Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2016

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement

Nominator(s): PresN 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, we're closing in on finishing up the World Fantasy Awards with this 9th World Fantasy Award list, #35 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This award list is pretty self-explanatory: a "lifetime" achievement award category; notable quirks are that the recipients don't have to be dead/retired (or even close to done with their career), that the winner is announced when the nominees of the other categories are, and that since 2000 it's been traditional to give out two awards per year, generally to an author and a non-author. The WFAs give no reasons for the winners but a list of names is boring, so I've added fantasy works the winner had done prior to winning, a la FLs Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor, John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. The formatting on this list is functionally identical to the other sci-fi/fantasy award lists, and especially so to the other WFA lists, and comments from prior FLCs have been incorporated here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments from FrB.TG "The panel of judges is typically made up of fantasy authors[6] and" – you have used comma throughout the article before "and". This should be no different. Done. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Could you decrease the width of entries in year? Pretty much unnecessary. Done. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I would use {{Abbr}} for Ref. Done. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I don't think the date format seen in references is acceptable in Wikipedia. Could you use the "18 January 2015" or "January 18, 2015" formats? MOS:DATEFORMAT, bottom row of the table. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I know but don't you think it is a little bit outdated? Have not seen it in recent time. -- Frankie talk 09:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC) @FrB.TG: It's certainly a little unusual, but I've used it now for 13 FAs and 49 FLs, and it is a valid date format in references. Though amusingly, I saw it being used on another FLC in the queue just yesterday, though they also had it in the list body. --PresN 15:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Who publishes The Guardian (ref 1)? "Guardian News and Media" - same issue as your next point. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Ref 2 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." I don't see a need for Star Publications as it is pretty much same as The Star. Dropped. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Can't it simply be World Fantasy Awards in source 5? World Fantasy Awards is the name of the awards; the name of the actual organization is the World Fantasy Awards Administration. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Ref 6 – I would probably remove Tor Books and link it to Tor.com. Done. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) -- Frankie talk 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Addressed all your points, replied inline. --PresN 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – well done and happy new year. -- Frankie _talk 15:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• " Individuals are also eligible for the Special Award—Professional and Special Award—Non-professional categories for their work in a given year not tied to a specific achievement." Several issues: 1. This seems out of place. The para is on the life award, here you go away from it and then come back in the next sentence. 2 Why mention these particular awards? Are individuals not eligible for other awards? If so, you should say so. 3. The word "categories" seems superfluous. 4. What does "a given year" mean? The previous year?
• "before voting on the overall winner." "winners"?
• "but at the 2015 ceremony it was announced that the award would not be made in future years". Presumably the statuette not the award - they were not ending the award altogether?
• These points are minor. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just cut the sentence
• Specified that its the winner of each category
• Clarified that its the statuette that's being dropped, not the category
• Thanks for reviewing Dudley Miles, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. --PresN 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Sounds odd and a little pathetic, but rather than pipelink to "art" I would pipelink to "fantasy art" in the opening sentence. I know it repeats "fantasy" but it's important to distinguish it from simply "art". "The World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement is given each year to individuals for their lifetime achievements in fields related to fantasy." I'm reminded of Basil Fawlty suggesting that Sybil should use "stating the bleeding obvious" as her specialist subject on Mastermind. Can we do anything more creative than this? "retired from their career" any need for "from their career"? "in view of his racism" while not a BLP, it's worth clarifying exactly what this means with copious citations. "18 years have..." per MOS, avoid starting sentences with numerals. " typically two, though 5 " MOSNUM, "2, though 5" or "two, though five"... The See also is already linked, first sentence of the lead, so not needed there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Done Changed to "for their overall career in fields related to fantasy" (I kind of wanted to use "oeuvre", but that doesn't really include publishing/editing work) Done This is exactly why I didn't want to talk about the not-officially-stated reason why the statuette got dropped in the category lists, and instead leave it up to the whole section at World Fantasy Award, but I let the reviewers sweet-talk me into it a list or two ago. Dropped that sentence; the only way to really do it justice would give it way too weight in the lead. Unscrambled the sentence Done Done @The Rambling Man: Responded to all points. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Very informative and complete list, well sourced. I am concerned with MOS:ACCESS on the table (Specifically having row headers which allow screen readers to understand which year is tied with what), however; I don't have the ability to test it at this time... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 02:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments

Lead

• "These have included authors, editors, and publishers." - I don't think everyone on the list falls in those categories. Ex. Frank Franzetta - who is an artist. The list makes it sound definitive.
• "and a panel of five judges adds three or more nominees before voting on the overall winner of each category." - Who votes on the winners? I read it first as the panel of five judges, but earlier in that same paragraph it states "winners are decided by attendees and judges at the annual World Fantasy Convention." I think it would help to clarify which it is.

Table

• So with this being a mix of authors and "others" would it make sense to actually have something to indicate if each recipient is an author, editor, publisher etc as part of the list?

Sources

• Is the "Science Fiction Awards Database" a Reliable source??

That's all the issues I have seen, overall it's in great shape.  MPJ-US  02:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Added "for example"

• Works for me

• Adjusted the first sentence to say that the attendees/judges pick the nominees; the judges are the ones who vote for the winner from the nominees.

• Definitely clearer now.

• Unfortunately it would be a mess; there's an awful lot of winners who were well-known for their editing but also wrote a book or two, or who edited a bunch of stuff and then founded a publishing house. It's impossible to say what they were most known for at the time of winning the award, and really hard to narrow it down even from a modern perspective. The whole column would be OR, and I'm stretching the line by including the "works they were known for" column, which does imply that somewhat.

• I see the challenge that presents, I agree it's better to not do that in this case.

• Yes, it's a project by Locus, the biggest sci-fi/fantasy magazine/trade journal there is. It used to be hosted on their website, but now it's on its own.

• Excellent, thank you.

@MPJ-DK: Responded below; I'll try to get to your FLC when I get a chance. --PresN 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@PresN: All good additions, I am going to say Support at this point in time. really great work.  MPJ-US  03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying.

• There have been problems found in other reviews by this IP: review struck for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Right, the referencing is pretty perfect, so I'm going to make some really nitpicky points.

• Most newspapers sources just have the work (#1, #2, #7), but the Chicago Tribune reference (#3) also lists a publisher. Is there any particular reason for the difference?
• For ref #4 the retrieved date should probably be updated to match the archived date. (I don't see a problem if the retrieval date is newer than the archived date though.)
• Ref #19 has "pp. 448–449." while #20 has "pp. 994–5." – be consistent.
• Spotchecks reveal no copyvio or close paraphrasing, and in each case the source provides the information cited in the article. My very picky points aside, all looks good. Harrias ^talk 10:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Removed Tribune publisher
• Done
• Fixed (994-995)
• @Harrias: Done, thank you! --PresN 14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support on sources – To be honest, given how picky my points were, I was happy enough to support anyway, but all the better now! Harrias ^talk 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor additional source points:

• The two books will need locations for publishers
• FN2 probably needs a location – there are too many papers called The Star for easy identification

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Both done, though I personally feel that book publisher locations are entirely superfluous, given the modern global/online economy. That a publisher is headquartered in New York City does not prevent a curious reader in Scotland from getting their eyes on the text, or vice versa. --PresN 16:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on this article to completely overhauled its lead (and some major changes throughout the article) and make it a better standalone list of all Taylor Swift's songs. I believe it overall meets the featured list criteria. It is likely to have glitches, which I will fix if I notice - by myself or reviewers. Any comment on the list from anyone will be very much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

;Comments by shaidar cuebiyar I haven't looked at the list... I have a query about the nomination process: according to instructions, "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Don't you already have a list being reviewed?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC) The other nomination already has enough supports and all of the concerns raised have been addressed so I think it's okay. Thanks for your comment though. -- Frankie talk 08:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Okay, then. On with this review. Overuse of "song(s)" in ¶1s3: there are four of them! "without any co-writer" > "without any co-writers" ? "who also managed her first three albums" does "managed", here, mean he worked as her talent manager or that he was her record producer? Perhaps "recorded" would work better? In regards to 1989, was Chapman also producing? Current wording implies there are no other producers. "reached number-one" > "reached number one" Being used as a noun, includes a hard space. Notes: 2 Overuse of "feature". 4 "support" 4 "version" 7 ref needed for "starred in" vs "appeared in" 8 Change hyphen to a dash.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 08:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support ~– Well done Frankie.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now File:Taylor Swift Red Tour 2, 2013.jpg isn't an ideal pic since it doesn't give a very clear view of Taylor's eyes The lead needs to mention more non-singles (I currently count only one); this isn't supposed to be a singles discography Nothing on her EPs Sounds of the Season or Beautiful Eyes? When saying she "wrote three of the album's songs", you may as well mention them all. Same goes for "contributed two songs". I added all of the three songs for the first one but have decided to let the other one be as is 'cause it might increase the length of the lede. Trust me, adding "Jump Then Fall" and "Eyes Open" won't increase the lead too much. We also don't need to state that "Our Song" and "Should've Said No" are singles here. Removing that bit would help prevent detail overload. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Original release" should just say "album" "Jump Then Fall" was included on the Valentine's Day soundtrack, which should be noted within the tables There are stray brackets in the "Long Live" single release's slot Sorry, but I am failing to see ones. Looking through again, they're in the caption for Paula Fernandes' photo Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Deluxe edition" and "Platinum edition" don't need to be linked; those bits should only be in parentheses "Best Days of Your Life" shouldn't be listed when she wasn't credited as a vocalist This has potential to meet standards, but isn't there yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comments SNUGGUMS, much appreciated. All of them have been addressed, I hope. -- Frankie talk 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Almost. In addition to the above responses, Beautiful Eyes still isn't even mentioned in the lead, Kellie Pickler's pic serves no purpose here now that "Best Days of Your Life" is removed, ref#4 needs to be replaced as it's just a Google Books link to Billboard without any noticeable commentary on her work, and I've now noticed that the "b", "c", "d", and "e" notes in the "notes" section are uncited. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Provided sources where necessary, removed some unnecessary footnotes filled with trivia and resolved the rest. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Support good work improving this Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support from an IP - Good work Frankie! 1.52.124.206 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I know there was a lot of work that went into this, but do you think it meets the FL criteria? This isn't the first one-line support I've noticed recently from an IP, and this behavior is attracting increased attention in the FL community. If you don't want your supports discounted, I'd suggest making an increased effort to review against the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Thanks for noting that. Actually I was also initially concerned about the IP's support but this IP also reviewed my previous nomination (not sure whether they are the same), and also made some good points. Given that, I am not sure if we need to be concerned about the IP's support as they might review lists against FL criteria, before giving a one-line support. -- Frankie _talk 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments The first sentence could be better, let the reader know a bit more about Taylor Swift than her albums You got me on this one. Any suggestion? "Swift wrote three of the album's tracks alone; "Our Song", "Should've Said No", and "The Outside". She co-wrote the remaining eight with writers Liz Rose, Robert Ellis Orrall, Brian Maher and Angelo Petraglia." -> Swift wrote three of the album's tracks; "Our Song", "Should've Said No", and "The Outside", the remaining eight were co-written with writers Liz Rose, Robert Ellis Orrall, Brian Maher and Angelo Petraglia. "In 2007, Swift released..." -> Swift released her first extended play (EP), Sounds of the Season:The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, in 2007..." will finish up later, busy now. NapHit (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Looking forward to it. -- Frankie talk 18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC) More "She provided guest vocals for Tim McGraw's "Highway Don't Care", which features guitar work by Keith Urban, and performed "Sweeter Than Fiction" for the One Chance soundtrack album." I would mention the year this happened, it just feels like its been slapped on to the end and doesn't really fit in with the rest of the paragraph. Shellback's image is missing alt text ref 3 needs an en dash same for ref 15 and 30 NapHit (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) All good now, thanks for your comments. -- Frankie talk 17:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments a good list. "who also recorded her first three albums" is this referenced? In fact, all mentions of "producers" probably need inline referencing because they're not mentioned in the table. Is it, therefore, even worth mentioning them if they're not included in the list itself? There is no particular reason for not including producers in the list; I just based it on FLs of its kind. I think completely ditching it is not quite a good idea either. "first documented official pop album" that quote has a comma after the documented in the source, plus I always thought we added inline citations directly after quotations? Yep, but the source is for the whole sentence, and not just the quote. When sorting by Song, the second Bad Blood disappears off somewhere... Our article calls it "Speak Now World Tour – Live" rather than "Speak Now: World Tour Live"... Any reason we have "Taylor Swift" and "Taylor Swift songs" as categories? Surely the latter supersedes the former? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. -- Frankie talk 20:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from GagaNutella

• Support: This list looks amazing. I just came here to give you one suggestion. Change the colors for "#BFFFC0" for the singles, pastel yellow for the promotional singles, and let purple for songs that are written just by Tay. She is great composer and you should highlight it. GagaNutella^talk 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• PS: Few things to fix according to her discography: the second "Bad Blood" add (Remix Version); "Out of the Woods" is a single; "Crazier" and "Breathe" are not promotional singles; "If This Was a Movie", "Superman", "The Moment I Knew", "Come Back... Be Here", "Girl at Home", "Wonderland", "You Are in Love", and "New Romantics" are promotional singles. GagaNutella^talk 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed them. Thank you for your comments and support, much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Looks good overall; these are my edits. Feel free to revert if you don't agree. Might be worth mentioning in the caption what year that photo of Taylor Swift is from. "The album's tracks include "Breathe" and "The Way I Loved You"." -> I don't get it, what's so significant about these two tracks in particular? It is not a requirement for tracks to be "significant" in these types of lists since, as I previously noted, this isn't supposed to be a singles discography. In this case, they are listed because they are new tracks not previously included on other releases. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) It would be worth mentioning that then. Just put something like "... "Breathe" and "The Way I Loved You", which had not previously featured on any of Swift's releases.", or whatever phrasing you'd prefer. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Noted Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not a massive fan of the way of sentences that just drily list names. Is it really necessarly to name all eight new producers and all seven writers that she worked with on Red, or all ten people she collaborate with on 1989? It just makes for much less interesting prose. "The Last Time" moves down to T when the table is sorted alphabetically. "Mean" needs be above "Mine". Per WP:SEEALSO, links in navboxes (e.g. Taylor Swift discography) don't need to be included in See Also sections. Spached em dashes ( — ) need to be en dashes ( – ). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Many thanks for your comments that I addressed in timely manner. -- Frankie talk 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support No other concerns from me. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from  — Calvin999

• I think it's superfluous to include (Cover) and (Live). But if you are going to keep them, then for for "Bette Davis Eyes" I would include both words in one set of parenthesis, not separate.
• I would advise against including songs which have been record live such as at a concert. That means recorded on camera, not audio recording, and I doubt she recorded a version in the studio. Also, technically every track whether hers or a cover would have been recorded, but you've only picked out new ones.

If she just randomly sang songs live (such as the ones she has been singing at her 1989 Concert), I would not include them but she has released an album for that so I think it's worth adding.

• Songs were albums appear on two albums I would use an "&" somewhere just for differentiation.

These points aren't enough for me to oppose or abstain though, so you have my Support anyway :). I'm surprised it hasn't been promoted already.  — Calvin999 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- Frankie _talk 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Source Check by PresN

• You're using the amazon-specific number (ASIN) as the "ID" in several references. That's... no. ID is a universal thing, not a store-specific id number; for e.g. ref 3, the Beautiful Eyes EP, that would be the catalog number by the publisher- BMRATS0140. Or you could leave it out, its not essential.
• Why do the album liner notes refs only have a release year, and not a full release date?

I believe that's not quite necessary just like we only add the year to a film. It's also based on FLs of its kind.

• You're kind of spotty as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you never link (MTV, Billboard, iTunes). It's not a big deal, but you should be consistent
• Consider archiving the online references you haven't already so that linkrot doesn't mess up your references, thereby unciting content or causing you extra work later on.

I have archived one of them. Will do the rest later.

• Spotchecks: refs 5, 13, 19, 29. Two issues:
  • ref 19, used for one song's row in the table, does not contain what the writers of the song were. I suspect that's an issue with many rows in the table that are cited to iTunes/Rhapsody. Is the cite only intended to cover that the song was included on the album/artist/year specified, and not cover the writing credits? Or are the writing credits present in the iTunes link and I missed them?

The Rhapsody reference does mention Tom Petty but not specifically as the performer or songwriter "American Girl" (as he is both) so I believe that one is safe to use.

• • ref 29 is used to cite ""Today was a Fairytale" was first released as a single from the soundtrack to the film Valentine's Day (2010), in which Swift starred.", but it only contains that Swift was in the movie, not that the song was first released as a single from the movie soundtrack.

So, minor issues, shouldn't be too hard to fix them- just watch out for playing it a little loose on references for facts that you know are true, but aren't completely covered by the ref. --PresN 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review. Fixed 'em. :) -- Frankie _talk 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, the AllMusic refs are better than the iTunes ones. Source review: Passed. --PresN 21:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry

Nominator(s): Frankie _{talk and Snuggums (talk / edits)} 21:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This list was to featured list back in October 2008 but somehow things did not work out and was demoted in June 2009 due to criteria change. I have been working on it on on-and-off-again basis and have finally been able to make it here. I have modeled the list based on recently promoted lists by me -- accolades by Taylor Swift, Adele and Lady Gaga. I believe the list meets the featured list criteria and I would appreciate comments for further improving the list. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 21:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I added myself as co-nom since I'm also a major contributor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support from an IP - Good work, but this list have 1 dead link you should fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.52.120.50 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, IP. I've fixed the link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1.52.120.50, why would you support a list when it had a dead link at the time? I understand that a lot of work went into making the article, but it's hard to think the list met the featured list criteria at the time of the review if there was a dead link. One of the nominators thankfully took care of the issue, but try to wait for the article to meet the criteria before supporting next time, or your support may not be given much weight. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like it meets the criteria. Sources are reliable, and there is a good amount of information, everything appears to be sourced. Good work to everyone who worked on the article. Everything I was able to find earlier from quick skims last month, was fixed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Joseph :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

====Comments from Birdienest81==== *Shouldn't Super Bowl XLIX halftime show should be wikilinked under Emmy Awards and delinked under Guiness World Records since the Emmy Awards were listed first before the other one? Just curious. --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Links swapped Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Anything else of concern, Birdienest81? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC) The Huffington Post link could be replaced by these links ([4], [5])since the description in the intro is about the awards themselves and not about Perry winning them. Also this link from the International Business Times could be used to indicate Perry's nomination since the current citation does not indicate it. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Replaced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support: No other pressing issues found.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Birdie :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella

Comments from GagaNutella Billboard to Billboard Awards; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Delete the (") from Prismatic Tour; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Echo Awards to ECHO Awards; Stylizations are not used anywhere except main article (if at all) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I just raised this point because in the title it was not stylized and in its description it was. GagaNutellatalk 03:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Glamour Women of the Year Awards to Glamour Awards; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Myx to MYX; See previous comment on stylizations Oye! Awards and Premios Oye!, you need to decide which one you're gonna use. I prefer Premios Oye!; Went with "Premois Oye!" Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Awesome. Now that you changed it, you need to put in order. Don't forget the infobox :) GagaNutellatalk 04:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Italic Q Awards in its description; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Not in italic: refs #44, #46 and #58; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Add publisher/work: ref #112; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Add access date: refs #129 and #140; done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Refs #163 and #192 are not reliable, please change it; done not sure how those previously went undetected >__< Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) In the "Award" section, do not use rowspan: ASCAP Pop Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, Brit Awards, Capricho Awards, Echo Awards, Grammy Awards, Juno Awards, MTV Italian Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards Japan, MuchMusic Video Awards, MYX Music Awards, Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Argentina, NME Awards, NRJ Music Awards, Premios 40 Principales, Premios Juventud, Oye! Awards, The Record of the Year, and Virgin Media Music Awards.  Question: is there any guideline or project recommendation against its use for awards? I haven't seen anything of the sort, but please do tell if there is. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) You can see it at MOS:TABLES. GagaNutellatalk 03:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Note that rowspan is discouraged by WP:FILMOGRAPHY as we use sortable table there wich creates accessiblity issue. There is no discouragement on non-sortable table. -- Frankie talk 08:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Even SNUGGUMS, one day, did it. And I think this way is more comprehensive. GagaNutellatalk 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella: in that case I don't see any reason for the existence of rowspan if it is discouraged everywhere. I don't see anything wrong with usage of rowspan since it does not create any accessibility issue. In fact repeating the same thing over and over again can be exhausting and can increase an article's size. -- Frankie talk 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC) That's it. GagaNutellatalk 01:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC) GagaNutella, have a look now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from shaidar cuebiyar

1. For each award, the organisation that presents the award should be cited. Any information about the award written in each subsection should be cited such as when it was first given, for what, how the recipient is determined.

Yup, as you can see, I have cited sources on introductory lines on awards.

For some awards the article does not provide any information on: When were they first awarded? How the recipient is determined?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one "should" add these info as I don't find them necessary at all. A one or two-liner introduction should be okay and as for these info they can be found in their respective articles.

Okay.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

1. The APRA Awards (Australia) are co-presented by APRA and AMCOS: the latter organisation has been ignored from the lead-in sentence, it should also be in the publisher for the ref.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Thanks for your concern, now addressed. -- Frankie _talk 09:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

APRA and AMCOS are separate, but related organisations, the APRA article does not even mention AMCOS so I don't see any advantage in linking to it.

Both initialisms are unlikely to be as familiar as say, MTV, and so should be spelled out for the casual reader in the lead-in sentence.

The songwriters, as well as the artist, are recipients – they have not been mentioned.

Finally the year of the award should be linked to its WP article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have added the song as the nominated work not Perry or the songwriters so it makes sense to not add the songwriters as well as Perry's name. -- Frankie _talk 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

However, the Lead-in sentence says "to honor outstanding music artists and songwriters of the year" and whilst Perry is the music artist (and is rightly acknowledged as such) the songwriters have been ignored. Without them being given, a casual reader may believe that Perry herself is the songwriter, too. I see this as misleading, at least, or even a contradiction of the lead-in sentence.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, mentioned them in a footnote. -- Frankie _talk 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. According to the source, the song is an adaptation of one originally written by B Wilson and M Love, these two songwriters should also be acknowledged and wL. I've just checked at an ASCAP ACE title search: eight songwriters are given (including Wilson and Love). APRA's own website, also, has all eight (see here).

Neither of the initialisms are spelled out: what does APRA and AMCOS stand for? Most of the surrounding awards have organisations with initialisms, which are spelled out e.g. AMA, ARIA, ASCAP.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Added songwriters. Also, APRA stands for Australasian Performing Right Association, but I couldn't find anything on AMCOS. Removed the AMCOS bit for now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

AMCOS are the Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society: they provide the data for performance awards. They should have their own WP article but I'm busy with other work.

• Additionally, I've just noticed a problem with the infobox tally. The APRA Award nom is presented as a win.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, added the full form of AMCOS. -- Frankie _talk 22:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support –– Well done, Frankie and Snuggums.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose' "the former's music video gained five MTV Video Music Award nominations." gained is a strange word to use here, I would simply use received "Among other honors..." this shouldn't be included as it adds nothing to the prose. Removing this make the sentence read better "Her third album Teenage Dream became..." commas needed after album and Dream "and "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)"—[1] for which she received a 2011 honorary American Music Award and a 2013 Guinness World Record." Firstly, I think this sentence needs a reference. Secondly, it's unclear whether this is referring to the album or the song They are sourced in the main body of the article and does not to be repeated in the lead per WP:LEAD. It is referring to the feat she has achieved, which is quite clear, I think. "The album was nominated for six Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year and Record of the Year for "Firework", and won the Juno Award for International Album of the Year." ref? Per above. "Perry led the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards with ten nominations..." Again, I don't think led is the right word to use here, it's not a race. Change to Perry received the most nominations at the 2011 MYV Video Music Awards with ten "In 2012, Billboard magazine declared her the "Woman of the Year"." Is there are a particular reason why she won this award? Would benefit the reader if it was made clear. ref 188 is missing a date and does support the claim that it is referencing "is an inaugural music award show presented by YouTube." This doesn't make sense, inaugural refers to the beginning of something, there has been more than one award show. All of the concerns addressed until here and the ref for the Teen Choice Awards replaced. I or @SNUGGUMS: (please try to find substitutes for ref 181 and 203 as I am failing to find ones) will try to resolved the remaining ones. -- Frankie talk 14:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC) does ref 81, a book called critical thinking in biology, really provide a description of what the Guinness World Records are about? I find that hard to believe. Yes, it does. Please read p 44; the whole page is about Guinness: "Guinness World Records is one source of well documented observations..." ref 181 doesn't support the claim ref 190 doesn't support the claim made, nowhere does it say anything about being voted by people aged between 13 and 19 again ref 203, doesn't support the claim in the prose It's quite concerning that there are already a number of supports, when it appears that there a few fundamental issues with this list. NapHit (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) NapHit, how does it look now? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's better now, but a lot of these issues were basic and should have been picked up earlier, especially with the list already having numerous supports. Ref 190 is not formatted properly, I'll remain neutral for now, as I want to see what other reviewers have to say. NapHit (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Congrats, this list looks great. GagaNutella^talk 16:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks to you :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Discrepancy between the lead "92" and infobox "91". Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Facepalm how embarrassing..... I could've sworn I did before, but now they both say 92 Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Guinness records italicised in the infobox, not in the lead. Removed italics since they refer to the award in this case and not the book Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "became the best-selling album in Poland in 2009" not sure why that's relevant here. Removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "a 2013 Guinness World Record" since when did World Records happen annually? Since 1955 Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Nope, the book is published annually, perhaps you meant a world record was set in 2013? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) While the record itself was achieved in August 2011, it was apparently ineligible for the book's 2012 edition and was included in the 2013 edition. I suppose it could be removed from the lead given that she actually got attention for the honorary AMA back in November 2011 but not for Guinness. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "A single "Wide Awake"" why not "Her single"? Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) No need to abbreviate IFPI, you never use it. Removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Channel V or Channel [V]? Channel V Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Premios 40 or Los Premios 40? Los Premios 40 Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) The Radio Academy or The Radio Academy Awards? Radio Academy Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Well now you have "The Radio Academy" and "Radio Academy". Please slow down and take care to fix all these properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Removed "the" Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) No need for AMCOS abbreviation, not used. Removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Why is the BRIT award sponsor important? Removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Don't think you need a link for music industry down at the Grammy section. Unlinked Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) You don't exactly win world records, you break them, hold them, but you don't "win" them. "Receive", maybe? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "5 awards from 37 nominations." vs "six awards from thirty nominations", I understand this just about squeaks by MOS, but the internal inconsistency is annoying. Went with word form Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Particularly when you go on to have " fourteen awards from twenty-four nominations." See above point Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "Perry has won one award from three nominations." nope, four noms (Premois Oye!). Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Is it "The Most Played Artist on British Radio" or just "Most Played Artist on British Radio"? No "the" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "has become the leading organization" reads like an advert (particularly as this is sourced to the organization's own website!) Replaced with "is an organization" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC) A few things to address here before the impressive support can be converted into a gold star. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your input, The Rambling Man. Take another look. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

*I would check the awards description is matched by the reference. Should be good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Billboard Japan award description has no reference. Added Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) MTV Video Awards Japan description makes the bold statement that it was created due to the unique musical variety of Japan, which I can't find in the source. It also seems to be straight copied from the main article which is the case for other awards descriptions as well. The danger of this is that many of the descriptions in the other articles are not referenced or a different reference is used in this list. e.g. People's Choice, Premios Juventud. Should be good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "The Myx Music Awards is an annual awards show in the Philippines that honors the year's both Filipino and International Music". I think this needs to be rephrased. Reworded Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) People's Choice Award description is not supported by the reference I think. Should also mention that it is voted on by the public. Fixed Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Not sure her fan following (Katycats) winning an award counts as an award that she received. That blue link for People's Choice for Best Fan Following is also a redirect. It counts as she is listed as a winner, though I could use her name in place of her fanbase if desired Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Premios Juventud reference doesn't specify that it's for Spanish speaking celebrities. Removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) List has got invalid ISSN numbers. Replaced both references with ISSN's Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) The iHeart source doesn't list Katy Perry as being nominated for those awards in 2014. Cowlibob (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Resourced Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Have another look, Cowlibob. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aaron

• I think the opening paragraph is too U.S. centric. I know she's American, but I think say adding the Brit Awards to it would be nice too.
• Two singles from the album—"I Kissed a Girl" and "Hot n Cold"—were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance → In two separate years, no? Maybe I'm being too picky...

Apart from that, I can't see why this list shouldn't be promoted. Support.  — Calvin999 10:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999, I think Brit Awards weren't included cause she only won one. But I do agree with you on the second point. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

She's never won a Grammy but that's included.  — Calvin999 10:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Grammys are more notable, and she has been nominated for 13. The Brit Awards seems pretty irrelevant in comparison. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean on this being US-centric, Calvin999, so I used Canada in place of US for "Roar" and "Dark Horse" as they both went number one there as well. Also added BRIT win. Thank you for the support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Who says Grammy's are more notable than Brits? Grammy's aren't more notable to the people of the United Kingdom. The Brits is the British equivalent of the Grammy's. It's not all about America, you know Joseph Prasad. You're lucky you still have my Support and you have Snuggum's to thank for it.  — Calvin999 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

More: However, I envisioned the following "She has also been nominated for 13 Grammy Awards, 4 Radio Disney Music Awards and 4 Brit Awards (winning one)." The opening paragraph is still U.S. centric.  — Calvin999 17:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The other nominee is FrB.TG, just saying. Added ARIA, Brit, Juno, Myx, NRJ, and Q Awards to lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I assumed by how he said it he was your co-nom. Either way, my point still stands for Joseph. The world does not revolve around American industry and many people would take issue with what he said. I hope he learns from this. This is a really good list and I it will be promoted. I nominated one too today if you get time Snuggums.  — Calvin999 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I do feel it looks better now with more non-U.S. accolades to show diversity. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's always best to, otherwise people might think she never got nominated for outside the U.S.  — Calvin999 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Very good point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999, when I said more notable, I did not mean one Grammy is more notable than one Brit. I meant being nominated for 13 grammys is more notable than winning one Brit. If an act won, say 3 Kids Choice Awards in say, Mexico, but won 10 in the US, what would be more notable? Right, the US ones. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no point trying to change or justify what you meant now, and here isn't the place for it.  — Calvin999 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a beautiful list. I support its promotion to FL status, assuming all concerns raised by other editors are addressed. Great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – With a minor comment, the second notation for "The songwriters, Perry, Lukasz Gottwald, Max Martin, Benjamin Levin, Bonnie McKee, Brian Wilson, Michael Love, and Calvin Broadus, were also nominated" should really be "The songwriters, Perry, Lukasz Gottwald, Max Martin, Benjamin Levin, Bonnie McKee, Brian Wilson, Michael Love, and Calvin Broadus, were nominated". Adding the word also implies there were subsequent others involved whereas it was just the songwriters. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Adjusted accordingly, IndianBio, and thank you for the support :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying. A few issues regarding their accuracy:
• Source 27 does not list the nominees of the 2011 Billboard Awards.
• Source 28 does not support anything the article claims. Neither does source 30.
• Source 166 does say that she won one award at Teen Choice Awards 2011 but not specifically which. There is also no reference for her nominations at the ceremony.
• Ref 167 does list the nominees and winners of TCA 2012 but not Perry's win for Choice Fashion: Red Carpet Fashion Icon Female.

Thanks for the source review. I have fixed every issue listed above. -- Frankie _talk 09:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source review partially struck. There have been problems found in other reviews by this IP: review struck for the moment, although it's probably best to deal with these comments first. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are one or two occurrences of shouty refs that needs sorting (108, 117 and 121, for example, but check for others)
• Check your linking within the sources – Variety is linked on the second instance, not the first
• Check the dashes: FN29 looks like the wrong type

- SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully everything is fixed by now. -- Frankie _talk 16:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Rugby World Cup finals

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after a complete overhaul I now feel this list meets the criteria. I currently have another nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding comments. As always, comments to be dealt with as expediently as possible. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Parutakupiu

Hi NapHit, I already reviewed the page's prose and made some changes that I feel improved its flow and clarity. Also wikilinked some rugby-specific terms that may not be immediately familiar to readers. Regarding other points, here are my comments:

• There's a word missing in "Despite constant from the French for the remainder of the final..." that I could not guess which was during my copyediting. I leave this for you to fill.
• Ref. 7 does not support the 1995 final summary.
• Renaming suggestions:
  • "Results" (section title) → "Finals"
  • "Key to the list of finals" → "Key to colors and symbols"
  • "List of finals matches, their venues and locations, the finalists and final scores" → "List of final matches, and respective venues, finalists and scores"
• (Optional) Maybe move the footnotes content to just below the finals table? It's only two of them, seems little to have a section of its own.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Parutakupiu:, all been addressed. Regarding the key one, I simply changed it to key, don't think anymore is needed, as it's plainly obvious. NapHit (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: maybe you could mention the unfortunate (well, not using this adjective) fact of France losing all three finals in which it participated? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Added @Parutakupiu:. Thanks again. NapHit (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good work, NapHit! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Really good article, lots of information as well as the list itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I found the second paragraph a bit confusing, saying that from 2015 extra time is played when there is a draw after 80 minutes, and then going back to earlier games with extra time. Maybe give the earlier games first and then the 2015 rules.
  • The wording might not be the best, as these have always been the rules. The 'As of 2015' bit is so it is up to date, so to speak, for the reader. Removing this bit might make it a bit clearer and less confusing perhaps. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• "A try by Pierre Berbizier in the final minutes, which was converted by Camberabero, settled New Zealand's victory in the tournament's inaugural final at 29–9." "settled" seems an odd word in this context - maybe "gave a slightly more respectable score of..."
  • Reworded NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• A first rate article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments {[ping|Dudley Miles}}, both comments have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. However, I would remove "As of the 2015 tournament" as it is misleading. If it is needed for the rules, why not elsewhere, such as every sentence in the third paragraph? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

;Comments from FrB.TG

• "They also won the most recent final, hosted in London in 2015" – according to WP:PRECISELANG, you should avoid terms such as "recent". I would probably rephrase it as "They also won the 2015 final, hosted in London."
• "The next Rugby World Cup will be hosted in Japan" – I think you also need to mention the year of final.
• Ref 1 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." I think you should get rid of Guardian Media Group.
• Ref 8 and 16 – ditto: Independent Print Limited and Guardian Media Group, respectively.
• I think wiki-linking the publishers of references on their first occurrences can help the readers with finding about them. (Sure that's a personal opinion which is why I "thought" it might benefit linking them)
  • I think is more personal choice than anything else. Some editors link the publishers others don't. There isn't a guideline about this, so I'm inclined to leave it the way it is. There's no benefit either way really. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Frankie _talk 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @FrB.TG:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – meets FL criteria, good job! -- Frankie _talk 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Per all the Boat Race articles I worked on, best to avoid easter egg links to years so where you have "in 1995, " with 1995 linked, better to say "in the 1995 final" or similar. Worth noting that "back in the day" a try was worth just four points, hence the 9–0 lead which these days would be 10–0 in the 1987 final. "England scored a try in the first minutes of the second half, but Mark Cueto was adjudged to be in touch before scoring and the try was not given" so the first statement isn't true, they didn't score. They had a try disallowed. Possible mention of Mandela's award of the trophy? Final score column doesn't sort properly. "Results by nation" England runners up twice, not once. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the comments @The Rambling Man:, they should have all been taken care of. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The table may be succinct, but the overall article is certainly worthwhile as a FL and will give the expansion of the table following further finals a good starting point. Miyagawa (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source review: All good, as far as I can see. Formatting is as per MoS; the sources used are reliable; all links to external sites are working; spot checks show the information is correct and that there is no plagiarism or close copying. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) [7].

---

80th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am re-nominating the 2008 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. The previous nomination did not result in FL status, because I was unable to keep up with comments due to personal and education issues. I know there is still some concerns, but I will be updating the list within the next two weeks due to my winter break allowing me to make changes before school resumes on January 4. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk 14:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

;Comments from FrB.TG "No Country for Old Men won four awards including Best Picture" → "No Country for Old Men led the ceremony with four awards including Best Picture" just to give an idea of who won the most awards. Done: Replace with phrase above --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Is there any Wikipedia article on Gil Cates, who is mentioned in the ceremony information section? Done: Wikilinked Gil Cates to Gilbert Cates. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) "performance noting that he "earned his keep by maintaining... " – where does this quote end as I don't see a quotation mark to close it. The quotes ends on the next line with the word "screen." --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Is there an explanation for the order of entries in In Memoriam? Is it in chronological order? I am nor sure as I haven't watched the ceremony. Yes, the In Memoriam is listed in order of appearance. Here is a video link. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Wiki-link publishers for ref 2, 3, 13, 24, 26 and 49. Done: Linked publishers to respective articles. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Ref 3 needs an access date. Done: Added access date. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC) De-link the publishers for ref 7 and 44. Done: Delinked publishers. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Remove the link for The New York Times Company in source 9 as it's already linked in source 6. Done: Removed link. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Box Office Mojo in ref 42 and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in ref 57 do not need italics. -- Frankie talk 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Done: Moved to publisher field. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support – nice work, again! -- Frankie _talk 18:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher Few redirects needs to be fixed. Is Voice Over Times a RS? Fox News shouldn't be italised. I think its a typo at ref 30, Los Angelest Times. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @Yashthepunisher: Done: Fixed everything above. I tried fixing the BBC and Filmsite external links, but they don't change from green/blue to white. However, they both work when you click on the actual link. Anyways, thanks for the comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I don't see any green link now, and others are resolved. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments "...honored the best films of 2007 in the United States" well this isn't strictly true, as there is a foreign language film award and I consider the whole thing to be an international affair. "and took place February 24, 2008" missing a word after place "the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" use the acronym you introduced on the body's first usage "No Country for Old Men led the ceremony with four awards including Best Picture." Don't like the use of led, it suggest a race, just say received the most awards "The telecast garnered under 32 million viewers, making it the least watched Oscar broadcast in history." reference? "Best Lead Actor" in the table its Best actor and our wiki page calls it Best Actor as well "Best Actress winner Marion Cotillard was the fifth person to win for a non-English speaking performance and the second person to do so in the aforementioned category after Sophia Loren who won for 1961's Two Women." You're missing a comma or two in this sentence. Definitely should be one after Loren "Cate Blanchett became the eleventh performer to score double acting nominations in the same year." score is not encyclopaedic language, just say receive "At age 98, art director Robert F. Boyle was the oldest recipient of the Academy Honorary Award." -> Robert F. Boyle became the oldest recipient of the Academy Honorary award at the age of 98. Multiple nomination tables need rowscopes per MOS:DTT and the presenters and performers table needs both row and colscopes "The material could have still been used though, as the denial only affected the conditions under which the clips are shown." NapHit (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC) @NapHit: Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above expect the one regarding the multiple nominations/wins and presenter/performer tables. I'm not sure how to fix that because if I put rowscopes, won't I have to give a label? I'm confused. --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I've done the first nominations for you, all you have to do is add !scope=row| to all the presenters in that column. So for !scope=row|Jessica Alba for instance. NapHit (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @NapHit: Done: Added rowscopes to presenters tables. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

I don't think we need the "actor" bit for Jon Stewart in the lead The Coen brothers' picture caption should also note their win for Best Picture In "Ceremony information", ’ should be ' while “ and ” should be " per MOS:QUOTEMARKS That's all from me Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS:: Did the first two, but I don't understand what you mean by the last one. Do you want me to remove words or add them? --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed the quotation mark issue myself here, thankfully nothing major. I now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review – concerning the reliability and consistency of sources, I had provided my comments above, which are addressed. Using this version as a reference point for the numbering of the footnotes:

• Ref 2 – used twice. Article faithful to the source. One thing needed is replace -- with —.
• Ref 3 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 10 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 18 – used twice. However, the source does not support the fact that she became the eleventh performer for double acting nominations. It only says it "made her the third double acting nominee of the decade".
• Ref 30 – used twice. Article faithful to the source.
• Ref 31 – used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- Frankie _talk 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [8].

---

List of accolades received by Lost in Translation (film)

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensive revamping and extending the article's scope, references, lead, infobox, and the like, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Lost in Translation is the second feature film from Sofia Coppola, a comedy-drama about the one-week-long relationship between an aging, lonely movie star (Bill Murray) and an intelligent recent college graduate in an unhappy marriage (Scarlett Johansson) in a Tokyo hotel. It won 67 awards and was nominated for 109 total (including the wins). Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella

Comments from GagaNutella Infobox: the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. And was further nominated for three other awards: Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor for Murray. Best Foreign Film at the... then mention the awards, as well as... Independent Spirit Award for Best Film. While, the San Francisco Film Critics Circle Award, the Toronto Film Critics Association and the Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Film. Redlink: Art Directors Guild Awards → ADG Awards; February 2, 2004 → February 2, 2004; Best Original Screenplay → Best Original Screenplay. <br> refs 16-17, 33-34, 10-48. Wrong italic (use publisher): refs 21, 22, 28, 36, 38, 46. Overlink: refs 2, 3, 17, 29, 34, 37, 48. Ref 20: Dallas Morning News → The Dallas Morning News. External links: Accolades for... Add a See also section: 2003 in film. GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC) @GagaNutella: Thanks for the review! I have altered the article in response to your comments, which were very thorough. Let me know if there's anything more I should do. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Support It looks great now. Congrats! GagaNutella^talk 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments from FrB.TG The list starts with the intro of the film and its director and writer, and then it directly jumps to the plot point. I think some of the crew members – who won (or at least were nominated for) a few accolades – need to be mentioned. Done added mentions to the editor, cinematographer, and composers. I think links like limited release and wide release need to be removed as they might border WP:OVERLINKING. Done You don't need to repeat Murray and Johansson as the winners of certain awards. Once you write their names in the first occurrences, I think that's enough. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Duplinks isn't bringing up anything in the article, and it's standard to link their names after each win/nomination. Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I had to be more clear. "At the 76th Academy Awards, Coppola won for Best Original Screenplay and the film received three further nominations—Best Picture, Best Director for Coppola, and Best Actor for Murray" – you don't further need to write say Johannson's name for his nomination of " Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Murray". -- Frankie talk 11:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Fixed. Johannatalk to me!see my work 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think what given in British Academy Film Awards are "prize". Done "and Best Foreign Film for at the Film Critics Circle of Australia, French Syndicate of Cinema Critics" Done Please be consistent with the usages of oxford comma. Done I believe this is fixed, but please let me know if there are other instances that are not off (I do use the oxford comma). Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Perhaps a few more links for the See also section? I would be open to it,, but I cannot think of anything else that would be appropriate, and pretty much all other FLs don't have any more than that year in film. Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Footnotes - "Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients and have runner-ups. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally." – suggest just calling runner-ups "Runner-up" or "Finalist". Done One link dead and two showing problems, per this. Of these links, two were actually working (the Hollywood Foreign Press and Writers Guild ones). The other two (DGA and Bodil Awards) were indeed dead or disconnected, so I added in archive links. Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Otherwise, writing quality in the lede is quite good. I would appreciate it if you come and have a second look here. -- Frankie talk 17:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I will. I have replied inline with a few responses. Everything else has been fixed.

• Support –nice work. -- Frankie _talk 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Miyagawa

Comments by Miyagawa Very pedantic, but you can change "Ref(s)" to "Ref" in the column title since you only list a single citation for each row. Done The sorting on the result column isn't working correctly. It is currently sorting Won, then Nominated, then 3rd place then 2nd. I think Won, 2nd, 3rd, Nominated would the correct order. @Miyagawa: Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this can be changed. Looking at other FLs, there is a similar sorting problem, but seeing that writing "runner-up" for 2nd place puts it in a more accurate position, should I do that (I have no idea about third place). Once those are corrected then I'll be happy to add my support. Miyagawa (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments' "...Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) over the course of one week in Tokyo. shouldn't there be a comma after the parentheses? Yeah, there should be. Done. "Lost in Translation garnered awards and nominations..." garnered sounds a bit strange to me, perhaps received? Done "it won for Best Original Screenplay (Coppola)" Done I don't see why the font size should not be 100%. This is also a WP:ACCESS issue, as poor-sighted readers might struggle to read it. Done The FL I've been modeling mine on did this, but I change it. Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) @NapHit: Thank you so much for the review! I have responded to your comments and fixed them in the article. Take another look now and see if it seems better. :) Johanna(talk to me!) 01:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

*The following awards/ nominations from notable organisations listed on IMDb are not present in the list: Cinema Brazil Grand Prize (Grande Prêmio do Cinema Brasileiro), Czech Lion, Cinema Writers Circle Awards Spain (Círculo de Escritores Cinematográficos), Directors Guild of Great Britain, Robert Award, Teen Choice Award, Valladolid International Film Festival (Seminci). @Cowlibob: I have incorporated the Cinema Writers Circle Awards Spain, Directors Guild of Great Britain, and Valladolid International Film Festival references into the article. However, I was unable to find anything for the others. I pawed through the archives for the Robert Awards but could not find anything. I thought that I would be able to find the Teen Choice awards thing easily. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) What makes Cinema Donna a reliable source? It's an film database centered in Italy that's not based on any sort of wiki model. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Better reference for US Comedy Arts Festival [[9]] Done Cowlibob (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Is there a reason we don't have an article for Fumihiro Hayashi since he "features" in this highly decorated movie? I decided to remove his name. I added it only because he was in the starring section of the main article infobox. However, because the actor doesn't have an article it's not actually a very big role, I thought it would be better to remove instead. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) "September 12, 2003 before" should be a comma after that 2003 I think. Done Is there a reason to pipe Deutscher Filmpreis to German Film Awards when we don't pipe Nastro d'Argento to Silver Ribbon? Done No more piped link. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) K. K. Barrett has a space between his K.s. Done "Australian Film Institute Awards" are just "Australian Film Institute" in the infobox, there seems to be a few instances of inconsistencies between the table and the infobox in this regard. I couldn't find any other inconsistencies, but I fixed that one. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not so sure that coming second or third in something constitutes "winning" it. I would take this one up with someone else besides me, as the consensus in these film accolades lists is that because they are a specific achievement and not simply a nomination, they should be counted as wins for simplicity. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Could you show me where that consensus was agreed please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: It's more of an WP:EDITCONSENSUS because I have received this feedback in both of my previous FLCs and looking at the page, many accolades FLs and nearly all with 2nd and 3rd place finishes have this system. Johanna(talk to me!) 02:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I'd like to see a proper consensus for that. After all, 3rd place isn't actually "winning" something, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Okay, I changed it. Let me know how it looks now. The one remaining question I would have is what template you would prefer me to use for the "2nd place" or "3rd place" text. Currently, I changed it to the {{nom}} template, but I have also seen it done (in non-FLs, granted) using the {{draw}} template. Would you have me keep this or change? Johanna(talk to me!) 03:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) I think the nom template is fine. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Otherwise a very good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review! I responded to all your comments above. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: In regards to the second and third being counted as wins. I think it was based on placing being a distinction different from simply being nominated. I've opened up a discussion over at WikiProject Film as it'll affect many lists of this nature. Cowlibob (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source review: Formatting is as per MoS; the sources used are reliable; no dead links; spot checks show the information is correct (with one problem below) and that there is no plagiarism or close copying. There is one tweak needed:

• FN 29 takes me to the 2003 Golden Globes, which doesn't refer to LiT – I think that needs to be redirected to the right spot.

It will be good to go after that final step has been taken. – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thank you for the comment and I have changed the Golden Globes ref to the correct year. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing as passed, then. --PresN 20:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC) [10].

---

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Giro d'Italia

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the final Grand Tour teams and cyclists list of the 2015 season. I have already nominated List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España and List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France for FL and both have passed; I've also recently taken the main race article to GA-status. This list is closely modelled after the other two lists, although the sourcing for the Giro is a bit harder! Relentlessly (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments "(English: Tour of Italy" missing a parentheses Done. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "In October 2014" should be a comma at the end here Done. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "...had revealed an low level of cortisol. Done. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "197 riders therefore started the first stage of the race.[4] These came from 36 countries." I would merge these two sentences and "therefore" in the first sentence is redundant. I agree that the second sentence needs merging, but I have merged it into the following sentence. I can't see how "therefore" is redundant": it's precisely the conclusion of the preceding two sentences. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "...were obliged to attend the race." don't need this were, whhen it is already used earlier in the sentence. I disagree here: I actually added the second "were" in for the sake of clarity. When I first read it, it read as "the teams obliged to enter", which is syntactically valid and confusing. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) " they were officially confirmed to the race..." -> their entry in the race was officially confirmed. Done. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Italian riders won the highest number." I would state the number Done. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Make sure you use en dashes in the title of your sources. I noticed 4 and 5 need en dashes, there may be more I think I've got them all. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Does the Giro website really not have a list of all the finishers? Seems a little odd. All finishers, yes. But not all the associated information. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) NapHit Many thanks for your comments. Replies inline. Relentlessly (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic work. Kudos on improving all the Grand Tour related lists for this year! NapHit (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything that I'd change with the list. Good work again. Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The "by team" tables seem to be a bit redundant. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal, I do know what you mean. They are, however, present in all the other equivalent lists, e.g. the two linked above. I see it as reflecting the difficult thing in cycling where riders are both riding for themselves and as part of teams. Relentlessly (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Sure, but it doesn't seem to add much beyond what is in the big table. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean: there is a level of redundancy. It is a well established convention, however, and I think it is informative. Do you have any other comments, Nergaal? Relentlessly (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu Don't see the need for an English translation of the race's name, since it's quite known by the original naming. Even if it was necessary, it should be placed after Giro d'Italia. "Although it took place principally in Italy, the route also took the riders into France and Switzerland." – I would replace the second "took" for "led", to avoid close repetition. "The 17 UCI WorldTeams were automatically invited and were obliged to attend the race." – Drop the second "were" here, and in the same occurrence in the "Teams" section. "He regained the lead the following day, however, in the race's only..." – No need for "however". Two sentences start with numerals ("197 riders therefore..." and "168 riders completed...") which is not advised by WP:NUMNOTES. Rephrase them so that those figures are moved inside the sentence. In "By nationality" section, you say "The 198 riders that competed in the 2015 Giro d'Italia represented 36 different countries.". This is not entirely true, since the riders did not represent countries but their own teams. Maybe say "originated from" instead of "represented"? The world map image caption has "2015 Vuelta a España" instead of "2015 Giro d'Italia". Refs 4, 5 and 6 link to different pages in the same website but they have the exact same formatting. Although they are correctly formatted, maybe you could disambiguate the title of each link? For example, by appending "Results", "Startlist" and "Statistics" at the end? — Parutakupiu (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Stepping in for @Relentlessly: here. All your comments should be addressed now @Parutakupiu:. NapHit (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Made a final copyedit run through the lead to improve prose flow. Please check if it's up to your liking. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Parutakupiu for your comments, and many thanks NapHit for stepping in and doing some editing while I haven't been. I've made a couple of small changes in the lead for flow. I have changed it back to "were obliged" as "The teams obliged to enter" would make some sense and it is how I naturally read it without the additional "were". Finally, I disagree that the riders don't represent their countries (they do, for example win points in the World Tour rankings for their countries), but I'm content with the edit. Relentlessly (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on the opening sentence, the repeat of "Giro d'Italia" is clunky. Map is not accessible, using just colours to denote the number of riders from each country. Also no alt text. "enter nine riders, the initial startlist consisted of 198 riders." repeat of riders here, perhaps competitors one time? "(Tinkoff–Saxo)" perhaps it's better to say "riding for the Tinkoff–Saxo team" for those who are unclear what that means. Should link general classification, either to the general article, or the one specific to the Giro, as it's a technical term. "with more than a minute" no need for "with" here. UCI WorldTeams links to different things in different setions: to UCI World Tour in the lead and List of 2015 UCI WorldTeams and riders in the Teams section. Could link other classifications in the lead as well. We have HD and DSQ (why not DQ?) in the key but they don't appear to be used anywhere? Are those little jersey icons accessible to screen readers? Use multiplication symbol instead of "x" for "times" in the stage win table. Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks, The Rambling Man and Parutakupiu for your comments and Naphit for your work. I'll be on this later today. Sorry, have been away for a little while. Relentlessly (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC) OK, The Rambling Man, in order: Reworded. I agree fully. Somehow I had two {{{1}}} parameters, with the empty one obscuring the valid one. Fixed. The image duplicates the information lower down the page: should I reference that in the alt text? I've used "men", rather than "competitors". Not a word used often in cycling. Done. Already linked. Done. Done. Removed. (Always DSQ in cycling. I don't know why.) I believe so, though I'm by no means an expert. (I try hard, but it's a heavy guideline and I don't understand all of it.) Done. Many thanks for your comments; do let me know what you think of my changes. Relentlessly (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man. You've marked your comments as resolved – can I check if that's a "support"?! Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Formatting wise, everything looks pretty spot on. With a fine-tooth comb, I have found that the capitalisation of refs #145 (Pier Paolo De Negri rather than Pier Paolo De negri) and #174 (Nathan Brown rather than nathan Brown) are slightly off.
• I don't see any mention in ref #1 of the route entering France and Switzerland? I know Lugano is in Switzerland, so that can be extrapolated, but France? (This article suggests that only Switzerland is visited, though I appreciate there was plenty of time for things to be changed in between.)
• Refs #238 and #239 could do with some disambiguation, maybe "Giro d'Italia 2015 – General Classification – Startlist" and "Giro d'Italia 2015 – General Classification – Stages"?

Otherwise, everything looks good: the prose is well paraphrased, without any evidence of copyvio, and with the exception of the point above, the facts are all well cited to reliable sources. Harrias ^talk 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• 1' 53" should be written out in full in the lead, as it is a little ambiguous in that form. Harrias ^talk 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Harrias. All these are dealt with. Relentlessly (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant; with that done, I'm happy to support on sources. Harrias ^talk 10:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC) [11].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shakib Al Hasan

Nominator(s):Aftabuzzaman, —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My first fifers-list (of a player's) in a long time. Aftabuzzaman created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments "...he ranks equal with fortieth in the all-time list." fortieth should be 40th and remove with, equal 40th is correct. Looks like somebody had changed it. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Shakib's first five-wicket haul came in October 2008 while playing New Zealand;" -> Shakib's first five-wicket haul was against New Zealand in October 2008; "In Test cricket, he has taken five-wicket hauls against Test-playing nations except Australia." add all after against NapHit (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (Talk) 11:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments "44 players have taken 15 or more five-wicket hauls at international level in their cricketing careers." probably needs to be referenced to Cricinfo's list. And probably needs an "as of". "Shakib's first five-wicket haul..." specify Test/ODI and perhaps consider linking to an appropriate touring article. Don't assume our readers get that it's Test cricket from the mention of first innings. "spread across" do you mean "in three consecutive innings"? "He took a pair of five-wicket hauls against Zimbabwe in November 2014. As of November 2015, this remains the only occasion where he took ten wickets in a match." consider merging to avoid the repetition, and perhaps consider a link to a ten-wicket match at the Glossary of cricket terms? "a year before his first Test appearance in May 2007" needs a comma to make sure we know which appearance the May 2007 relates to. "in ODIs came" perhaps "in the one-day format" to avoid repetition. "six of his 14 " MOSNUM, so 6/14 or six/fourteen. Would be nice if the table columns lined up between the Test and ODI sections. Ref 11 doesn't need ESPNcricinfo in the title. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Fixed all. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (Talk) 13:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "With 15 five-wicket hauls across all formats of the game" => "With 15 five-wicket hauls across all formats of international cricket", as currently it implies that these are the only fifers he's ever taken in any cricket match at all
• "He ended the year with three more five-wicket hauls—coming in consecutive innings—against South Africa and Sri Lanka." => "He ended the year with three more five-wicket hauls, which came in consecutive innings against South Africa and Sri Lanka."
• "ODI" is introduced in the final paragraph of the lead but it has not been mentioned before and the abbreviation is not explained or linked. It should probably be written out in full here, although obviously it is OK to then use the abbreviation in the next sentence.
• "He took five wickets for 47 runs in the match which his team won by 145 runs" => "He took five wickets for 47 runs in the match, which his team won by 145 runs" - a bit picky but there you go ;-)
• That's all I can spot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all, thanks for the comments. As for the last comment, I have problems with comma splice :). —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now == ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly In general this looks good. One or two small things: "this remains his best bowling figures" – I can see how you end up with this construction, but it reads oddly to me. "Bowling figures" is surely plural, so it should be "these remain his best bowling figures". "Three of his fourteen five-wicket hauls have come against Zimbabwe." This is confusing because we haven't previously had a reference to his taking 14 five-wicket hauls in Tests. You need to introduce this at the beginning of the paragraph or at least make it "his fourteen five-wicket hauls in Tests". In the key, "Shakib was selected player of the match." This doesn't quite make sense. It should be "selected as player of the match" or "named player of the match". I've also taken a good look through the sources and the sourcing looks excellent. It's a pity that such a vast majority of links are to one website, but I understand that Cricinfo is canonical. On a broader subject, I do wonder if a little more context to Shakib's career could be offered. He's been described as "Bangladesh’s greatest-ever cricketer" ([12]) and has been ranked as the top all-rounder in every form of international cricket ([13]). These feel relevant to a description of him as a cricketer, although I recognise that they aren't specifically relevant to five-wicket hauls. Relentlessly (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC) @Relentlessly: Fixed all. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Talk) 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. Relentlessly (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC) [14].

---

Works of Keith Floyd

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith Floyd caused something of a revolution in British cookery broadcasting. From the mid-1980s he entertained and excited his viewers (his "gastronauts", as he used to call us) on food we'd ignored or forgotten. He is someone who changed the way food programmes were presented on British television, and had a large impact on international channels too. His food writing is superb, showing a deep love of food, an understanding in the importance of the locality of produce, and a desire to inform and entertain his readers. This list has been split off from the biographical article, increased, carries citations and now stands as a solid piece of work in its own right. All constructive comments and criticisms are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• Do you think the divorce part is relevant in the article?

• No: I've trimmed that down a little - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know but is it good to have so many quotes in the lead?

• Possibly not. I've removed two of them and shorted a third, which should lessen the jarring effect - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Six part series → hyphenate six part.

• Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why is there no accessdate to source 3, 4 and 5?

  As they are dated news articles the access date isn't needed. -SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason for WorldCat and BBC Genome Project to be in italics.

• I think they may be, but I'm not 100% sure! I'll ask Nikkimaria if she could advise on the format. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would tend to treat both as databases rather than works, and thus not italicize. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikkimaria. I'll tweak the references in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Since you have wiki-linked all of the entries of the previously mentioned sources, I think you should apply the same to the rest of sources to maintain consistency.

• I think I've caught them all. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for this (as it's not relevant here). If you have time and interest, please leave your suggestions here. -- Frankie _talk 18:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks FrB.TG - much obliged! All covered, apart from the one I've asked for advice on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – sorry I'd completely forgotten it. Anyway, since my comments are addressed, I think I can support this list for featured list promotion. If you're interested, please consider the above request. -- Frankie _talk 23:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Frankie - much appreciated. I'll try and get to your nom in the next week or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Citations for Fearnley-Whittingstall, Blumenthal quotes?

• Mea culpa – I removed it when trimming the quotes. Now replaced. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Under television appearances, Floyd was a interviewee on Aspel & Company, episode dated 23 January 1988. Should be listed on The Times TV guide for that date.

• Thanks for that : I'll have a search round to find a reliable source reference, and any other appearances. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• You could wikilink Open House with Gloria Hunniford, Lemonade51 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, now linked. – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Lemonade51, much appreciated. Two sorted and one to sort out in the morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Lemonade51: all now sorted, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support on style, structure and prose. Top work. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Lemonade51 - thanks for your time and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Miyagawa

• The one thing that jumps out at me is that his one man stage production, Floyd Uncorked: The Life of a Bon Viveur, isn't listed.
• Too bad there isn't a suitable infobox. I dug around and found Template:Infobox author bibliography, thinking initially that you could use the optional sections to list the television series etc. But then heading it up with "Releases" by default wouldn't make any sense so I wouldn't suggest using it.
• Very pleased to see this listed - Floyd and Alan Whicker were two major influences on me growing up and made me want to travel everywhere. I still remember lying in front of the TV watching Far Flung Floyd and dreaming of the day that I'll get to be canoed around a floating market somewhere in the far east. I'll get around to it eventually. Miyagawa (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Miyagawa - a new section now added referring to the show. Sadly not much in the way of detail, but that's part of the nature of the production, I think. Thanks for your thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Great. Happy to support. Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Miyagawa - thanks for your time and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – Excellent, comprehensive and well laid out. Meets FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim, for your time and thoughts - much appreciated as always! - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [15].

---

NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers a lesser known aspect of the space program and the realm of space-flown memorabilia. Considered numismatic in nature (specifically exonumia), the practice of creating mission-specific space-flown medallions began with the Gemini Program and have been a part of the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station missions. All but the Gemini program flights have been struck for NASA by the Robbins Company.--Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by note: I kind of take issue with the article title; it is very specific about "Robbins" "Apollo" missions, but the list itself has a big section on the Gemini non-Robbins medallions. I get that you're cutting off the list before the Skylab/Space Shuttle medallions, but the name doesn't match what you have here. And the Robbins bit is unnecessary; you're really talking about the "official" medallions, which were made by Robbins for the Apollo missions, but that's covered by the "NASA" qualifier. Maybe NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions? --PresN 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Pres- Thanks for the drive by comment. I understand what you are saying. There are a few issues with the name change. There were other medallions (odds and ends) that flew on one mission or another and the regulation of those objects was not well documented. The reason Gemini was included in a list about Robbins medallions is based on the near complete lack of information about their origin, minting process, etc. which would make them virtually impossible to stand alone in a list/article. I suppose the "NASA" qualifier could cover the legitimacy of the Robbins and Fliteline medallions. With respect, I'd like to hear from another reviewer or two about the potential title change, but if there is a consensus for it, I have no issue making the change. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• The name of the article sounds a bit fork-y. Any alternatives you could think of to make it sound more impactful to a wider audience?
  • I don’t think it resembles other existing titles in the space program but I’m happy to re-work it in conjunction with some of the concerns raised below (mainly about expanding the scope of the list).
• Why are provenance entries hidden in footnotes?
  • They can be spelled out if you prefer.

To me that seems to make more sense. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Done--Godot13 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think a hidden legend for provenance would be useful for non-specialists. When I think of provenance I think of who manufactured it not who received it.
  • Provenance for collectibles and artworks generally denote the prior ownership of the object. In the case of these medallions, provenance accounts for a significant amount of the value. Also, I’m not quite sure what a hidden legend is…

I was thinking of {{[[Template:|]]}}. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Done (slightly differently)... linked column title to description. Is that okay?--Godot13 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• same for flown/struck
  • Again, not quite sure what a hidden legend is…
  • Information added to ref note, visible when hovering). Could not make hover work...--Godot13 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• what is "Fliteline"?
  • Gemini mission space-flown Fliteline medallions.

The article is not very clear what it exactly means; is a label notable/reputable enough to be worth mentioning? Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It is noteworthy as the only name associated with the maker of the the first space-flown commemorative medallions (for the Gemini missions). I put them in this article because it makes this article stronger versus having one solid article (Apollo) and one weaker (Gemini). There are also hundreds of auction records all attributing the Gemini medallions to Fliteline.--Godot13 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• "It is unconfirmed" => "it is unclear"?
  • Fixed
• intro does not discuss at all the first two sections, and they are not very well represented by the title.
  • I will work on expanding the intro to include them. As for the title, removing specific reference to Robbins opens to the door to several other short-lived medallion ideas that never lasted longer than a flight or two, but I’ll give it some more thought (per above).
• at least two medallions are golden, and it is not obvious why
  • Two of the Fliteline medallions are gold-colored because the images were significantly better than any of the available silver-colored medallions for the same missions
    • nvm then
• how come some were auctioned? maybe the auctioned value could be mentioned in the table?
  • All were auctioned. There is a brief section discussing collecting and auction results but I didn’t think it was wise to put a single value for a particular mission medallion as factors like condition, auction year, and provenance significantly affect the value (double or triple the price), and therefore it may not be representative of the prices in general. Nergaal- Thanks for taking the time to make comments, other than those items I said I would address, please let me know if my answers are satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I completely missed that last section. The reason I was/am confused is that the section before says that the astronauts were barred from auctioning them, so to me it is not obvious how did they eventually get to be auctioned. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
      • No problem. Part of the NASA concern for profit came from a scandal involving postal covers (stamped commemorative cards) being sold by some astronauts to a stamp dealer. It led to Congressional hearings and some very strict policies afterwards. There is no way that these auctions could take place if the initial NASA policies were still in place (or enforced).--Godot13 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, pls change "Flown" to something like "No flown" since the former makes the reader think of a date not a count. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Done--Godot13 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Are the dates supposed to be ranges? Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • note added to explain 2 and 3 date formats used--Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• the last two are missing the provenance and the design. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Added "unknown" to fill cell.--Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments – I have to confess that I'm disappointed that this list hasn't generated more commentary to this point. It's highly unique among candidates, and I think we should encourage such nominations whenever possible. To back up my words, I'll offer some thoughts: I am in agreement with PresN that the title isn't ideal. Given the content, I'd co-sign his proposed name. The current title would only support having the Apollo medallions, but the article is clearly stronger with the Gemini ones and the title should be expanded to not sound like they should be excluded. -- Done There should be a comma after the parenthetical bit in the first sentence. -- Done There could be another comma after Massachusetts. -- Done Gemini mission space-flown Fliteline medallions: Remove the comma inside "March, 1965". -- Done The external links in the Provenance column likely go against the Manual of Style. I recommend turning them into references; it's fine to have more than one reference in the column if necessary. -- pending Done Apollo mission space-flown Robbins medallions: Capitalize "games" by the Olympic part. -- Done Robbins medallions: Space needed after Kennedy half-dollar. -- Done The fourth column here isn't sorting properly. There are sort templates that will do the numbers correctly if you add them to each row. -- Done Footnote 16 could use a citation. -- Done Some of the items in the bibliography have ugly red text because of external links included with publishers. I'd suggest removing the external links, if only to get rid of the red. -- Done Is there an ISBN available for the Still book? There is no ISBN in the book, and I was not able to find one online. The only reference number was by Amazon (ASIN B0006QD1WC). Since the TharpeRobbins page isn't a print publication by the looks of it and has no page numbers, you can probably remove this from the bibliography and use it directly as a reference, as you do with the other web site pages cited. -- Done Overall, it's a fascinating piece of work. If by chance this does get archived eventually, I hope to see it back here at some point. Hopefully, that won't be necessary, and these suggestions may be helpful if you want to avoid that scenario. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Giants2008- Thanks for the comments. All have been resolved (except the external links from the provenance column, pending). I have also moved the article to the name suggested by Pres and endorsed in your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else.-Godot13 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Is there a way to reflect the title change in the FLC pages?--Godot13 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure whether moving the FLC to a new title will have any negative effects. Anyone else know? Meanwhile, from the resolved comments, the two multi-source Provenance column notes should have their references in numerical order, and the TharpeRobbins reference should have a publisher and access date added (switch the author template for the publisher one to make this easier). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC) No negative effects, provided you catch all the links. Now done. It's a little more complicated if there are prior FLCs, but there aren't here. --PresN 22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks PresN. Giants2008- The Tharperobbins website has complete switched (including the company's name). I've tried looking at an archived version, but it doesn't show up very well. Is it acceptable? Also, mutli-source refs in provenance sorted.--Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I checked the reference and the prose is readable if one focuses, although it would be nice if alternate references were provided; also, you could try older archived versions from a few years ago to see if one of them reads better. Still, since the content is verifiable, I won't insist on replacement refs being provided. Overall, this appears to be a fine piece of work and I think it's worthy of attracting more reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Giants2008 for your support and constructive comments.--Godot13 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• The intro currently only covers the background. It should contain stuff like x Gemini missions got medallions, and all the y Apollo missions did. In total, over z and w medallions were flown, and medallion v was auctioned in 19xy for $u. Also, provenance is still a bit too much of a jargon currently; what does "Presented to Wally Schirra by Neil Armstrong." mean? Armstrong gave it to Wally? Why? Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nergaal- All added to lead. I have reservations about the auction values taking something away from it...--Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I gave it a shot and rewrote the intro a bit. Feel free to tweak it. Also, how about putting the medallions for SL-2, SL-3 and SL-4 here, so the Space Shuttle would be kept by itself? Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Nergaal- I'm doing some minor tweaking, but I like what you did with the lead. I have yet to find a solid image of each SL medallion I like, but I will keep looking to add in the future. It could, however, be in another list combining SL and the ISS...--Godot13 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• The list looks good, but I am still confused with the provenance. 440 medallions were flown in Apollo 11 and gifted? Or one was flown and then gifted, and then 439 copies made in advance were given to other people related to NASA? Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nergaal- The provenance is only for the illustrated/pictured medallion. In the number flown column, if there is only a single number, not in parentheses, that was the total number struck and flown. In some cases, not all the struck medallions could be flown, so the numbers indicate (total struck) and out of that number how many were actually flown.--Godot13 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • So if 440 were flown, 1 was presented to Schirra and the others were given to others? Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Correct. Either given (by a purchaser) or purchased. Astronauts would pre-order with the flight office. I'm guessing there were no "extras" at the end of a mission. I think this is covered in the first paragraph under the heading Robbins Medallions...--Godot13 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Nergaal- Could you please let me know what issues (if any) still need to be resolved. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support the list looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PresN

Doffing my delegate hat to review this list; it's not at the bottom of the pile yet but I like to see non-standard lists when they come through.

• Oh man, that first sentence kills me with the nested asides, and it leaves the verb hanging around on its own. I thin it would sound better as "NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions were mission-specific commemorative medallions—often astronaut-designed—which were approved by NASA and carried aboard the mission spacecraft into orbit."
  • sentence replaced
• Link Gemini in the lead
  • done
• Do not italicize Fliteline in the lead; italics are not used for emphasis
  • fixed
• The lead should mention the non-flown Apollo 1 medallion
  • in progressdone
• Both the lead and the text should mention that Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo mission, thus explaining why 2-6 didn't get one
  • in progress
• "other Mercury astronauts, and support staff becoming a short snorter" -> "other Mercury astronauts, and support staff, becoming short snorters"
  • done
• I don't feel that an inline link to an image like "signed by him" is appropriate; it violates the guideline that links should not surprise the reader with where they go. If you want you can just stick the image above the other signed bill image on the right, even though it will extend down past the section: there's plenty of whitespace
  • done
• "placed by astronauts and support crew personnel.[26][25]" - refs out of order
  • fixed
• "bound by their employment contract not to commercialize the medallions[28]" - references shouldn't be in the middle of sentences without at least being after punctuation.
  • fixed
• "One (or more) of the astronauts from the flight crew would work directly with the Robbins Company" - tense shift, should be "worked directly with"
  • fixed
• "were struck in sterling silver.[29] but it is unclear whether serial numbers were added pre or post-flight." - sentence fragment. Whole combined sentence should be "The medallions were struck in sterling silver two to three months prior to the scheduled mission, though it is unclear whether serial numbers were added pre or post-flight.[29]". On that note, I'd like to point out that you have a tendency to have twisted sentences where you have a phrase starting off the sentence with the bit it attaches to coming later on; this can add a bit of flavor to the writing but you kind of overdo it, especially for encyclopedic writing. You actually do it with every sentence in this paragraph- you have a prepositional phrase setting off every sentence, with the verb they belong to several words later.
  • fixed the specific example above and several other instances in the paragraph
• "Since 1995 there have been over 500 auction appearances (internet and/or live)" - cleaner as "Since 1995 there have been over 500 internet or live auction appearances"
  • done
• It also might be nice to start off that sentence with "Despite the NASA prohibition on commercializing the medallions,"
  • done
• Footnote 9 is missing a period
  • fixed
• It would be nice to have ISBNs for all of the books
  • in progress done, but re: Relics by Still, no ISBN could be found
• --PresN 02:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • PresN - Thank you for your review and suggestions. I have corrected most and will work on the rest later/tomorrow.--Godot13 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    • PresN - I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Support - all looks good now. --PresN 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• PresN - Many thanks for your helpful comments and support.-Godot13 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• SchroCat - Much appreciated!-Godot13 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [16].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Twelve Lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in British counties are FLs. Almost all were passed in 2006-8, and in my view the fields chosen were not always the most helpful for readers. I have deleted designation date as this will be of interest to very few readers, and added columns for the Natural England information pages (which were previously references), photographs and access. The other designations column was added before I started working on the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw Another interesting list - just a few comments/questions:

• I'm not sure that everything included in "Other designations" should be called "designations". The AONB, GCR, LNR, NNR, RHPG & SM are formally recognised by government agencies or quangos with statutory roles, whereas NT, RSPB, WT & WTBCN presumably represent the organisations which own or manage the sites, but don't have statutory powers. I'm not sure about NCR.

• Yes this has occurred to me. Whoever started putting in the other designations column used it as a ragbag. I don't think GCR and NCR are official designations - they indicate that the site was listed in authoritative works called Geological Conservation Review and Nature Conservation Review in the 1990s which are mentioned in SSSI citations. RSPB and WTBCN mean managed by the organisation. NT and WT mean (so far as I know) owned by the organisation but not necessarily managed by it. I cannot think of a better heading and I am reluctant to delete useful information. Any suggestions?

• Maybe "Other designations, owners and managers" in the key but that gets a bit long for the column header.— Rod ^talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• How about "Other classifications"?

• That would work for me.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• In the location column I'm glad you have included both Lat & Long & Grid Ref; however I would have used <br> to put the grid ref onto a third line to make the column narrower - minor and not covered by the criteria.

• I am not clear where to put <br> as it comes out on the third line on both the computers I have checked. Can you advise where I should put it in {{gbmappingitem|TL088298|51.956|-0.418|name=Barton Hills}}

• I haven't used Template:Gbmappingitem and have always entered them as separate items - it probably comes out as two lines for me because I use wide screens.— Rod ^talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure the change is necessary if narrower screens make it three lines, but I will change it to be the same as List of local nature reserves in Somerset if you think it would be helpful. What do you think?

• No its not necessary. As I put in my original comment "minor and not covered by the criteria".— Rod ^talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yelden redirects to Yielden - any particular reasons for the choice of this version of the name?

• It is Yelden on the SSSI citation - and on road signs in the area. I thought it would avoid confusion to use the same spelling rather than the alternative one in the Wiki article.

• If you sort by area there is a problem that 130.9 & 148.4 come before 16.4

• It is sorting on the first digit and I cannot work out why. I have posted a request for help on the convert talk page.

• PS An editor has kindly fixed the problem.

• wasn't aware you could add |sortable to the convert template either.~~

• I'm sure we have discussed this previously but you have capitalised National Nature Reserve in the link to National nature reserves in Bedfordshire and the general usage (eg National nature reserve (United Kingdom)) is lower case

• We have discussed this several times. NE consistently capitalises whereas Wiki is inconsistent - Site of Special Scientific Interest but National nature reserve. I think it is better to follow NE rather than have one line capitalised and another not depending on the vagaries of Wiki usage.

• I see the list is already has inconsistent capitalisation as LNR is shown as Local nature reserve so I have changed NNR similarly.

• But now we have capilatised "National Nature Reserves" in the lead & lower case "National nature reserve" in the key (it also has a comma which the other don't).— Rod ^talk 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 6 Natural England list does have a publisher/accessdate

• Fixed.

• Refs 19 & 20 "Dunstable Downs and the Whipsnade Estate" from NT both point to the same document with slightly different titles - why?

• Fixed.

• Refs 24 & 25 "Galley and Warden Hills SSSI" point to the same document

• Fixed.

• Ref 28 "KENSWORTH CHALK PIT" is capitalised

• Fixed.

• Ref 44 (Totternhoe Knolls) has a stray ~ before the reference

• Fixed.

Most of these are fairly minor and shouldn't be too difficult to fix.— Rod ^talk 09:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• All my queries have now been addresses, so I can support as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 16:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Think the last sentence in the third paragraph could do with a reference

• There is no reference. I just counted up the number of sites in each local authority area. I can delete is this is OR.

• Should be ok thinking about it, as each site is individually cited anyway. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I see the first row of the table has rowscopes, the rest need them as well to meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS

• Done.

• Do the images in the table need alt text?

• Done.

• Just a suggestion, could maybe add a tooltip for the B and G columns in the table

• I do not understand this. Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

See here and note the Pts column. It's up to whether you include it's not a major issue. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Support List meets the criteria. Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks very much NapHit. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – At first reading I was surprised to see external links from the last column to citations, but this makes good sense and is easier for the reader to follow (one click rather than the two clicks if the links were banished to the references section). Moreover there are ample precedents for external links from tables in Featured Lists on SSSIs (here, here and here). Very pleased to support the promotion of this page to FL. Meets all the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [17].

---

List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the 2015 Rugby World Cup, I've decided to tak it upon myself to improve this list. After cleaning up the list I now believe it meets the criteria and is ready to be scrutinised by the community. One question I do have of reviewers is whether drop goals should be included in the list. Four players have scored a hat-trick of drop goals during RWC matches and I'm not 100% sure whether they should be included. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Seeing as the title does not mention a particular type of hat-trick, and there's only four players who scored three drop goals in a RWC match, I guess you could include them in the list. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Added drop goals now @Parutakupiu:, let me know what you think! NapHit (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC) More comments: Are you sure "... over 60 players have scored three tries or drop goals (a hat-trick) in a single match"? Over 60 hat-tricks have been scored, true, but by only 56 players (if I counted right...). I read in the lead about Craig Green scoring the first RWC hat-trick and I'm left wondering if he did that right in 1987 or in later RWCs. Could you add the year after "... New Zealand's 74–13 victory over Fiji."? Why highlight Gallagher in "Including Gallagher, fifteen players have scored more than three tries in a match...", when Craig Greene also did that? Maybe rephrasing to "Besides Greene and Gallagher, fourteen players have scored more than three tries in a match..." or just saying "Sixteen players have scored more than three tries in a match..." . Change the semicolon in "Four players have scored a hat-trick of drop goals; Jannie De Beer..." to a colon. When listing the players who scored hat-tricks in the RWC knockout stages, I think it would be more helpful to have the respective citation tags as close as possible to each player's name, instead of all clumped at the end of the sentence. "Five players have scored multiple World Cup hat-tricks, Savea is the only player to have scored two hat-tricks at the same tournament." → "From the five players that have scored multiple World Cup hat-tricks, Savea is the only to have scored them in the same tournament." The lead image size should be no more than 300px, or preferably upright=1.35. Jannie De Beer's name is not rendering correctly in the table. What does the D5 note mean? It's not explained in the key table. I know it's "five drop goals" but it could also be interpreted as "drop goal hat-trick + five tries" (which should be rendered D,5). I think that now that you've added the drop goal hat-tricks to this list, you should be more cautious with the way you distinguish players that have only try hat-tricks from those that have only drop goal hat-tricks. Particularly the latter, they appear in the list as they always scored both types. In the multiple hat-tricks table, I think it's more informative to list the years in which the hat-tricks were scored than the date of the last one. Especially because there's only one other hat-trick scored by each of those players. Can Ireland be considered a "country" in international rugby union? It's probably wiser to use "By national team" (or just "By team") in the sub-section name, and "Hat-tricks by national team" (or just "Hat-tricks by team") in the table caption. — Parutakupiu (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the comments @Parutakupiu: much appreciated, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I've mildly copyedited the lead, in which I end up undoing one of the changes you introduced per my suggestion. I think the list is ready for promotion, but I'm still a bit unsure about the distinction between players with try hat-tricks and drop-goal hat-tricks. Because as it is, the default is that players that don't have any note are the ones that scored three tries, right? This tends to give higher importance to this sort of hat-tricks over the drop-goal ones, which have actually been less frequent. I think that, for equity, perhaps players with three tries could also have a note T, while those with four, five and six, could have T4, T5 and T6. What do you think, NapHit? Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I agree it is slightly ambiguous at the moment. Your suggestion is good and I'm open to it, however, I do have an alternative. I could put a note before the table stating: Unless noted, the players scored a hat-trick of tries. Do you think this would work? Or is the T better @Parutakupiu:? That was actually my second option. I'd put "Unless noted otherwise, the players listed below scored a hat-trick of tries." Parutakupiu (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Done 09:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, my comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think the definition of a hat-trick needs a reference in this case, as I do not think it is very obvious why dopgoals should count
  • I don't think a reference is necessary, the terms of hat-trick are defined in the lead. I also don't see how its not obvious why drop goals would count. If a player scores three in a match it's a hat-trick by default. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Currently, the hat-trick article specifically refers only to tries. By your rationale penalty takers would get hat-tricks essentially every game. Right now your definition looks like OR. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Added reference which lists all drop goal hat-tricks in RWC. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think 4, 5, and 6 should be changed to T4, T5, and T6 to be more clear; maybe change D to D3 for clarity
  • Again, not sure this is necessary, as the key states what the markers refer to, so should it be clear. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You do realize that right now they look like they are references?
      • Done it, as Parutakupiu mentioned this as well. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• have colors for D and T entries?
  • I don't see the benefit of this when the D and 4,5,6 etc indicate which is which. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• "multiple World Cup hat-tricks" => two WC ht
  • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• the table feels unreferenced
  • It's referenced by the two general refs NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No it is not. The the reference refers strictly to tries/drops, not to 2+1 or 1+2 scenarios. And you can easily explicitly put the reference link in the |+ line of the table
      • I think this is a matter of taste, the table is referenced by the general refs, to say otherwise is stupid. A 2+1 scenario would not be a hat-trick, it refers to 3 of one method, there is no reference to anyone that scored 2+1 or 1+2 and it being referred to as a hat-trick. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams, only Italy have failed to score a hat-trick at the World Cup." maybe something like "All but Italy of of the 10 teams in SN or RB teams"
  • I think it reads fine the way it is NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Someone not paying attention to rugby would not know that there are 10 teams in the tier 1 competitions, which is what the current sentence is implying
      • Clarified this NapHit (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• rm "Other than the Six Nations and Rugby Championship teams," and add "are the only OTHER teams"
  • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• "feat in the same match" maybe mention the year it happened
  • Done NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• not sure about including "two of Ellis's team-mates, Eric Rush and Jeff Wilson, also scored hat-tricks in this game"
  • Don't see anything wrong with it, it's not normal for three players to score three hat-tricks in a single match, so I think it's worth a mention. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Nergaal:, I've responded to them all. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied further @Nergaal: NapHit (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The ref you put in specifically says HT of drop-goals. I think for the sake of clarity it would be much better to split the large table into tries and drop-goals. Also, there is no reference saying that 3 conversions or 3 penalties do not count as hat-tricks. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'm not sure splitting the table is a good move. We have the markers indicating which ones were drop goals and there has only been four. I think it should stay as it is. You never here 3 conversions or penalties referred to as hat-tricks, it's just tries and drop goals as they come from open play. Look at any rugby match report where a players has 3 penalties or conversions, they're never referred to as hat-tricks. NapHit (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • But a hat-trick of drop goals is extremely rare IMHO compared to a "regular" hat-trick. Nergaal (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I completely agree a hat-trick of drop goals is a rare feat, I just don't think this warrants there being separate tables for each. I think the way it is now works well and allows the reader to sort all hat-tricks together, which is more useful than having two separate tables. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any more to add @Nergaal:? Have your comments been addressed? NapHit (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• At least use a background color for D3 and D5. Nergaal (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've added colour now @Nergaal:, thanks. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support although I still have reservation about merging drop goals with tries. Nergaal (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support As with @Nergaal:, I don't see how 3 drop goals and 3 tries are considered the same thing, but apart from that, I think it's good enough for a FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk), ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL and one which currently has three supports, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Talk) 09:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments Image needs alt text Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC) First two sentences of the lead are unsourced Formation date now sourced. Do I really need to source a sentence that says that Leicestershire County Cricket Club is a cricket club from the county of Leicestershire?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Ditto for "Notes" Notes are now sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Instead, Aylestone Road became the county's headquarters" You mean the club's headquarters? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "In the years after the war, the county also utilised grounds in other towns including Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Melton Mowbray, Barwell and Coalville." This one is currently unsourced. Plus, the venues at Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Coalville seem to have hosted FC cricket since the early 1910s. I have tweaked the list of venues. I don't feel this sentence needs sourcing, as it is merely summarising part of the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (Talk) 13:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Nice work —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "the Oakham School Ground, which is actually located in the adjacent county of Rutland." This could do with a reference
• The table doesn't fit properly on my screen for some reason. Could be to do with the images, whic I'm not sure are necessary anyway.

Looks good, otherwise. NapHit (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Both sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, removing the images did the trick. Support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate in order to review this.

• "Leicestershire have played home matches" - "has" played, you used "it" earlier so you should stick with the singular
  • Done (albeit in a slightly different way) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• "from 2000–2007 and nine List A games from 2001–2008" -> "from 2000–07 and nine List A games from 2001–08", WP:DATERANGE
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 46 (Cricket for Dummies) needs a page number (or barring that a section title: Introducing OneDay Cricket) and an isbn (978-1-119-99656-9)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Consider archiving the online references with archive.org or webcitation.org, so that changes in the websites don't mess up your references
  • My concern with that is that the Cricket Archive pages will change over time, as the county play more matches. So freezing the refs at a point in time would mean that almost immediately they would not fully support the content of the list............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• That's... about it, really, the list is pretty solid. Sorry you've had to wait so long for reviews. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement FLC up above. --PresN 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support, no more concerns. --PresN 03:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Arsenal F.C. managers

Nominator(s): Qwghlm, Goonerak, Lemonade51 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Another football nom, this time focusing on the Arsenal managers. Qwghlm created the list and table many moons ago, Goonerak has verified information about the club timeline, and I've added some prose to accompany both users' work. The style is modelled on other football lists which have already been promoted and I think it's comprehensive as can be. All feedback is welcome, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite "He joined Arsenal in June 1925, and laid the foundations for the club's first period of success": unsourced. ""WM" system": is there a wikilink for this, and wouldn't it be better phrased as ""WM" formation"? "though finished no higher as the twenties drew to a close" -> "though they finished no higher as the 1920s drew to a close"? "passed away": should be rephrased per WP:EUPHEMISM. I think decades should be written in full, e.g. "thirties" -> "1930s". Considering Allison's spell "yielded much success", did nothing noteworthy happen between 1938 and 1947? "played Ian McPherson either side, instead of a defender": this doesn't make sense to me. "Bertie Mee as successor" -> "Bertie Mee as his successor". "He arrived off the back of guiding Tottenham Hotspur" -> "He arrived after guiding Tottenham Hotspur". In what way was the 1989 title win "unprecedented"? "Graham's Arsenal struggled to put together a title challenge in the newly-formed Premier League, but were cup specialists in the early half of the nineties": unsourced. "The Arsenal board, in the meantime, agreed a deal with Frenchman Arsène Wenger to become the club's next manager": unsourced. "Wenger has been credited with promoting the importance of diet and nutrition in football and advocating the principle that the sport ought to be entertaining on the pitch": unsourced. "Manager dates and statistics are sourced from The Arsenal History for Mitchell to Wenger,[88] and Soccerbase thereafter for Wenger's results": do these sources cite the nationalities and dates, or are they cited elsewhere? Cited the nationalities to another book. "full competitive matches" -> "first-team competitive matches"? I'm presuming matches from the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season are also excluded? I think the text above the key would read better bullet pointed. I don't think "Unknown" should be denoted as a caretaker manager, and I'd write it in italics. The source used to list the managers suggests he was a caretaker appointment, hence the denotation. But I've italicised the names of caretaker appointments. Note 5 is unsourced. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Cheers for taking a look at this Matty. Think I've now covered all your comments. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Shouldn't there be a space in "Win%"? I'd mention caretakers being in italics in the key. We tend not to wikilink countries these days, so I'd unlink them using Template:flagu. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks again, addressed your points. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Now happy to support this nomination, as I feel it meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments "They became the first southern member..." this might be confusing to those who aren't familiar with English geography and the history of football league, I'd try and make it clearer if possible. Perhaps the first team from the south of England? Something like that? I've added a note which should help clear things up. "it was not until 1897 did the club..." sentence does not make sense There is a bit of WP:PEACOCK in a places, phrases such as "freshening up" and "masterminded" could be deemed POV, I'd just go through and check these Did Chapman have an illness or did he simply just pass away? He died suddenly of pneumonia. "he led Arsenal to a seventh-place finish in 1962–63 which ensured qualification..." comma after 63? "even though Arsenal sat in 14th position in the league table." -> even though Arsenal were 14th in the league table "when they lost on penalties..." -> which they lost in a penalty-shootout "he was responsible for giving debuts to several players..." I would list one or two for clarity "having beaten title rivals..." defeating title rivals "as a stopgap measure..." I would just say caretaker, may confuse some readers This is just a suggestion, but maybe consider making columns for trophies won, so the reader can sort by this. As is done here. I feel would this be more useful to readers than the current layout. I prefer the honours written, that way the key doesn't get all discombobulated and the reader can work out who has won more instead of (lazily) sorting. ;) NapHit (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Cheers NapHit for your suggestions. Addressed them all and responded to certain points. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support now my comments have been dealt with, great work. NapHit (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think that it meets the criteria - and certainly I'm going to "borrow" the formatting for some updates to the QPR list of the same type. Miyagawa (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [20].

---

List of tributaries of Bowman Creek

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing yet another one of these to FLC, following my other similar successes at FLC. For those who don't know, Bowman Creek is a 26-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania. It's also a regionally famous trout stream and many of its 26 named tributaries are also very high-quality trout streams. In short, it's a pretty pristine stream system and I was fortunate enough to photograph most of the tributaries during the height of autumn colors. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It has 26 named tributaries, including 21 direct tributaries and 5 sub-tributaries.[1] These include nineteen runs, six creeks, and one hollow (an unnamed stream named after a named valley that it flows through)." This is confusing. In the first sentence 21+5=26, but "including" implies that there are more than 26. The same applies to the second sentence and I would delete "including" in both. Also if an unnamed stream is named then it is not unnamed.

• Changed to It has 26 named tributaries, of which 21 are direct tributaries and 5 are sub-tributaries

• "(an unnamed stream named after a named valley that it flows through)." This is contradictory. A stream named a valley is not unnamed. Also the last "named" is unnecessary repetition - if a stream is named after a valley then the valley must have been named. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pennsylvania stream nomenclature can be strange, but they really are unnamed. To quote the source (see the bottom of the first page), In order to name as many as possible of the nearly 64,000 streams identified in the Straem File, many unnamed streams that flow through named hollows were included as named streams, using the hollow name, e.g. "Dark Hollow".. I've tweaked the text to be a bit less jarring and repetitive. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• No source is given for the second half of the first paragraph.

• Citations are not really needed, since it only summarizes the tables.

• "7.2-and-7.7-mile" I am no expert on Wikipedia rules on dashes but the ones before and after "and" look odd to me.

• This is what the {{convert|7.2|and|7.7|mi|km|adj=on}} produces, so I'm assuming that it's correct.

• I do not see the necessity for the frequent use of the word "named". It is obviously required in "It has 26 named tributaries", but why is it required afterwards?

• It's only used twice after the first usage. I removed one, but it has to stay in A total of ten named streams in the watershed of Bowman Creek are classified by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission as Class A Wild Trout Waters. because there is actually one unnamed stream that's Class A Wild Trout Waters.

• "High-Quality Coldwater Fishery" and "Exceptional Value waters". It would be helpful to link these terms or at least explain how they differ. Is the second a grade down from the first?

• The first is actually a grade down from the second. In any case, there's nothing to link to, but I've been meaning to make articles on those, so perhaps now would be a good time for me to do so.

I think the higher graded category should be named first, and you should state that High-Quality Coldwater Fishery is a grade down. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done (well, actually I stated that Exceptional Value is a grade up). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• No change needed as the problem is not in this article but I got confused following the links for river mile and mouth. Mouth seems clear - it is where the tributary joins the main stream. River mile says it is the distance from the mouth, but mouth in the river mile article links to delta, which is presumably wrong?

• That link is rather odd. I fixed it.

• Sugar Run is listed as both a tributary and a sub-tributary. To avoid confusion, I would suggest a comment on the fact that two different tributaries have the same name.

• The "tributary to" column does explain that Sugar Run (Marsh Creek) is a tributary of Marsh Creek, while Sugar Run (Bowman Creek) is in the main table, so perhaps it's not all that confusing?

• There are no references for watershed area and mouth coordinates.

• Strange. I must've forgotten to put them in. Done.

• Are source coordinates not available?

• Not from the GNIS, which only gives one official coordinate. The official coordinates are always near the mouth, hence mouth coordinates.

• No change needed but the picture of Bownman Creek appears to show it with much less water than several of its tributaries. Why is this? Time of year?

• I think it's just a coincidence, because they were all taken within two days of each other. A lot of the pictures from further downstream show more water.

• This looks like a good list but some of it needs referencing to meet FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: Responded. Awaiting your response to my comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is a terrible precedent of encouraging forks that are of no interest to anybody. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't find them interesting, don't come and make a point about how you don't like them. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The "featured" part is supposed to represent wikipedia's best work. There are plenty articles of little or no interest, and encouraging forks and working on them does not achieve any of wikipedia's goals. Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A tributary isn't the same thing as a fork. But seriously, there was enough interest to promote List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek over your complaint, which pretty clearly shows others disagree. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Nergaal is describing this article as a content fork, not describing the tributaries as forks in the river :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I added a link to a map at the bottom of the page, I hope this is ok. If you don't find it useful please delete. Most of the changes I made to the previous list are already made here, so I can't see anything else to add. Very nice article. Support Mattximus (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that link looks nice! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments – The Image columns don't need to be sortable. The reference to "various" pages in ref 2 isn't that helpful. You're almost better off not specifying a page number, as what's there doesn't help the reader find anything at all. Ref 9 needs a fuller access date, with month and day in addition to year. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Responding point by point: Fixed. I've removed it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact date I accessed it, so I have removed the accessdate. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC) You only removed the image sorting from the first list; the second still has it. As for the ref access date, if there isn't one, I usually just put the current day, which works fine as long as the link isn't dead. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! Fixed both. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support – After a third look at the list, everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [21].

---

List of international goals scored by Robbie Keane

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heals of Healy's list, I present the other Ireland top international scorer list. As always, your time and energy in contributing to the process is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Me again! I am almost tempted to tell you: just transpose most of what you have on Healy's page to this one and you're fine. But, I'll follow common featured candidacy protocol instead and give you my (non-copyediting-related) comments:

• The lead image does not have alt text.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be consistent with the table layout in Healy's list, I'd center-align the content in the "Cap", "Score", and "Result" columns.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Add to the "Statistics" section hatnote an explanation of what the "Score" column indicates.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move the statistics source citation tag to the end of the caption of each table.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Now that I look at it: why not adding also the also appearances to the by-competition table? If you do, don't forget to update the caption accordingly.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• If possible, wikilink (at least) the first instances of the newspaper/website and/or publisher parameters in citations, as they appear on the reference list.

  Colonies Chris will just unlink them in due course though... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ref. 7 has some problems. Also, can you format ref. 8 with a citation template?

I think it's better to let other reviewers post their comments before attempting some copyediting on the lead. That's it for now. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Parutakupiu Ok, addressed or responded to your comments above, thanks for taking the time again to look at this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've also performed a quick copyediting of the lead and tweaked the format of a few references. Please, check if the changes are OK for you. Nonetheless, I'm happy to support this candidate. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• From an image review perspective both images are properly licenced though the lede image still has no alt text.

  Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Citations look fine with Checlinks though several BBC links are redirects but they do preserve the link, so are only a very minor issue that could be easily fixed. I fixed citation 7 that had errors.

  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I would prefer to see many fewer wikilinks in the tables, per WP:OVERLINK even though repeated links are permitted they really don't help the reader understand the topic; 22 Lansdowne Road and 44 Dublin links is just too much. Even just linking the first instance where there are multiple instance would be so much better IMHO.

  I understand the concern. I am just trying to be consistent, not just internally, but across similar articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about all I can offer you but I like it. ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "in which he scored a hat-trick against the Faroes for the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification." for the doesn't read right to me, perhaps during?

  Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref 9 is not formatted properly, no accessdate. Also can it be considered a reliable source?

  I don't know, it was there before I edited the list and uses a template {{NFT player}}, it isn't needed so I've removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, both addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to Support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose and style. Just two quibbles about referencing:

• (Pedantic!), but Ref 2, 9 and 11 are BBC News articles, its Sport page didn't launch until 2000.
• Publish date for Ref 33? Lemonade51 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• The BBC refs do work and are online dates as stated and are listed under news not a specific sports section. However, sometimes the first click does not load the pages, but when you hit the reload button, the url works. I have dated ref 33. ww2censor (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers both. The BBC website isn't behaving particularly well for me this morning. 2, 9 and 11 now published by BBC News. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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