards were held annually by Groovevolt.com" - again, is past tense correct? This one looks to be correct. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The MOBO Awards (an acronym for "Music of Black Origin") first presented in 1996, " => "The MOBO Awards (an acronym for "Music of Black Origin"), first presented in 1996," "The MP3.com Readers Choice Award Awards" - that isn't the correct name, surely........? Removed "Award". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The MP3 Music Award" - MP3 Music or MP3Music (as the heading shows).......? The version with a space is correct. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The MTV Asia Awards was the Asian equivalent of the MTV EMA." - what is the EMA? It hasn't been mentioned at this point, so it seems odd to say that something else is the equivalent of it.... I assume the point was that the EMAs are more well-known than the Asia Awards, but I fear this is quite a Eurocentric perspective so I've just removed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "to award the music videos from European and international artists" - there seem to be some words missing here. They don't award the videos, they award prizes (or whatever) for the videos Also, as some of the winners/nominees are artists rather than their videos specifically, the awards can't just be given for videos, surely.........? Changed to "to recognise excellence in music videos from European and international artists". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "to award the music videos from Japanese and international artists" - same as before - they don't award the videos Same fix. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international recognizes" => "The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international recognize" "The NME Awards are annual music awards show" => "The NME Awards are an annual music awards show" "The NRJ Music Awards are an annual award held by the radio station NRJ held since 2000" - don't need the word "held" twice People's Choice table is missing a closing " on ET "The winner was voted by the British audiences" => "The winner was voted by the British public" "The winner was voted for by the British public" — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The UK Festival Awards acknowledge the achievements of organisers and suppliers" - although it is a UK award, the article needs to be in US English, so "organise" should be "organize" Also fixed some other British English spellings. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "The UK Music Video Awards is an annual award ceremony founded in 2008 to recognise creativity, technical excellence and innovation in music videos" - same here - recognize "The winners were declared on their official site "Virgin Media"" - don't think this is needed. Wikilink Virgin Media "A Webby Award is an award" - why does this one start like that rather than something like "The Webby Awards are...."? Reworded. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) World Music Awards table - the apostrophe in World's is missing on many rows Need to be consistent in the use of plural or singular eg you have "The XM Nation Music Awards was", but in other cases you say "The [such and such] awards were"........ Consistently used "were". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Why the empty notes section? Ref 150 seems to have a citation required tag as a ref????? Added a ref. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Anyone addressing these nine day-old concerns? The nominator hasn't edited at all for more than two weeks...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I'm neither the nominator nor someone who has previously edited the article, but it would be a shame for this to fail FLC so I think I can take over the nominator's role. I've addressed your concerns (responding inline to some individual points)—let me know if there's anything more you think needs to be done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: what are your thoughts on the list now? @Anyone else: more reviews would be very helpful! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Stellar work thus far. I have a few more comments, though, I'm afraid..... Sentence about the 47th Grammys ends in a comma Sentence about the 48th Grammys needs a "the" before 48th "the first artist to win best rap song for consecutive years, with "Diamonds from Sierra Leone"" needs rewording, as it sounds like "Diamonds...." won in both years I've just removed "with "Diamonds from Sierra Leone"". Mentioning both songs would be a bit excessive. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "record equalling" needs a hyphen "Winners are selected through a poll in Billboard official website." => "Winners are selected through a poll on Billboard's official website." HTH, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) All fixed, I think. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I just saw that you tried to cap the comments so I've done it myself – hope you don't mind. Any further comments about the list? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments “Jesus Walks” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes. Compilation album Cruel Summer (2012) released with label GOOD Music – I'd start the sentence with "The" and say it was released "by" GOOD Music. I also think it should be mentioned that West founded the label. Rewritten. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Beazley Designs of the Year should link to Design Museum#Beazley Designs of the Year. I'd use {{TOC hidden}} to make the rather lengthy table of contents be collapsed by default. This was at {{TOC limit|2}} but I don't mind either way so I've changed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) It still showed up expanded by default for some reason, so I changed it back. TompaDompa (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I'd alphabetize "The Record of the Year" under R, rather than T. "FourFiveSeconds" (with Rihanna & Paul McCartney is missing a right parenthesis. The section heading says Antville Music Video Awards, but the text says Antiville Awards. Eight or nine letters in the first word? Eight (fixed). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Knock You Down"(with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo) is missing a space before the left parenthesis. "Knock You Down" (with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo is missing a right parenthesis. The Black Entertainment, Film, Fashion, Television and Arts Awards (BEFFTA) – the abbreviation in parentheses should be moved one word to the left. luminaries.The awards is missing a space after the period. The Dieline Awards recognizes the absolute best – remove "absolute". The Esky Music Awards were awarded annually by Esquire magazine. – between which years? Well... good question. I can only find awards in 2006 and 2007 but their website doesn't make it at all easy to search for them. What would you like to be done here? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) All Falls Down" (featuring Syleena Johnson) is missing a quotation mark, as is Slow Jamz" (with Twista & Jamie Foxx). The Groovevolt Music and Fashion Awards were held annually by Groovevolt.com. – between which years? Perhaps 2004 to 2006, but again I'm not sure. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) "Heard Em' Say" (featuring Adam Levine) – the apostrophe should be moved two letters to the left. West received two awards from two nominations. – for consistency, the last three words should be removed. West has received two nomination. – should be plural. The MTV Europe Music Awards was established – singular or plural? Plural (changed to "were"). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) The MTV Video Play Awards see MTV international – MTV International should be linked. In the MTV Video Play Awards section, the entries should be enclosed in quotation marks. to recognize best in music – missing definite article. The section heading says MuchMusic Video Awards, but the text says Much Music Video Awards. Three words or four? I reckon both are common names, but for consistency I've changed it to three. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) “Runaway” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes. FourFiveSeconds (with Rihanna & Paul McCartney) is missing quotation marks. “Only One” shouldn't have MOS:CURLY quotes. We Were Once A Fairytale should be in italics. Love Yourself (with Mary J. Blige) is missing quotation marks. The O Music Awards section should mention how many nominations West received for consistency. I really think the O Music Awards section should mention that all the nominees for the "Best Tweet" award were tweets by West. I've added a brief mention. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) '"All of the Lights" (featuring Rihanna) contains a stray apostrophe, as does '"Mercy" (featuring Big Sean, Pusha T & 2 Chains). from 1994-2004 should use the word "to" per MOS:ENTO. "B R Right (as producer) is missing a quotaion mark. Record Production/Singe or Track misspells "Single". "Knock Your Down" (with Keri Hilson & Ne-Yo) misspells the second word. The TMF Awards was an annual Belgium television awards show broadcast live on The Music Factory. – between which years? 1995 to 2009. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) The TMH Awards were presented annually – between which years? I'll get back to you on this one. Someone hid a {{cn}} tag inside the reference for the TMH section. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) The entries in the Vibe Awards section contain several stray apostrophes (or single quotation marks). The Virgin Media Music Awards were an online music awards show. – between which years? The XM Nation Awards section should contain a link to XM Satellite Radio somewhere. 1.4 million – the word "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space ( ). TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I've addressed most comments (including all those I didn't respond to individually) – there's just the recurring question of what to do with former awards and their dates. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC) It's not critical to provide all of them, but we should try to wherever possible. As soon as the sole "citation needed" tag is fixed, I'll be happy to support this for WP:FL status. TompaDompa (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I've fixed the "citation needed" tag. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Support List looks great. TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all good now. One thing, though - where's Kanye's award for greatest living rock star on the planet? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments At the end of the lead, it says that he's nominated at the 2018 "Beazley Designs of the Year" yet in its section, it says 2017, why? 2017 is correct; fixed lead. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC) I don't understand the table at "O Music Awards". Why are the references listed under "tweet" column while the "ref" column is empty? Also, by looking at the reference, there is a category "Favorite F**k Yeah Tumblr" and Kanye West was at least nominated with "F**k Yeah Kanye West" Whoops, that's an error I accidentally introduced when addressed an above comment. Removed the "tweet" column. Added the "F**k Yeah Kanye West" nom (he didn't win; Lambert did). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC) It seems weird that we are already at the end of August 2018 and we see Kanye with one nomination only for 2018. I have doubts about comprehensiveness. Indeed it does seem weird, and I expected to find some awards when searching. I've checked The Life of Pablo, Ye, Kids See Ghosts (and their album), Daytona, Nasir, K.T.S.E. and West himself. None yielded any awards (the closest I could find was, ahem, Pornhub awarding West membership). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Hopefully I've addressed everything. Let me know if you spot any more issues. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I did a random search, as well, nothing popped up. --Cheetah (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2018 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 26 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Sunrisers Hyderabad cricketers

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for Sunrisers Hyderabad and I have created this list from scratch and would like it to become a featured list. Sagavaj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove the Telugu title of the team, per WP:INDICSCRIPT.
• I'd suggest you to place the references at the end of the sentences.
• Alt text missing of Sangakkara's image.
• Last three references should be properly formatted.
• Replace Twitter with a better source.
• Be consistent with the way you write the date and accessdates.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Howdy. I have addressed all the issues presented above. Cheers. Sagavaj (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I was asked for a review on my talk page, but I'm finding a bunch of grammar and prose issues in the lead (too many to list individually). My opinion is that the article needs a copy-edit before I'd be comfortable saying that it meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since I was asked on my talk page for a few examples, I'll provide several here. Please don't think that these are all of the problems, but rather as examples indicating the need for copy-editing:

• "The Sunrisers Hyderabad is a franchise cricket team...". First, the first word doesn't work grammatically and should be removed. Second, bold links are discouraged by the Manual of Style, so I suggest taking out the bolding.
• "The team made their maiden appearance in the IPL playoffs in its first season in 2013 and had continuously reached since 2016 season." The last bit isn't well-written. Is it supposed to be "and has continuously reached the playoffs since the 2016 season."?
• "and experienced the biggest gain in percentage in past year among the IPL franchises." This needs another "the" before "past year".
• "Shikhar Dhawan has the most number of appearances for the SRH...". "number of" is redundant phrasing; "most appearances" is shorter and tighter writing, so I say go with that version. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The SunRisers Hyderabad (often abbreviated as SRH) are a franchise [...] which plays" - team referred to as both singular and plural in the same sentence, which is it?
    • Rephrased
  • "The team made their [...]maiden IPL playoffs appearance in their first season in 2013 and has continuously" - same again
    • Corrected "has" to "have"
  • "last-time during the 2018 season" => "most recently during the 2018 season"
    • Changed to "most recently"
  • "according to the Duff & Phelps" => "according to Duff & Phelps"
    • Removed "the"
  • "The team has played its home matches in the 55,000-capacity Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium in Hyderabad, since its inception." - no reason for the comma before "since"
    • Removed ","
  • "to achieve an individual run total in excess of 2000 runs" - in the previous sentence there is a comma in a four-digit number but not here - be consistent
    • Changed to 2,000
  • "Warner achieved the record highest number of runs in a single match" - no need to say both "record" and "highest" as the record is obviously the highest figure by definition
    • Removed "record"
  • "players who bowled over 20 overs for the team" => "players who bowled more than 20 overs for the team"
    • Rephrased
  • "Shikhar Dhawan has played the most matches. He is also second leading run-getter for SRH." => "Shikhar Dhawan has played the most matches. He is also the leading run-getter for SRH."
    • Corrected. Changed from second leading run-getter to leading run-getter
  • "Bhuvneshwar Kumar is leading wicket-taker for SRH." => "Bhuvneshwar Kumar is the leading wicket-taker for SRH."
    • Added "the"
  • "Amit Mishra took first hat-trick for SRH." => "Amit Mishra took the first hat-trick for SRH."
    • Removed photo for poor quality purposes
  • The photo captions simply refer to the team as "SRH", whereas the text uses "the SRH" - be consistent
    • Added "the"
  • The table "is initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - this clearly isn't true, because Anand Rajan and Ankit Sharma listed under A. Listing them under A may be correct (I am not very familiar with Indian naming customs) but you shouldn't claim that the list is sorted by players' last name if some are sorted based on their first name............
    • Rearranged the table
  • "But, they had to replace Sangakkara with Cameron White as captain in the middle of ongoing IPL season owing to the former's poor form" - can't start a sentence with "but" - I suggest you join this onto the previous sentence.
    • Rephrased first sentence and joined second with the first
  • Also "in the middle of ongoing IPL season owing to the former's poor form" isn't grammatically correct and should probably just be "during the season owing to the former's poor form"
    • Rephrased
  • "They changed their captain for the fifth time in three seasons appointing David Warner for 2015 season" => "....for the 2015 season"
    • Added "the"
  • Same thing later in the sentence when referring to 2016
    • Added "the"
  • And in the following sentence when referring to 2018 :-)
    • Added "the"
  • "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." => "These statistics are correct as of the 2018 Indian Premier League."
    • Rephrased
  • "The BBI was not provided for players who didn't take wickets for SRH." => "....who did not take wickets". Also, is it SRH or "the" SRH?
    • Added "the"
• Quite a lot here, hope it helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

*It should either be "Sunrisers" or "SunRisers" consistently throughout, including the title. "The team is currently owned by Kalanithi Maran of the Sun TV channel Network who won the bid for ₹850.5 million per year on a five-year deal in 2012" – rephrase without "currently" per MOS:CURRENTLY. Instead of "maiden", just say "first". This comes up a few times. The second paragraph of the WP:LEAD could be removed since there's an infobox containing the key information. It looks a bit weird right now since the paragraph is so short (and the information in it is not all that important to the subject matter). Moved to the first paragraph. Let me know if that's fine or you want me to remove it completely. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Either remove it entirely or at least fix the "currently" phrasing (to an "as of" or "since" phrasing). TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Done. Rephrased with "as of" Sagavaj (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Since digit separators are used in "55,000", it would look a lot better if the same were true of four-digit numbers as well. The ones in the table remain. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Changed in the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) All cricket terminology in the WP:LEAD should be linked at first occurrence – assume that the reader isn't familiar with the terminology. "Run" and "wicket" are still unlinked. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Added links. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) "has the highest strike rate at 193.33 among the players who played over five innings for the SRH" – I would move "at 193.33" to the end of the sentence. If "scalps" is an official cricket term, it should be linked. If not, it should be replaced. "has the best bowling average at 20.56 among the players who bowled more than 20 overs" – same as above. The qualifier should not come at the end. "the best economy rate at 6.68 among the players who bowled over 20 overs for the team" – same as above. Use "strike rate" or "strike-rate" consistently. "The first list includes all players who have played in at least one match for the SRH and is initially listed alphabetically by their last name."– Remove this from the WP:LEAD and add some text above the first table summarizing its contents instead (I'd suggest writing something about the number of players, which should make it clear that the list is exhaustive). There's no need to explain that the table is sorted alphabetically by default (and the footnote further explaining this can also be removed). "The second list comprises all those players who have captained the team in at least one match, arranged in the order of the first match as captain." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD. There is already text above the second table summarizing its contents. "Many players have also represented other teams of the IPL, but only the records of their games for the SRH are given." – this is self-explanatory and should be removed. "To sort these tables by any statistic, click on the  icon in the column title." – this is unnecessary and should be removed. "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." – Rephrase as "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." and place the text in italics above each of the tables instead. The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead. The reader shouldn't have to scroll up from the second table all the way up to right below the WP:LEAD to check something in the key. Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{abbr}} template instead (while retaining the links). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key. I would suggest replacing the asterisks (*) with {{hash-tag}} so that WP:ALT text can be added. It was pointed out to me that this notation is customary. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I didn't get on what you are trying to say. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the gallery. I'd suggest moving the images to the right of the table. To clarify: I meant removing the gallery markup so that each photo shows up below the previous one instead of side by side. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Changed it as per the request. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Turns out the table is too wide to have the images beside it. I restored the gallery but moved it below the table (the point being that the table is the primary content, and the images are secondary). TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Try to find a better photograph of Amit Mishra as the current one does not have great image quality. "This doesn't includes illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides." should be "This does not include illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides." It still says "includes", whereas it should be "include". TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Corrected. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) "The BBI was not provided for players who did not take wickets for the SRH." – explain BBI and change "was not" to "is not" or "has not been". It now mismatches the table (which says "BBF"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Corrected in the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I don't see what the flags add to the reader's understanding of the topic and suggest that they be removed. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire "Nationality" column (it seems beside the point of a list concerning a subnational team), but the flags should definitely be removed as they add nothing but visual clutter to the table. "Kumar Sangakkara and Cameron White shared the captaincy for the 2013 IPL Season, with Sangakkara the first nine matches and White the remaining eight." – This footnote is unnecessary as it's already explained in the text above the table. The "No." column for the captains should be removed. The flags for the captains should either be replaced with text (i.e. "Sri Lanka", "Australia", and so on) or even better the column removed altogether. Instead of having the source in the bottom row of the captains table, I'd suggest adding a table heading that says "SRH captains" and placing the source there. Remove the bottom row and move the citation to the heading (i.e. directly after "SRH captains"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Moved source to the top of the table. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Either have two heading that say "Notes" and "References" without the subheading that says "Footnotes" or use both "Footnotes" and "References" as subheadings under the heading "Notes". TompaDompa (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Sagavaj (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, @ChrisTheDude:, @Giants2008: : I corrected most of the mistakes pointed by you guys. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks a lot. Sagavaj (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have updated my comments and used strikethrough markup for the resolved ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Resolved the rest. Sagavaj (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Sagavaj (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed (changed 1 date format); promoting. --PresN 15:54, 24 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC); --Cheetah (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This list should be topical and it would be nice to have it polished up by the time the next tournament starts. I think it should be a fine FL but if you think otherwise feel free to leave any feedback or take a stab at the list. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• The title should be List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers like List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers and most other lists
  • I personally dislike having "List of X" if just "X" works fine. I prefer tighter titles. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd think most lists could work with "X", but we really ought to go with consistency and WP:LISTNAME; I'd guess most the plural form sounds odd to most since so few articles do it that way.
      • I personally prefer without "List of" simply because it works well without it. If other reviewers think otherwise I'd be fine with moving it. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Why does the table in the lead say >50, ≈100, etc? Shouldn't be too difficult to have an exact number.
  • There are exact numbers, but some sources imply there are say 55 footballers, other say 54. Since under 5 goals FIFA does not seem to have a good official record, it's not very clear which source is accurate. For that, and since those numbers tend to change quite a bit every world cup, I thought it's an overly detailed number to give versus how reliable it is. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine then, though is List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers validate one of those sources, at least for the 4 goals?

There is a single ref that seem to give the exact number for 4 and I think it's precise enough to be reliable. Initially the number for 4 was precise, but just for the sake of consistency with the other sub-5 (not listed in this table) I removed it. I'll plug it back in. Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "In total, 60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only 4 players came from elsewhere:" is not parallel.

Good catch

The second "came" should be removed to be fully parallel since it was left out in the second part.

Changed. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "more goals at all the games played at the World Cup as Stábile" -> "thank Stabile"

fixed

• "in 1970, and broke" no comma necessary.

fixed

• "and 1970, and Jürgen", same, unless you put a comma before "with"

fixed

• "A total of" is extraneous.

Agree, but I dislike starting sentences with numbers, seems weird to me. Any idea how not to start with a number and not use extraneous words? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it sounds perfectly fine just to spell the number out but you could do "Across the 20 tournaments, 29 different footballers..." Note 6 also uses it midsentence, especially unnecessary with "overall" right afterward. Note 7 says "Seven different players", but I don't think seven of the same players is possible. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Switched it. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Except for 2010, all the top goalscorers won the Golden Boot." 2010 is a year, not a goalscorer. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Changed it. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thanks for all the feedback. I fixed most of them and left some replies to the others; let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is getting updated significantly with the 64 matches occurring right now. I was hoping to have this done before, but since it didn't get much feedback, maybe suspend it? Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support This list is great.--Lirim | T 22:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - according to the description on the image file, the picture alleged to be of Stabile is not in fact him at all - can you clarify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed that picture altogether now. It did look a bit too high res to me when I put it, so it being a reenactment makes sense. Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Nergaal: ^^ --PresN 17:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose "More than 2,500" instead of "Over 2,500". fixed " over 1,200 footballers have " same again. fixed "only 97 of which scored at least five goals" -> "of which just 97 have scored at least five." fixed Is the article title correct? This is about goals scored in the World Cup finals right, not about goals scored in World Cup qualifiers? Why wouldn't it be? WC finals/tournament is almost always shortened to WC, while for qualifications you always spell out the qualifications part. Nergaal (talk) "in 1954", "in 1970" etc, should be linked to the tournaments, and rephrased thus: "in the 1954 tournament" and/or "in the 1970 finals" or similar. fixed "at the 1974 final" there's an article for this. fixed " single World Cup game" is piped to a redirect. fixed "The top 90 goalscorers" why top 90? That was the number before 2018. Updated it. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Lots of unnecessary repetition, e.g. "goalscorers .. scoring", "goals scored ... with 13 goals". I tried to trim a bit of those usages. I hope the remaining sentences still make sense. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Bold shouldn't be used as a distinguishing feature as some screen readers don't acknowledge it. Use symbols etc. fixed "Players with at least 5 goals at the FIFA World Cup tournaments[6] [7]" no space between refs. fixed "Number of goalscorers[4][5][3]" refs in numerical order. fixed You link some "international goals" articles or sections of bios, but not all (e.g. Rudi Voller), why? Added for those that have an actual table of WC goals. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Is "goals per game" recognised in reliable sources to be significant in World Cup finals goalscorers? FIFA has "PLAYERS WITH THE BEST AVERAGE OF GOALS PER MATCH" Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Leônidas is piped to a redirect back to itself. fixed "1974 – Second round" is piped to a redirect. I don't understand this. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Australia play "soccer" not "football" in their pipe. fixed Tables need row and col scopes for ACCESS. fixed "Players marked with ↑ are still playing for their national teams in the 2018 tournament." is this relevant? Updated. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "(he scored one additional goal in 1934" 1934 is an easter egg link, should be "in the 1934 tournament". This was fixed by Nergaal, he just didn't mention here that he did.Cheetah (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "but are now credited" but is now. fixed " as 7 players scored" -> seven. fixed Where does, for example this show me that Mandzukic scored five goals in eight games? It seems that FIFA haven't updated for 2018 so anyone listed in your table with a 2018 tournament appearance/goal is currently inadequately referenced. Yes, people have updated the 2018 numbers (i.e. there are 97 players now with 5+ goals from 90 before). It is unclear to me how to reference the most recent tournament and keep things standardized before FIFA does their updates. The current numbers should be correct, and I tagged the player entries with 2018 numbers. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) All 2018 players have the issue of not having "matches played" number updated in the FIFA database. I can't think of an elegant solution to deal with this other than tag along all 2018 players with ↑ and manually add some refs that will eventually become redundant once FIFA decides to update their numbers; or leave the tag and say those numbers are updated after 2018 but links might not. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC) If ref 119 was published in 2008, it can't verify 2010, 2014 and 2018. I think I fixed this. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Ref 119 also seems to not reference all the alternative FIFA awards, e.g. where does it confirm that Flórián Albert was Best Young Player? Added. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) That's enough for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed most comments. Will come back later to wrap up the last couple ones. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I think I took care of all the comments. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Does that include fixing the issue of the non-inclusion of the stats from the 2018 tournament? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: It has been fixed. Crzycheetah added references for the players who scored in 2018, and I added references for the players who played but didn't score. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal has indicated that they have retired from the project, so unless this nomination is adopted within the next few days, I'll archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note, Nergaal has now been indef blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Adopted I am taking over this nomination, so please @Reywas92:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @The Rambling Man: come and update your comments. Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Not all of my comments were addressed so you'll need to go through those and fix them too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I found one comment that was not addressed, but Nergaal fixed it, just did not mention it here.Cheetah (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

*"excluding penalties converted during shoot-outs" – "not counting" would be better than "excluding". Also, is "converted" the most common phrasing (intuitively, I'd say "scored", and the linked page seems to corroborate that)? Both phrases are very common among football commentators/experts/players. It depends on a style of a writer/speaker, I'd guess. If you insist, I'll change. I do. I'm guessing it would trip up non-native speakers of English (and native speakers not familiar with the sport's terminology) to a fairly large degree, which would probably be avoided if rephrased. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Rephrased "almost 1,300 footballers have scored goals at the World Cup" – the linked page says over 1,300. What is the actual figure? I also generally prefer "more than X" to "almost Y". I changed it to "more than 1250". In the reference used the last number shown is 1251. A thousands separator is required by MOS:DIGITS. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) A large number of citations have access dates from 2014. Seeing as many of these figures are subject to change, they should be updated (at least for all the players who played in 2018, and other figures that need to be current as of the 2018 World Cup). Since all the other players in the WP:LEAD have their nationality mentioned, Pelé, Jürgen Klinsmann, Oleg Salenko, Josef Hügi, and Ernst Wilimowski should as well. Added The "of [country]" phrasing used for Pelé and Klinsmann is a bit clunky. I'd suggest either using "[country]'s [player]" or saying that they scored goals "for [country]". TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) The key for the table should not be hidden in footnotes. A separate key is added The key needs a copyedit. For "#", the word "have" should be removed. For "[ ]" and "( )", they need to be rewritten entirely for grammar and clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) "♦" and "↑" is a pretty unorthodox combination of symbols. It's good that they cannot be confused for each other (unlike say "†" and "‡"), and "♦" is easy to spot on the list, but "↑" is easy to miss at a cursory glance. I don't have any real suggestion for some other combination of symbols, but I think there's room for improvement. Changed ↑ with #. Let me know how it looks now. That's a definite improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Thomas Müller's goals per game do not match the number of goals divided by the number of matches. There might be other mismatches. Perhaps the averages should be calculated instead of entered? I am using the Decimals template to avoid such mismatches. Perfect. That's just what I was looking for. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC) In the notes column, some lists of goals are hidden inside footnotes. These should be moved outside the footnotes. Done In the timeline, Sándor Kocsis' eighth goal (i.e. his first goal against Brazil) that tied the record seems to be missing. No, it's not missing. It's listed as a record. You're right. See below. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC) In the timeline, I believe Kocsis scored four goals against West Germany, not Germany. Corrected In the timeline, Just Fontaine's thirteenth goal (i.e. his fourth against West Germany) seems to be missing. No, it's not missing. It's listed as a record. You're right. Whether it is visible or not varies depending on the width of the browser window. The difference can be seen here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC) The link in reference 112 (as of my writing this) is dead. Fixed TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I believe all your comments have been resolved, please take another look. Thanks! Cheetah (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. List loooks great. TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments – This bit of grammar in the lead is awkward: "while Brazil's Jairzinho became in 1970 the only footballer to score at least seven goals without being the top goalscorer of that tournament." Perhaps this would work: "while Brazil's Jairzinho became the only footballer to score at least seven goals without being the top goalscorer of that tournament in 1970." Note 1 needs a reference for Wilimowski having the highest goals-to-games ratio. Note 2: Last word of "but in November 2006 however" could stand to be taken out. Note 5: "After Yugoslavia split" should probably be "After Yugoslavia's split" or "After the split of Yugoslavia" instead. References 20, 59, 95, and 109 have all caps in their titles that should be removed. Also, the hyphens in these titles should be converted into en dashes, and the publisher formatting seems different than the other FIFA refs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Changed to your phrasing. Added reference. Removed "however". Changed to "After the breakup of Yugoslavia". Those were the ones I added, and that was the automatically generated formatting. I have fixed it. I think that should take care of everything. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you TompaDompa for your help! Giants2008, besides your commenting (much appreciated!), will you do a source review as well?--Cheetah (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All of my issues have been addressed and I'm confident the list meets FL standards. If it isn't promoted in the next couple of days, I'll do a source review as you requested. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I've become very busy lately and it looks unlikely that I'll be able to review the sources in detail. Perhaps Pres will be willing to do the honors. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• In the Top goalscorers for each tournament table, could we include the country name in the 'World Cup' column. Not everyone is familiar with every country by flag, and it contravenes MOS:FLAG.
• All images need alt text.
• Ref #1 uses "fifa.com and a DD Month YYYY retrieval date, unlike any other source; please change for consistency.
• Author names also need to be made consistent. Ref #5 uses "Owsianski, Jaroslaw", #35 "Glanville, Brian", #122 "Smyth, Rob", #126 "Nihal Kolur", #127 "Danny Wittenberg". There might be others. Make them all the same, one way or the other.

(No prose review carried out.) Harrias ^talk 19:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 06:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I've made the necessary changes.--Cheetah (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:54, 24 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

Norm Smith Medal

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Norm Smith Medal is a prestigious award in the Australian Football League (AFL), given to the best player in the annual AFL Grand Final to decide the season's premiership (i.e. "championship", "title-winner" etc.). As well as meeting the FL criteria, I believe this list would help lift the standard of similar AFL-related lists, as currently within the AFL WikiProject there is only one featured list (out of 350+ total). I am determined to help increase the amount of featured content relating to AFL, so any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated — Allied45 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

:Hi Allied45, great work on this list. Looking forward to seeing more AFL content here at FLC. Please find my comments below: Lead The Victorian Football League was established in 1897 add ref and link 1897 VFL season and the competition has been known as the Australian Football League since 1990 add ref and link 1990 AFL season To determine the premiers each season, a Grand Final has been held every year since 1898. add ref and link 1898 VFL Grand Final a former six-time premiership coach for Melbourne add ref only four players have received the award as members of the losing teams add ref Link all the years in the second paragraph Include the Hawthorn players have won the award the most times Include that the grand final is played at the MCG Include the most recent winner, Dustin Martin Infobox Refs required first awarded and most recent winner Images All image captions require a ref Multiple winners table sorting by player needs fixing Table of clubs' totals Thoughts adding Univeristy and adding note saying they played in the VFL from 1908–1914? Notes All notes require a ref References Ref 6 – archive link missing Ref 7 – archive link missing Ref 9 – author link Emma Quayle Ref 11 – author link Warwick Green Ref 13 – author link Rohan Connolly Ref 30 – add agency=AAP Ref 34 – add agency=AAP Ref 37 – add agency=AAP Ref 42 – author link Mark Stevens (footballer)?? Bibliography author link Jim Main Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the thorough review Ianblair23, much appreciated. I have now actioned all your suggestions for the list (except adding an author link for Mark Stevens as I am not confident it is the same person). Please note there is one ref to cover both the VFL and AFL establishment dates of 1897 and 1990, and I have included extra information regarding the venue of the Grand Final as it has not quite been held at the MCG every year. Hopefully everything is now up to scratch though! – Allied45 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC) It turns out it is indeed a different Mark Stevens according to his LinkedIn profile. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Fantastic job Allied45! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments – I only have a couple of nit-picks after reading through the list.

• "and again in 1991 where it was played at Waverley Park." "where" should be "when" since this refers to a year, not a place.
• In reference 31, the p. should be pp., since it is a multiple-page cite. Changing the page= parameter of the cite template to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Both resolved (also corrected reference 34, which had the same issue), thanks for looking over the list for me Giants2008! – Allied45 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

*I'd move the photograph of Dustin Martin to the infobox, seeing as he is the most recent recipient of the award. If possible, an additional image or two would further improve the visual appeal. (with the exception of 1924) – I wouldn't put this in parentheses, and I feel like a further explanation is warranted. Paul Chapman became the first player to win on a countback in 2009 – how many have done so since? Prior to the 2016 season, if the Grand Final resulted in a draw, the game would be replayed the following week. – and since then? Denotes player who was in losing team should be copyedited for grammar. The "Ref" column should be Ref, using the {{abbr}} template. , with players' clubs is superfluous and should be removed. Multiple winners should be "Players with multiple wins". By club should be "Club totals". In the club table, the wrong footnote is linked for Collingwood and St Kilda. TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TompaDompa, I have implemented your suggestions if you would like to have a quick look? – Allied45 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:53, 22 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC) [10].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nominator(s): Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This list has been previously nominated together with List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro which later became a FL. As I was not supposed to nominate two articles at the same time, this one was closed in order to be re-nominated later. I believe all issues that were raised during the Montenegro nomination have been fixed, so this one should be ready for a review. Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• CommentsWeak oppose
  • Is the word "succeed" the right verb to use?
  • Regarding Stećci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards, I am confused. I was trying to decipher the last three sentences, which took several minutes. I hope someone else may suggest a better version.
  • I couldn't find in the reference provided that 20 out of 28 sites are located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the main page, it says 22 sites, but it's not referenced either.
    • I am not saying this is wrong, I am saying this is not referenced. Change the reference to the one where it says or lists 20 sites of Stecci in Bosnia.
  • How do you sort the "UNESCO data"? I can't figure out the order.
    • On second thought, I believe we need a footnote stating that this column sorts by the first criterion number because it's not obvious at all.
  • Same thing with the "sites" column in the tentative section. What is the sorting order?
    • There is a location column already for people to sort by location, why is this column sorting by location as well?

--Cheetah (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, BH technically succeeded the convention because Yugoslavia had previously signed it. The Stecci article has a table with all of them listed and 20 are in BH so that page's lead appears to be wrong. I believe the UNESCO data sorts by the first criterion number but that's not a good way to sort something; I'd make it unsortable. The tentative site name sorting order is by the key word or place name, which seems reasonable to me. I don't see any issues and Support Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I see you answered the comments already, thank you. Yes, the sorting issue has been discussed before, what we have at the moment seems like a good compromise. --Tone 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• " Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded the convention". I see that this has been discussed above, but it does not make sense. Maybe " Bosnia and Herzegovina inherited Yugoslavia's accession to the convention".
  • Could be. I'll leave this decision to native speakers.

• Changed - better I hope. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• "shared with Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro" "shared with" does not sound right to me. How about "is partly in"
  • This is the standard way we are using in all World Heritage lists, but again, I'm open to changing it.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar" This says that an area of the city has been designated, but the description says it is only the bridge itself.
  • Added a sentence.
• "the Geniza (a graveyard for damaged books)" The article on Geniza says worn out, not damaged.
  • Good point, fixed.
• With mixed sites, you only give details of its significance under one criterion. You should give both.
  • Not really sure what you mean here. Mixed sites typically have some significance regarding the setting and the human impact. I think this is always mentioned to some level. The fact is, though, that the tentative sites sometimes have not fully-fleshed nominations, as this is only a step in the process.

• I meant that the description should explain how the site meets both the cultural and natural criteria, but as I see that the sources do not always explain both I will drop this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• It is not helpful to give the criteria as i to x without explanation. I think you should either delete or add a table explaining them.
  • Again, this is something we use in all articles. But I get your point - I added a link to the list of the criteria. Thanks! --Tone 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• A good article, but it needs a bit more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Quick comment "In the following table" should be removed as it is redundant, but that whole sentence is better as a footnote or endnote than an introductory sentence. Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

We've played with this sentence in the previous nomination but ultimately decided it is better if it stays as it is. Not sure. --Tone 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A while ago it was determined that featured lists should not have tautological sentences such as "this is a list of", "this table has", "in the following table", etc. The review below on the black mirror episodes has an identical recommendation by another user which generally applies here:

""The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]")." Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we now have a good solution. With a reference as well. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This works! Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Done. In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural. – this should be rewritten as something along the lines of "UNESCO lists sites under ten criteria; each entry must meet at least one of the criteria. Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." along with a citation (I'd suggest this link as the source). Done. In the first table, I'd suggest splitting the "UNESCO data" column in two: one for the reference number, and one for the criteria. This style is consistent with other articles, we've been playing a lot with it but this is what we got at the end. If we go for changes, it would influence many articles. Okay. I would then suggest changing "UNESCO data" to "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Possible, though this would be rather lengthy. Let's see some more opinions on this one. Open to suggestions. Right now, it's not explained anywhere that the first number is the UNESCO reference number. You could also just add an WP:Explanatory footnote saying "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) What about using abbreviation template? I think this works nicely. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, that works. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The reader is almost certainly not familiar with the specific UNESCO criteria, so I'd try to put more emphasis on cultural vs. natural rather than the individual criteria met in the tables. Now that we have a reference to it, does it solve the problem? I was thinking maybe write "cultural: v" rather than "v (cultural)", but now I'm thinking just add <br> for a line break before "(cultural)". For the first table, I'd also add a line break after the reference number. TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Done. You didn't add <br> after the UNESCO reference numbers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I know, I don't think too many breaks are helpful. I'd leave it as it is. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I think it would be helpful as it separates two completely different kinds of information, and conservation of vertical space is not an issue since the images require a certain cell height to make out anyway, but it's not a deal-breaker to me. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Stećci (sing. stećak) are – use {{abbr|sing.|singular}} for sing.. Done. What does (N.I.) mean? No idea, actually. This is the name of the site per ref. Though the fact is that the nomination is from 1997 so it probably had some meaning then. "Vjetrenica" is misspelled as "Vjeternica" in the description. "orogenesis" should be linked. "Perućica" is misspelled as "Peručica" in the description. "ossuary" should be linked. The "See also" section should be above the "References" section. All of the above, fixed. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed. I see that there's some vagueness about whether CrazyCheetah's comments got addressed from a month ago, but it appears they all have been (at least to my satisfaction) so I'm promoting. --PresN 02:53, 22 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book is an award category by GLAAD that honors comic books (and occasionally comic strips or graphic novels) for their depiction of LGBT characters and themes. Originally a non-competitive category during the first two times the award was given, it finally became competetive in 1997 with four nominees. This was expanded to five in '99, and then to ten in 2017. I'm nominating this article because I think that, besides meeting the criteria, is an interesting article that could help people find interesting LGBT-themed comics to read. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• • Is the whole of the third paragraph sourced by that one ref at the end?
    • Yep.
  • Don't like the single-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead - can this be merged with an earlier paragraph?
    • Done.
  • 1995 row has "No award was given this in category" (sic)
    • Yeah. What's wrong with that? No award was given during that year or the two before.
      • Look at the exact wording - two words are clearly the wrong way round.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh, son of a bitch. I'm so sorry. I didn't even notice it. Fixed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
          • No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to have a single table, not separate ones by decade
    • @ChrisTheDude: Yeah, the seperate table were so it'd be easier to edit. Combined them.
    • ​@ChrisTheDude: You might want to have a look at MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. These kinds of column headers are semantically ambiguous to screen readers, and should be avoided in order to make content accessible. Splitting a table like this is recommended in WCAG 2.0. —Ringbang (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh blimey, I can never get my head around accessibility. How about one table with no subheadings (they probaby aren't really needed).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
        • ​The advantage to that approach is that all data in a column can be sorted together; this is a very nice function. On the other hand, sections allow for introductory text to explain, summarise, or add to the information in the table. This is a desirable feature that we want to allow for and encourage.
          Also, the unified table creates a usability problem. Without a ToC, navigation becomes about scrolling; sometimes too much scrolling. This is especially true on mobile, since neither the web app nor the mobile app supports sorting by column. The number of table rows increases every year, so the amount of scrolling required would keep increasing. Scrolling through a huge table with no visual break is not a very pleasant user experience. As much as I like the unified column sorting, I don't believe that the UX problems it creates are worth it. —Ringbang (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
          • @ChrisTheDude: So, where do you think you're leaning towards? Should I combine the sections, or is it better to have them seperated? Cause Ringbang does make some points I agree with. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Personally I prefer one combined list. We have many much bigger lists on WP and I don't see any drive to break them up into little chunks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Think that's it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

*See if you can't find an image or two to add to the page. It would improve the visual appeal of the page significantly. The WP:LEAD could use more citations. Most of the second paragraph (except for the parts about being non-competitive vs. competitive) and the entirety of the fourth paragraph get a pass as they summarize the tables (i.e. it's already cited in the body per MOS:LEADCITE), but the rest should have citations to reliable sources. Outstanding Comic Book is one of only four categories in which GLAAD may select up to ten nominees rather than five. – I'd add an WP:Explanatory footnote listing the other three. Added it. wasn't should be "was not" per MOS:CONTRACTION. Removed it. The 2nd through 13th GLAAD Media Awards are WP:Redlinks. This is a problem per WP:FLCR 5(a). For now, I'd just remove the links (and add them back if/when the articles are created). Removed them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Where there are several citations in a row, it looks better if they're in numerical order. I think I did it correctly. A couple remained; I fixed them myself. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) There is a mix of reference styles. I'd convert reference 3 and 10 to match the rest of the list and remove the "Bibliography" section entirely. From what I've seen on other articles, that's how books are always cited. It's better, because if you want to cite the book a second time, but for a different page and in a different section of the article, you wont have to create another reference. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC) It's not always done like that, and I'm personally not a fan of the style, but it's not a big deal. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I have no strong feelings about one table vs. three (discussed above), for the record. More images would be even better, but this already meets my expectations of a WP:Featured list. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

* I would spell out LGBT at first mention i.e. "... of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) characters ..." Done. A link to LGBT themes in comics somewhere is warranted (in a "See also" section if all else fails). Added the link in the first paragraph. I'm unclear on how the award is given out. Is it not given out in one of the ceremonies consistently? Or do the locations rotate between NY/LA/SF each year? If it really is that the award is given out at one of the locations with no simple pattern, nothing needs to be changed, but otherwise some clarification / extra detail is necessary. @Bilorv: I checked, and it appears that the way the award ceremonies are performed varies from year to year. Like, for the last 5 years. The award ceremonies were first held in Los Angeles, then New York. But before that, it was three ceremonies, and the order went: New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. And the ceremony which presented "Outstanding Comic Book" also varied from year to year. Like, in the last 4 to 5 years it was presented during the first ceremony (Los Angeles) in April. But before that, when there were three ceremonies, the one that it was announced in varied. And that was just from checking the 2010s ceremonies. I'm sure the previous decades were even more effed up. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Fair enough – no change necessary then. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Can we have a short description of GLAAD in the lead (e.g. "U.S. media monitoring organization founded in 1985")? I expanded a little bit on the description. Hope it's ok. Mention in the lead that Judd Winick has the most wins (three of four nominations). @Bilorv: Added him in. I also moved the section of World of Wakanda's win to be a seperate paragraph as it was getting too big. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Could we add a mention of World of Wakanda in the infobox (under "2018 winner(s)")? Added it. I've got no issues with the tables themselves (I think three tables works excellently). Great work on this, and great topic! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made this quick copyedit—feel free to revert any part of it—and I'm now happy to support. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, the copyedit was good. It removed some of the wordiness. Thank you for the support. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ringbang: what's your reasoning for moving the image out of the infobox in this edit? I think it looks better there than on the left-hand side of the page (not the ideal place for images, particularly in the lead). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree - the image looks awful on the left -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree – it creates a problem of MOS:SANDWICHING text between the image and the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, having it there looked awful. I placed it back in the infobox. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Ideally I would have moved some of the lede's content into a new section, along with the thumbnail, in the same edit. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead image is to "illustrate the topic specifically". I didn't want to have to remove the photo completely since it's a good addition. The image in the infobox is the primary means of visual identification of the subject (in this case, the award itself or an award ceremony). Content in the infobox is also used for other purposes; especially linked data and DBpedia, which assume that the image represents the subject. This photo is relevant and we can find a place for it in the article, but William Messner-Loebs is not the subject. —Ringbang (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I will say that the image quality is pretty poor. Perhaps we can do without the image entirely, at least for now. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ringbang While I do understand what you're saying, and true Messner-Loebs is not the subject of the article, I still don't see the problem with having him in the infobox. Multiple award categories out there have people who won the award in the infobox. Such as the acting categories at the Oscars. All of them show the latest recipients of the award; without any of the images have the recipients in question holding the award, or something similar. To be completely honest, I don't see what would be the point of having the infobox image be the statue itself. Every single category at the GLAAD Media Awards uses the exact same statue. Having the image of a person who's won the award seems more appropriate. Going back to what TompaDompa said about the image's quality, and comparing other award ceremonies / categories, maybe it would be better to have an image containing the creative team of World of Wakanda, as they are the latest winners. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

​You mentioned the all-important difference: The honorees in those other articles were photographed when they received the award. It's much easier to source a photo from the Oscars than for this one. We can use generic photos of Messner-Loebs or other recipients, but not in the infobox. The Academy Awards article contextualises generic photos by using {{Infobox election}} in the lede. It doesn't look like there's quite enough text content to do that in this article (yet), but, as I mentioned, we can offload some lead content into a new section and place a photo there.

For the infobox, certainly there are more exciting images than the trophy itself; the trophy is only one suitable option. What you can do as an editor is contact recipients and ask for a photo that we can use of them at the award ceremony, or holding the award (or even a photo of the presenters of the award during the ceremony). The image policy on the English Wikipedia is not as strict as the policy for Wikimedia Commons, but if a rights holder is willing to release an image under a CC licence, even better. —Ringbang (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ringbang: Is the image being used now better? I placed the creative team of World of Wakanda, the latest winner, and the images are all pretty high quality. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

​I think it looks great! The composite photo is specific to the subject, and the photos available work well together for this purpose. Nice job!—Ringbang (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks for bringing this up Ringbang, and glad it has been resolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. :D I'm really glaad you like it. Sorry, couldn't resist. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed. I'm... honestly I almost want to oppose because that green and purple color combination is pretty bad, but I guess you're using the "won" template? Even changing from {{rh2}} to {{rh}} to get rid of the purple makes it less jarring. I'm going to let it go, since no one else seems to have even mentioned it, but I encourage the use of more muted colors like at Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story. Promoted. --PresN 02:53, 22 August 2018 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

Kent Wildlife Trust

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as Essex Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments - I've only looked at the lead thus far, this is what I have.....

• "Medway is a separate unitary authority." - I would clarify here that Medway geographically lies within Kent, otherwise the reader might wonder why this is even mentioned.
• "The coastline is alternately flat and cliff-lilyned." - think that last word is spelt wrong :-)
• "KWT manages fifty-four nature reserves, and twenty-four are Sites of Special Scientific Interest, two are National Nature Reserves......" - I would change the "and" to "of which"

I will look at the list itself later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude. All done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - the only thing I spotted was a missing full stop, which I added myself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007 I am curious as to why you talk about the county first, and then the Wildlife Trust. Essex Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Wildlife Trust both start with the trust, and then explain the county. Imho, I would stick to the way it is done in Essex and Suffolk. MOS:BOLDLEAD mentions addressing the topic of the article as soon as possible in the lead. Good point. Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Third sentence, first paragraph: "with twelve district councils, Ashford..." change to "with twelve district councils in Ashford..." I do not think that would work. I link to the councils, not to the towns. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) My issue is the comma, which I don't believe is grammatically correct. It would seem a colon would be better since you are stating something and then listing out what you stated. AN example sentence would be "there are three countries in North America: Canada, America, and Mexico." Let me know if that makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Colon added. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC) First sentence, second paragraph: I believe it is supposed to go (period)(quotation mark)(inline citation) i.e ."[5] not ".[5] Correct me if I am wrong. The rule is that the quotation mark should go after the full stop (period) if the quote is a full sentence and before if the quote is part of a sentence. The quotes are part sentences Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The quote in the first sentence of the second paragraph seems to no longer be true. It is found in the archived version of the source, but not in the current version. Thus, I don't think you can claim that they still describe them self as such. I have found part of the quote on another page and replaced the rest. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Last sentence, last paragraph: "Special Protection Areas. seven are" change to "Special Protection Areas, seven are" Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) That last sentence of the lead is a doozy. Any way to split it up or shorten it? It just seems to run on for a while. I agree but I do not see how to split it. Do you have a suggestion? The only way I can think is adding a period after "KWT manages fifty-four nature reserves" and then starting the next sentence with "This includes..." I'll let you decide the best route, it won't impact my support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I think it is better the way it is. Grammatically, it is not clear what "This" refers to. Why is the public access field in table in all caps? (i.e. YES / NO) I have done it that way in many other articles and I think it is better to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) What is the difference between the two Geohack links in the table for each item? i.e. there is a link to "51.160°N 0.862°E" and then a link to "TR002439" in the same cell that take you to relatively close places. Sorry if I am missing something, but I can't figure it out. They are both the same but the first is the international method and the second the UK one. I have been strongly advised to give both as readers may be using either. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Overall, a really nice list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Many thanks for your helpful review Gonzo_fan2007. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your further comments. Gonzo_fan2007. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support All issues resolved, looks good! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comments I just have a few minor comments, it's otherwise very good as usual. You can link invaded Britain, Chalk downland and Fen. Also consider rephrasing " out of which 53 are breeding species". All birds are breeding species, but perhaps only 53 breed in this Wildlife Trust. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Mattximus. All points dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support nice work as usual! Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I would link Caesar's invasions of Britain in the image caption. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) It describes itself as "the leading conservation charity covering the whole of Kent and Medway". It aims to "work with people to restore, save and improve our natural spaces" and to "ensure that 30% of Kent and Medway - land and sea - is managed to create a healthy place for wildlife to flourish". – Try to paraphrase this instead of quoting it outright. I do not see how to do this without copyvio. Do you have suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I might write something like "Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) is a conservation charity founded in 1958. Its stated aims are to cooperate in restoring and preserving natural wildlife habitats in Kent and Medway and covering 30% of the total land and sea area in doing so." TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I have adopted your wording to replace the first quote but I do not think that it fully covers the points made in the second and third quotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Okay. I would suggest "Its stated aims are [...]" followed by some paraphrasing of the main points, which seem to be (1) working with people, (2) restoring, saving, and improving natural spaces, (3) achieving the goal of 30% of the land and sea area, and (4) allowing wildlife to flourish. TompaDompa (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I do not see anything wrong with quotes and I think they express what the Trust does more clearly. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Well, it's not a deal-breaker for me. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 31,130 members – I'd rewrite this as "31 thousand members" (with a non-breaking space). Changed to "thirty thousand members" as I understand you should not mix numerals and alphabetical. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) an annual income of £4 million – Is "income" the right word here? Also, "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space ( ). The annual report descbribes it as income.   added. The abbreviations used in the table should use the {{abbr}} template in addition to being explained in the key, so the reader doesn't have to scroll all the way up again. Added for AONB and SSSI. It is not needed for the other abbreviations as the full name is already shown when the reader hovers over them. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I was mostly thinking about "FP" and "PP". The linked ones are not as critical. TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC) The first mention of "nationally rare" should be linked to British nature conservation statuses. Done for all as this is required for sortable tables. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Right, that makes sense. TompaDompa (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your comments TompaDompa. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 20 August 2018 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

Ranbir Kapoor filmography

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Back to the FLC process after a big gap with another filmography list of an Indian film actor. I hope some of you take the time out to review this. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would add ALT text to the main image.
• For this part (In 2010 Kapoor played a character based), there should be a comma between “2010” and “Kapoor”.
• For this sentence (In Imtiaz Ali's musical Rockstar(2011) he played an aspiring singer, and in Anurag Basu's comedy-drama Barfi!(2012) he starred as a joyful deaf and mute man.), there should be two commas after the “in…” phrases.
• For this part (earned over ₹2.95 billion (US$44 million), I would wikilink the currency.
• I would add a reference to this sentence (In addition to acting in films, Kapoor has co-hosted four Filmfare Award ceremonies.) since everything else in the lead is referenced.

I have removed this bit from the lead, and added a sentence about his recent release. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for reviewing this. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• These links should be fixed.

None of them seem to have an issue when I open this, and the references have been archived anyway. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wasn't Raajneeti predominantly based on Mahabharat with some scenes lifted from The Godfather?

That's right, and his character was deemed to be an amalgamation of Arjuna and Michael Corleone. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think the word 'highly' should be removed for the sake of neutrality.

Reworded. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have noticed that in the first two para's, his success is only measured on how his films have fared commercially. Something on how his roles were received critically.

Added a line about Barfi! and Rockstar. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• At ref 28, News18 --> CNN-News18.

Changed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, thanks for the review. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Good work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Support – The only thing I would suggest is that the Music video table doesn't need to be sortable since it consists of only one entry. Otherwise, I can't spot any other problems with this list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008 agreed, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

*"His performance in all three won him the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actor." – I feel like this could be rephrased to make it clearer that it was one award for all three movies combined, lest the reader misunderstand it as one award for each of the three movies. Avoid saying movies "earn" money. Use "gross" instead. Along the same lines, "highest" is preferable to "biggest" in those contexts. One "earn" remained, for Sanju. I changed it myself. TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "The years 2011 to 2013 proved to be key for Kapoor", "This success was followed by a period of decline", and "Kapoor's career prospects improved in 2018" strike me as phrasings more befitting a magazine than an encyclopedia. TompaDompa on the contrary, I strongly feel that such "analysis" lends heft to the prose and prevents it from being just a listing of him starring in X, which grossed Y and won him Z award. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I agree that the "analysis" improves the article, but I don't like the current phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa I've tweaked the first of those sentences but I fail to see how else I could neutrally talk about a career downturn and a subsequent comeback. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Well, I would remove "of decline" – the rest of the sentence speaks for itself without those two words. As for the latter, if you can find a source that calls it a comeback I'd just refer to it as a comeback. TompaDompa (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa tweaked. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "His performance in both films was acclaimed" – I'd add "critically" before "acclaimed". In the film table, I'd say the films he didn't act in (i.e. the first two in the list) should be marked with a colour and symbol (like the unreleased one is). I'd also say that the films where he only had a cameo or special appearance should be marked with a colour and symbol, for three different shadings and symbols in total. I really don't see why such extraneous coding is necessary. Other featured filmography lists too don't follow this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Well, maybe they should. There's a pretty big difference between a role, a cameo, and a directing credit. I think it would benefit the reader. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC) There absolutely is a difference, which is why we have the "notes" column. I appreciate your stylistic preference but I am not particularly in favour of this idea. I hope that's okay. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I don't consider it a deal-breaker for WP:Featured list status, no. TompaDompa (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC) One more thing I noticed: The currency conversions to US dollars use a template which uses the most recent exchange rate available, not the exchange rate at the time of the film's release. I don't think this is entirely appropriate, and would suggest instead referencing the dollar amounts separately using this source for Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani and this source for Sanju. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa I've now used the appropriate historic value for the conversion of YJHD figures but since Sanju released less than two months ago, the current rate is fine. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I guess it's okay, but it will go out of date and have to be changed later. Just figured my solution would mean it wouldn't have to be updated. TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2018 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) [14].

---

List of certified albums in Romania

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it, and I think it meets the required criteria. The lead may seem very short and trimmed, but I can't see any solution on solving this problem (if it will be considered a 'problem' for FLC). We don't have plenty of supportive links on the internet to expand the lead, and if I would expand it by citing e.g. artists with the most certifications, this could be easily considered unnecessary or even WP:OR. As for the "N/A" here and there, I believe it's still in good limits, as some things just weren't announced and I needed to note that somehow. I would appreciate some comments. Best of regards ; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus

• Featured lists no longer begin with "The following is a list of..." as this is tautological. You can also expand the lead by defining what each category means. Mattximus (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Hi there! I've reworked the lead sentence and added two lines about what each certification stands for. Hope I could solve your concerns. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

Resolved comments from Lirim | T

• Can you maybe give a table, showing how the certification levels were lowered over the years, like here?--Lirim | T 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lirim.Z: Hi there! I've been looking forward to do something like that, but I soon realized after hours of research that no such data has ever been published online. It's clear that the certification levels have changed in time, but UPFR never made statements about when exactly they changed or to which number they were each lowered. Thus, I sadly can't do such a table on my own, as the information is missing and because it would be running at the risk to be classified as original research. Is this a major issue? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's somewhat of an issue, but you could point out that there isn't reliable information on the certification levels.--Lirim | T 21:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lirim.Z: I added a note on the subject matter; I hope that was what you were meaning. Btw, I saw you're German (Ich bin nicht deutsch, lebe aber in Deutschland :)) Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: The list seems complete, I checked some sources with google translate and they looked alright. The lead is good, not to many pictures, the table looks alright too. No problems, good list.--Lirim | T 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

• There's a few points in the lead which do not read quite right to a native English speaker. I have re-written it below and suggest you use this:

Since the early 1990s, over 70 albums have been certified in Romania in accordance with the certification levels set up by the Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR).[2][3][A] These have been repeatedly lowered due to decreasing album sales in Romania primarily resulting from heavy music piracy; this led to fewer certifications being handed out from the late 2000s onwards compared to previous years.[4][5] To date, Cleopatra Stratan's La vârsta de trei ani (2006) is Romania's highest-certified record with a triple diamond award for 150,000 units sold.[1][3] Andra and Sandel Mihai were also awarded a diamond certification for selling 60,000 copies of their 2007 album De la frate la soră.[6] Over the years, further certifications have been handed out: gold (ranging from 2,000 to 100,000 units sold), double gold, platinum (ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 units sold), double platinum (100,000 copies), triple platinum and quadruple platinum. More to come when I have a bit more time......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:  Fixed! Thanks for the suggestion and waiting for more... Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The only other thing I can notice at the moment is in the photo captions. in the top two, it should be "Holograf (lead singer Dan Bittman pictured)" rather than "Holograf (pictured lead singer Dan Bittman)". And in the Ellie Goulding caption you don't need to put "(pictured)" at all because there's nobody else in the picture so it's obvious that it's her........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:  Fixed this as well! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I missed one unnecessary "(pictured)" so just removed that myself. All other concerns addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments quick run through. Lead is too short. Please give some suggestions on how to expand the lead. This may sound odd, but there is not such a wide coverage of this subject on the internet, so adding controversial facts (or similar) will maybe not be possible. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) "albums have been certified in Romania" doesn't need to be in bold. If I add that into the search box, it doesn't redirect me, it's not an alternative name for the list.  Fixed Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Why "over 70"? It should be "more than 70" if you keep it vague, or else you could simply add a {{As of}}. The "As of" formulation seems a bit strange to me in this context, so I changed "over 70" to "more than 70". Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) You certainly can't say "to date" because that depends on when someone reads it. See WP:ASOF. See above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) There's a major issue here, most of the items in the list aren't even linked, let alone have articles. Is this actually a list of non-notable items? You can't say that the items are non-notable, they rather just don't have their own articles on Wikipedia. In fact, nearly all albums are by notable Romanian artists with their own Wiki pages. Also, each record is notable itself, as it has sold an outstanding (at least in the Romanian market) amount of copies to be certified gold/platinum... by the UPFR. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) If you haven't done so already then, link the Romanian Wikipedia articles using the {{ill}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Holograf (pictured lead singer Dan Bittman) have won a total of three Gold certifications " all text inside parentheses should be italics. And Gold shouldn't be capitalised.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Artist names for soloists normally sort by their surname.  Done with Sortname template. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Ref col shouldn't be sortable.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I don't know why this isn't one table with the certification as an additional column. I think the article has more of a structure this way than if it was all thrown together in an endlessly long table, but I can change it up if you think that's a better solution. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think it would be "endlessly long" because you'd just add about 50% to the length. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "triple Platinum" no capital P.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I've answered to your comments so far. Thank you for your time! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Any thoughts about the article after I finished working on your comments? Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: The article already uses interlanguage templates, but I've put the tables into one as you suggested. I hope this is what you meant. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by comments I'm inclined to agree with The Rambling Man that the lead is just too short. By my count the total prose portion of this article is 968 characters, which wouldn't qualify it for DYK, never mind FL. For comparison's sake, the featured lists List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States and List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom both contain one or two paragraphs about sales certifications in their leads, which are longer than the entire lead of this article. Is there anything more that can be said about album certifications in Romania? Is it just for physical sales, or are downloads and streaming included too? Do we know which was the first album to be certified? When were the thresholds lowered? When were multi-platinum and multi-diamond awards introduced? Which artists have had more than one certified album? Who's had the most? Are there any quotes from artists about how important certification is to them? I believe that we generally don't have row spans for sortable lists. The Ref. column may look better centred. More comments coming later. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thank you for finding time to review my FLC. I've done your suggestions regarding the table, and I've also expanded the lead. However, I couldn't include much of your points there—damn it again, Romanian stuff is hard to find on the internet—but I've expanded the lead in another way, coming to ~1200 characters now. (I guess you'll have to take a look over that again). Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC) That's obviously an improvement, but the lead still seems rather short. 1,500 characters' worth of prose is the absolute minimum that we ask an article to meet before it's promoted in even a minor position on the front page – by my count, this article still isn't quite meeting that. Do the leads of either List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States or List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom provide any inspiration for how the lead of this article could be expanded? Sadly, the articles you've linked didn't help me much. I could however add three more sentences to the lead, so I'm right now at ~1800 characters. Is that somehow okay? I really can't do much else. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) As I see it, the article's biggest problem (and this isn't necessarily a bad thing) is that no-one has ever nominated a list of this type to be featured before. Obviously, that's all the more reason to do it, since, when it is promoted, it'll set a precedent for similar lists to follow it. But I do think it means that we should make sure that we get it right. For example, rather than having colspans indicate certification level, perhaps an extra column could be put in instead, like so: The advantage of this is that you'd then be able to sort albums together by their certification level. You'd have to decide in what order the albums should appear when the page first loads (Year certified makes the most sense to me, but I recognise that that's quite a big change).  Done It was hard work, but I've done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) All images need alt text.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Why is the image of Andreea Bălan 30px wider than all the others? It looks a little odd to me.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) În culori, În lipsa mea and Șoapte are sorting incorrectly. I can talk you through how to fix this, if you want.  Done I figured out how to fix this by my ownCartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Anda Adam needs to sort under her surname. Ștefan Bănică Jr. needs to sort under Bănică, rather than Jr. Carmen Șerban is also sorting incorrectly.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Per MOS:QWQ, replace "Violent", "Jamparalele" and "Taina" in citations 17, 21 and 24 with 'Violent', 'Jamparalele' and 'Taina'. There are a few other examples of this elsewhere in the references.  Done Corrected all citations. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) The titles for citations 18 and 25 don't have English translations.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) I realise that I've given a lot of criticism here, so, if you'd like to get your own back on me, my current open FLC is FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK). If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Hi there and thanks for responding. I think I have adressed all your comments and responded to them. I will find time to look over your nomination this week. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) So I've been through the article and made some changes. The certification column wasn't sorting correctly, so I changed that. I also centre-aligned the years and sales columns, made the images slightly narrower, and rewrote most of the second half of the lead. None of these changes is really vital (except maybe the certifications column), so please revert any that you disagree with and correct any mistakes that I may have made. I corrected some things, but thank you very much for bringing in a much more encyclopedic language. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Have the UPFR's certification levels never been clearly defined, or just never publicly defined?  Done Publicily is the right word indeed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) If the UPFR was set up in 1996, how come the first album was certified in 1991?  Done That indeed seems strange to me as well. I removed that as it made no sense. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) WP:CAP states not to have captions longer than three lines, so the ones for Cleopatra Stratan, Dan Bittman and André need to be shortened.  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thank you very much for your time! I did everything. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) "officially" is an easter egg. Either that sentence needs to be rewritten (i.e. to explain what Monitorul Oficial is), or the link to Monitorul Oficial needs to be removed.  Done Removed the link. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; you can still mention Monitorul Oficial in the lead. I've added it myself – please correct or remove if I've made any errors. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Do we know which was the first album to be certified? Presumably it was Atât de singur – was it ever certified gold, or did it go straight to platinum? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: We technically don't know which album was certified first, but Atât de singur is the only one I've found to win an award in the pre-2000 era (at least for now). Also, it seems like it was certified platinum straight. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Are there any more points to be fixed? Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC) I've made a few more changes to the article (added info about the first release to be certified to the lead; cropped the image of Dan Bittman; new category). Please review them and let me know what you think. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thank you very much for the copy-edit. I have corrected some mistakes or word repetitions. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Any news? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support This article has improved significantly over the last few weeks, and I now feel that it is worthy of the bronze star. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

• There is no reason to have so many N/A in the table. Took me 3 minutes to fill in like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

*"When considering an album's certification level, the UPFR considers both its unit sales and its sales price." – I would like the WP:LEAD to note whether this is typical or atypical for album certifications (compared to other organizations).  Done It seems very much like this procedere is atypical compared to other methods used by fellow organizations. Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) "Romania's highest-certified record is La vârsta de trei ani by the Moldovan singer Cleopatra Stratan, which was awarded a triple diamond certification" – an explicit ranking of the different certifications should be provided. I recognize that there is an implicit (and incomplete) one two sentences down, but I'm looking for an explicit and exhaustive one. I don't really understand you here. I list all certifications that have been handed out in Romania yet along with the sales they were awarded for. What is incomplete here? Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I'd like a sentence in the WP:LEAD that says something like "From lowest to highest, the certifications are: gold, [...], triple diamond." TompaDompa (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)  Fixed Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) The plural of "crisis" is "crises".  Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the WP:Redlinks, but since there are links to the Romanian Wikipedia I guess it's okay. I don't think the list can be considered comprehensive per WP:FLCR 3(a) with this many cells empty. A thorough attempt to add the currently missing information should be undertaken before this is promoted to WP:Featured list status. After a very thorough research, I could indeed fill in a couple of cells, but what remained empty can't be filled. There isn't enough information out there. Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (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) 00:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC) [15].

---

List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 18:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In a burst of World Cup-induced mania last night, I expanded this list to a similar standard to fellow CONCACAF leaders Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey. A few of the sources are direct match reports, which I can replace if someone finds issue with them; otherwise, the rest of the sources are (mostly) English news articles. SounderBruce 18:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Quick comment all items that are linked in the sortable table should be linked every time. A lengthier review in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Any chance of a follow-up? I've linked the table entries as suggested. SounderBruce 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Just link Goal poacher because not everyone knows this term. --Cheetah (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

• Second sentence, first paragraph, replace "and has scored" with "with"
• I am not a fan of "considered to be" at the end of the first paragraph ... I would just say "is" and let the sources speak for themselves.
• First sentence, second paragraph, drop "had" from "grandfather had played"
• First sentence, second paragraph is long winded. Recommend splitting into two after "his father coached"
• Recommend replacing semi-colon with period in "...France and Argentina; his first goal..."

The tables and the only photo on the page look good. Nice work SounderBruce! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Thanks for the review. I have made all the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 20:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Looks good! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I started this list not a while ago, but SounderBruce just took it to the next level. Very well-written introduction--gives a nice overview and background. Thoroughly referenced for each goal scored. It's a knock-out and makes me feel bad that I was not as through when I started it to lessen the amount of work that went into it. --Chlorineer (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the sources appear to be well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. Spot-checks of refs 47, 52, and 56 show no verifiability concerns. My only complaint is that I don't think the Daily Star (ref 40) can be considered a reliable source. It's one of a group of British tabloids of questionable reliability. I'd put it below the Daily Mail, which has had an RFC declare that it is generally unreliable. It should be possible to find something reliable to replace this. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Replaced the Daily Star reference with an ESPN match report, as a few Google searches didn't turn up any reliable news reports. SounderBruce 23:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The new source looks good to me. Since that was my sole concern, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not spotting any issues myself, promoting. --PresN 03:01, 10 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) [16].

---

List of accolades received by Coco (2017 film)

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Coco is a critically acclaimed animated film that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Brojam (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I've got is this: "The film has so far earned $806.6 million at the worldwide box office" - what date is that as at? The Box Office Mojo link already gives a higher figure than the one quoted here, so the quoted figure needs timestamping..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case happy to support. I'll also take the opportunity to blatantly name-drop and say that many years ago I worked for a publishing house that published a book which Lee Unkrich wrote a chapter of and I had many conversations with him :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Good work! Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Can't see any issue in the list. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007 "The film follows Miguel Rivera (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez), a 12-year-old boy, who is accidentally transported to the land of the dead, where he seeks the help of his deceased musician great-great-grandfather to return him to his family among the living." - I recommend splitting this sentence in two. Maybe saying "There he seeks..." to split it up. Same thing on the first sentence of the second paragraph. "...October 20, 2017, and was..." change to "...October 20, 2017. It was..." Just a recommendation, but I would make the "infobox" into a template and transclude it in the article. This is done when making inline timelines using the {{Include timeline}} template to help shorten the article and make it more user-friendly to edit. Overall, looks great and definitely a really nice list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) @Gonzo fan2007: Fixes done. I think using {{Custom award}} has made it a lot more user-friendly to edit compared to most list of accolades articles. However, I have been thinking about creating a template for all list of accolades/awards articles to reduce the clutter in the lead since it seems to be an issue with all these sort of articles. - Brojam (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me! I would definitely support a new template to make it easier to edit, but that is outside the scope of FLC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:02, 10 August 2018 (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) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) [17].

---

FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (UK)

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've really ummed and ahhed over nominating this article. Do I really want to be known as that guy who literally spent his free time writing a Wikipedia article about sexy women? Well, whatever, I think it's basically at FL standard, so why not? The layout of this article is largely based on NME's Cool List (currently a FL). I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

• list needs a section on those present multiple times in top10. Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Does the article really need that? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid. I can maybe see including a section on who has featured in the most Top 100s, but why just the Top 10s? If some other source listed that information, then I'd be okay with including it, but, as it is, I'm concerned that it skates a little too close to original research for me. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

Resolved comments from Freikorp (talk)

• Some kind of coverage on people who have been listed multiple times (regardless of whether it's top 10 or top 100) would be interesting. However, it's not the kind of thing I would withhold support over.

• Added into the prose that Kelly Brook has been listed in the Top 10 more than anyone else. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Subsequent winners included the Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova" - Is there any reason why Anna is mentioned in the lead? I mean, as opposed to all the other people who have won. I get mentioning the first and last winner, and I get mentioning Berry and Lopez since there's some commentary about their wins. Mentioning Anna for no apparent reason seems a bit selective to me.

• I guess it was a bit selective. I just picked her because I didn't want it to seem like only Brits and Americans had topped the list. Now replaced with Cheryl Cole – is that any better? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly this seems to be much of a muchness; now I'm wondering why Cheryl Cole is being mentioned in the lead considering there doesn't appear to be anything unique about her entry either. I won't withhold support over this though.

• I was thinking that she's the only other person to top the listing more than once. I've added a note to clarify this. Thank you for the support, Freikorp! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Lopez was the first to top it more than once" - Is she still the only person to have topped it more than once? This should be clarified to the reader.

• Couldn't find a decent way to work this into the lead, so have added a note at the bottom. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since Kimberly Stewart has her own Wikipedia article, I see no reason to introduce her as Rod Stewart's daughter in the lead

• Changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "former features editor" - just clarifying this is correct? I note it could be but thought it may have been a typo of "featured" also

• I've rewatched the documentary that Daubney featured in, and the on-screen title introduces him as the "Features editor". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• 'FHM also occasionally published a "Most Eligible Bachelorettes"' - I wouldn't say they published it occasionally, i'd say they published it for two consecutive years.

• Replaced "occasionally" with "twice". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks really good. Will be happy to support this once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review, Freikorp! Apologies for the delay in addressing your comments. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors these comments have been here three or so weeks without any response, would you like to address them or should I archive the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence, comments now addressed. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks great overall. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks great overall. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Support although it's worth clarifying why Cheryl is mentioned in the lead (second multi-time winner). Until you realise that, it seems a bit random that she's picked out for special mention.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, Chris. I've added a note to the lead to clarify this – is this an improvement? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• In ref 1, 23 and 34, FHM is piped to a redirect.
  • My reading of WP:NOPIPE is that piping to redirects can be acceptable. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Make sure all the images have alt text.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think their should be a caption for the FHM image.
  • I had considered this, but the only caption that would be appropriate would be something like "FHM logo". But the image is obviously a logo, and it says FHM, so it seemed to me that a caption like that would be a little redundant. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)

Lead

• Cheryl Cole used only "Cheryl" as her stage name now, so this should be revised
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• is the actress Gal Gadot. → Maybe it's worth mentioning her nationality
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• to celebrate qualities such as "talent, star quality and cash" → quotes in the lead always need a citation
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• To commemorate the 10th → numbers under 11 should be written out, so it should be "tenth" here
  • MOS:NUMERAL says that numbers under 10 should be written out as words. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• two one-off charts → this is vague a vague term
  • Linked "one-off" to its entry on Wiktionary. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• to recognise the sexiest women up to those points → you should somehow clarify that the lists were decade-end and all-time charts, respectively
  • I can't find any decent way to phrase that. How would you write that sentence? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I really don't know either lol, but that's not that relevant, I think. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Rachel Stevens → nationality
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• The image of FHM's logo shouldn't be used in this article per WP:FUR, which implies that logos should only be used in the articles about the organizations (in this case magazines) they belong to.
  • According to the licensing description for this image over at Wikimedia Commons, the logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality, since it consists only of simple geometric shapes or text, so it can be used in Wikipedia articles. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Are you sure the final printed issue was distributed in January 2016? The FHM article says it was in December 2015; just asking...
  • I'll look into that and get back to you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History

• The first 100 Sexiest Women list was published in 1995, and was compiled exclusively by a panel of 250 judges; the German supermodel Claudia Schiffer topped the inaugural list → To avoid word repetition: The first 100 Sexiest Women list, compiled excusively by a panel of 250 judges, was published in 1995 topped by the German supermodel Claudia Schiffer.
  •  Done Replaced second "list" with "chart" to avoid repitition. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• with its companion issue → what is a "companion issue"? Maybe I'm dumb, but I never heard of this term
  • The issue that was dedicated to the list. How would you phrase this? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • It's actually okay now that you've explained it to me. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Porter was placed at number eight in the chart → Porter was placed at number eight in that year's chart (to further clarify which year we're in)
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• The first person to top the 100 Sexiest list more than once → Why is there no "...Women" anymore?
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• nationality and occupation of Jennifer Lopez
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Link "Anna Kournikova" and "Halle Berry"
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• the most successful poll to that point → how do you define "successful" here?
  • The most votes were cast. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Brook has been featured in the Top 10 → Brook has been featured in the top ten
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• the androgynous model Andrej Pejic → I think transgender is a more well-known term for readers (for me as well)
  • This is obviously a delicate issue. At the time, Pejic wasn't identifying as female (not openly, at least). She was working (and was promoted) as an androgynous male model, so none of the sources at the time described her as transgender. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe the nationality of Pejic is relevant
  • Hmm.... "androgynous Australian model" or "Australian androgynous model"? That seems like one too many adjectives to me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• when the entry's accompanying blurb → by "blurb", do you mean something like a paragraph about the nominee? If so, then please reword this if possible
  • Yes, that's right. "Blurb" now wikilinked. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

100 Sexiest Women winners

• Cheryl Cole is known as simply "Cheryl" nowadays, so that should be revised
• Also, Beyoncé Knowles is known as only "Beyoncé"
  • In both these cases (and others), I've listed the top tens based on how the women were known at the time (e.g. Louise Nurding until 1998, Louise Redknapp onwards; Cheryl Tweedy until 2006, Cheryl Cole onwards). This is how the women were named in all the sources detailing that year's list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Most Eligible Bachelorettes

• Unlike the 100 Sexiest Women list, the list also considered → change "the list" to "this list" to make it clear which list we're talking about
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Link "sex appeal" to sexual attraction
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Link "Mischa Barton" and "Kimberly Stewart"
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Anniversary lists

• to mark the anniversary of the 100 Sexiest Women → plural, since there were two anniversaries
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• published a list of the 50 sexiest women → better wording: "published a list ranking the 50 sexiest women..."
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• On learning the result, she remarked: "To win this award feels absolutely amazing. ... It's brilliant." → This winning reaction is not really relevant to the article and should be removed
  • I dunno, I just felt that it provided some context to how the winner felt about receiving the honour, and therefore was somewhat relevant. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes

• You should link Jennifer Lopez and Chery here
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• As previously stated, it should be "Cheryl" instead of "Cheryl Cole"
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• @A Thousand Doors: These are my comments. The list is of a very good quality, and things I've noticed were often minorites. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the review, Cartoon network freak! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: After my issues have been solved, I'm ready to support this list for promotion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I don't like the frameless, captionless icon at the top of the page. It would be better to have the current holder of the title rather than the relatively meaningless icon. How about both? The way I see it, the logo is free to use and is an easy way to identify the magazine, so we may as well make use of it while we have it available to us. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) "annual listing compiled by the ... magazine FHM. The list is compiled by the magazine each year based" you've basically said the same thing twice. Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) "...a 60 ft naked image of Gail Porter (pictured)..." -> "...a 60 ft (18 m) naked image of Gail Porter (pictured)..."  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Andreja Pejić appears to have an a and a diacritic. This is obviously a very delicate issue. My thinking was guided by Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification, which concluded that, outside of biographies, articles should default to the historic name and gender that the person was known by at the time. In 2011, Pejić was known as Andrej, hence why I've used that particular name there. Fixed the diacritic, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) I would have thought there was a very good argument for a fair use image of Porter projected on the Palace of Westminster... Okay, I'll look into that and see if I can find an appropriate image. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Emmanuelle Beart has an accent.  Done Jordan is piped to a redirect. I've had a couple of people make this kind of comment, but I really don't see why it's such an issue. My reading of WP:NOPIPE is that piping to redirects is acceptable. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Cheryl Tweedy/Cheryl Cole need to be piped consistently and correctly. Same thinking as with Pejić – Tweedy/Cole was how the individual was known at the time. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Marissa Miller has just one s in her first name.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC) You could easily make the images larger since the 2 to 10 places make each row depth quite substantial.  Done Daily Mail is not considered a WP:RS. Replaced all except two references. I'll do a bit more research and come back to them. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review, The Rambling Man! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:02, 10 August 2018 (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.