Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

86th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2014 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Since the ceremony is nominated for several Emmys, I prefer that the list be promoted until at least after August 16. Also, if you see someone changing the double dagger to boldface, please revert it promptly.--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Leaning to supporting. Just a few minor things.
In the honorary academy awards, there's a mention of the 1st Governors awards which I think is a mistake.
The quote about the theme of the ceremony is not fully represented in the Variety source. Alternate: the press release[2]
In the ceremony information section, mention that the six young filmmakers were part of the Team Oscar contest so that people know what Channing Tatum was presenting.
I'm not familiar with ratings in the US so it would be helpful if you could clarify some things. The ratings in the infobox says: 43.72 million but the source says 43.74 overall and I can't find the 25.66% number in the source. In the ratings and reception section, THR source says 43.7 million not 43.72 million. I couldn't find the 25.66%, 39.93 share in the cited Businessweek source. The LA Times source says nearly 72 million not 72.78 million. Also the 13.79 and 34.52 share number, I can't see them in the cited USA Today source. Could you please explain?

Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob:*Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. Here's some rundown of what I did:
  • The Governor's Award error was a typo from copying the sentence from another ceremony list. Thank you for spotting the mistake!
  • Replaced the source regarding the ceremony theme quote with the press release.
  • In the third paragraph of the Ceremony information, I mentioned that Channing Tatum introduced Team Oscar which was six film students who handed the statuettes to the presenters.
  • The ratings ordeal is a long one to explain but I'll attempt
  • The overall average viewership may be listed as 43.7 or 43.74, but they are the same number. Some people just round the decimals
  • The LA Times source listed it that 72 million total individual people watched at least portion of the ceremony (This count the total length of the broadcast. The 43.74 number represents the average viewership over each hour).
  • Ratings/share is the trickiest part to explain. A rating is the percentage of households watching a certain program at any give time while a share is a whole number representing the amount of households tuned into that same program in its particular time slot. The 18-49 rating measure the key demographic advertisers desire. For that number, I changed the source to a different one. For more info how ratings/share works, see here:[3]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Ellen is an actress, but I'd call her a talk show host currently.
  • Comma after "nominations were revealed", no comma after "finally"
  • An Adele Dazeem twitter account isn't notable, that seems to happen for everything nowadays.
  • No comma after "In Memoriam tribute", and a period after Barry. Reywas92Talk 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:*Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. I dropped the Adele Dazeem twitter account phrase altogether. Thanks for the help.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nicely done. I do follow the FLC page, so you don't have to notify me every time. Reywas92Talk 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the critical reviews section, I would replace the informal words, such as lamented, quipped, raved etc, with the more traditional wrote, reviewed, noted, said etc. Other than that, this one has my support. Great job once again. :)-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • In the first sentence, a comma is needed after AMPAS.
  • Box office performance of nominated films: Not sure if my comment is valid, but was The Great Gatsby in the top 50? That not only got a nom, but actually won an Oscar, somehow.
  • DeGeneres' Oscar selfie: "DeGeneres and eleven ceremony attendees such as ...". Not sure why we have "such as" when the whole roster is given. In fact, the whole roster seems indiscriminate. Why not pick four or five of the most notable people in the photo (Pitt, Lawrence, Streep etc.) and only name them?
  • Also, "in" is needed in "participated a group selfie."
  • Adele Dazeem incident: A contraction ("wasn't") needs fixing.
  • Ratings and reception: The second paragraph is stubby with just one sentence. Can it be merged with the previous paragraph, which isn't overly large?
  • In Memoriam: Comma needed after "who died more than a week prior to the ceremony". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I fixed everything you suggested. I forgot about Gatsby so thank you for noticing it! I also trimmed the selfie list down to six actors. I merged the second sentence with the remainder; However, I may separate it again if the ceremony does won several Emmys.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • "The telecast garnered nearly 44 million viewers in the United States, making it the most watched Oscar ceremony since the 72nd Academy Awards in 2000." — Source? Jimknut (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimknut:*Done: Added resource. The Wrap is an :entertainment business journal, not a gossip website. And some media outlets will round off 43.7 to the nearest whole number therefore 44 million.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Moons of Neptune

[edit]
Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's the last article on the natural satellites of a gas giant in the Solar System that has not yet achieved FA status. I have tried to address as many of the unresolved comments from the previous FLC as I could, and will attempt to address all comments here as promptly as possible. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Most of the content in this article was not written by me, BTW: I simply looked at the earlier FLC and attempted to act on the comments, as well as improve the article as best as I could in some places.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the lead looks choppy with isolated sentences - try to meld into three paras....
Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass, being an irregular satellite: - yes though technically correct, scans oddly when one reads it - I had to read it twice to check grammar. I'd reword to "Triton is unique among moons of planetary mass in that it is an irregular satellite: "
Done. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25.1 gigametres (weird unit)- err, why not convert to km...and keep as an abbreviation...
I converted to km, but I'm not sure how to get it to abbreviate using {{convert}}. For now, the conversion is done manually until I figure it out. Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Saturn's satellite system is the next most lopsided, with most of its mass being in its largest moon Titan. Jupiter and Uranus have more balanced systems.) - (a) needs a ref (b) looks weird in parentheses - could leave them out. Might look ok as a footnote too.
I turned it into a footnote. However, I had some trouble finding an explicit ref stating this, although it can be obtained readily from easily referenceable data values for the masses of the moons in question. (The sentence might not be needed, though.) Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, undecided on this - happy to go with consensus on what other folks feel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I should do anything to the first sentence, given that one of the 14 Neptunian moons has not yet been named. Double sharp (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add a footnote that one is yet to be named - one could argue to make it "13 of which.." or argue that it is a naming guideline that doesn't necessarily exclude the one yet to be named. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support - I rarely review lists so this is sort of pending consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm worried that the lead basically, apart from one paragraph, is all about Triton. I think this may be placing undue weight on a single moon, and the lead should focus more on some aspects of the system in general and not the single moon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to focus it more on how Triton's capture affected the Neptunian system as whole. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm still slightly worried about how much attention is given to it. I would probably cut the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead, which I think go into a little too much detail on the moon for the lead. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut those two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; only concert had been addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments - pretty good overall, technical without being obtuse. A few comments:

  • Lead: water deities, retrograde, inclined, prograde orbits. Discovery: Gerard P. Kuiper, Mark Showalter, water gods. Characteristics: Galle and LeVerrier rings, shepherd moon, Adams ring, concave, giant planets, geometrical albedo, polar cap, cryovolcanism, (in the image caption: prograde, retrograde). Table: Diameter, mass, inclination, Kuiper. Notes: Roman numeral, retrograde orbits. References: PMID, but that comes from a template, not you. --PresN 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider archiving your online-only sources with something like archive.org or webcitation.org, so that changes/removals of content at those sources don't destroy your citations.
  • --PresN 19:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 02:52, 23 July 2014 [5].

Dadasaheb Phalke Award

[edit]
Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The award is India's highest award in cinema given annually for the outstanding contribution to the Indian cinema. This is a listing of all the recipients since the award institution in 1969. Looking forward to some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Should the industry the recipient belongs to be noted? Soumitra Chatterjee is a Bengali film actor; while Pran is a Bollywood actor. Others like Lata, prominently work in Bollywood and Marathi cinema.
I don't think it should be added. The page would be vandalized so much. Anon users would also add state, language etc.
Fearing vandalism is not the cure of incompleteness. IMO, it is a very important detail missing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added industry column.
Added. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert for copyvio so I have asked somebody to take a look at all the images. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good shape. I would, however, expect to see a summary of the work of each person rather than simply "profession" which really looks at their most notable work and why they might have been given the award. I think it helps put things in context and will lead to a greater understanding for readers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will add the necessary details soon. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest award in cinema given annually at the National Film Awards." I would say National Film Awards ceremony.
  • Done
  • "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for the "outstanding contribution to the growth..." ==> "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for their "outstanding contribution to the growth..."
  • Done
  • "In 1969, the Government of India introduced a new National Film Award, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema". Very awkward phrasing. I suggest something like this: "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award was introduced by the Government of India in 1969 to mark the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke, who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema""
  • Done
  • " Dhundiraj Govind Phalke (1870–1944), popularly known as Dadasaheb Phalke, was an Indian filmmaker and has made India's first full-length feature Raja Harishchandra (1913). With the career spanned around 20 years, Phalke had formed a film company, Hindustan Films, and made 95 films and 26 short films including Mohini Bhasmasur (1913), Satyavan Savitri (1914), Lanka Dahan (1917), Kaliya Mardan (1919), and Gangavataran (1937)". These two sentences have several grammatical errors. Please correct them.
  • Done I have made the changes. Please see and let me know if it needs any further correction.
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the India cinema and is awarded "for distinguished contribution to the medium, its growth and promotion" Isn't something very similar mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph? Why repeat?
  • Removed
  • In the last sentence, please say "the most recent recipient of the award is..."
  • Done
  • Why is the cite web template used for newspaper sources? Please change them.
  • Corrected

Finally, I agree with the Doctor's comment. A little expansion on the recipient's most notable work will be great to have. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: and @Krimuk90: Per your suggestions, I have added some details about recipients' work. Please let me know if it needs any corrections. I may have done mistakes with the repeat text/verbiage. Feel free to correct. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, can you add profession then birth and death dates first though? Also, you'll need to source all of the information you've added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like to add DOB and DOD as it does not add much value to the list. Also, none of the Nobel award FLs are having such details. Talking about references, the column mentions all the necessary sources supporting the text. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that DOB/D is not needed. The next step after having those is to have separate section of "living winners". Such separate sections existed on Bharat Ratna eg and Prime Minister of India eg. Its like a countdown where we are waiting for them to die. The obsession also goes on to write down the age of the recipient at the time of winning, at the time of death and then footnotes are added to write about posthumous wins. And then there is another note added on the youngest winner and the oldest winner. And then again posthumous wins are to be clarified on whether they are considered in oldest winner or not. Oh! That's Hanuman's tail.... If there was any background on age/DOB/D and winning the award, it would be logical. We don't have any DPA death curse like the Oscar love curse. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, and @Redtigerxyz: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns remain.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spot a lot of peacock words and puffery which have crept in during the expansion I'm afraid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the expanded section needs a thorough check for grammatical errors before I can support this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The very basic concept of giving out the award is to honour the "lifetime achievement" of individuals. This isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead; it's mentioned only in the infobox
  • Not done: The statement "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema" clearly says the intent.
  • IMO, the lede does not adequately summarize the list. You need to explain about highly notable ones in a word or two.
  • Not done: "highly notable ones"? really? Are others not notable and have they got the award for free? Absolute case of POV.
So who do you suggest should be mentioned in lede and why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's upto the contributors/nominator to decide upon. Lead should summarize the list by talking about the winners, their profession, etc., not some arbitrary factoids like "XXX are the only siblings". —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Already decided as a nominator not to add any "notable recipients" as its a pure case of POV.
Oh then two or more recipients being siblings is worth mentionable? I'll leave it to other reviewers. —Vensatry (ping) 03:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should know the differences among WP:POV, WP:POVPUSH and WP:WEIGHT. I'm insisting on the last one. —Vensatry (ping) 03:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its definitely rare when in the country with the population of 1.2 billion, the highest award in a particular field is bestowed on two people from the same family and thus notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian cinema linked twice in lede
  • Done
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the Indian cinema" is repetitive stuff. The sentences before this one are more than sufficient to convey this idea.
  • On hold Would like to have second opinion on this.
Have rephrased it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cash prize needs "as of ..."
  • Done
  • "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988". I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  • In simple English ...that father and son, both had been awarded with country's highest award in cinema.
  • In that case you need to rephrase the sentence. It starts with "while...." explains about posthumous honour and ends with his son receiving the honour. Doesn't make sense even at the "simple English" level. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the semi colon after B. N. Reddy is correct. Also, the sentence itself doesn't satisfy WP:V. Neither of the sources verify the claim. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema talks about Nau Bahar.
  • Everything is sourced...just that you haven't read it properly. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia has a section "The changed musical scene" on the same page. Did you read that?
  • Of course they are sourced. But I'm only concerned about verifiability. The source for Nagi Reddy doesn't even talk about his brother. As for the "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema", it only says Lata was honoured with Bharat Ratna and Asha with the Palke award. Even when both the sources are put together, the fact that the pairs are the only siblings to receive the award isn't clear. Also, when you first brought the list here, you did not mention about the Reddy brothers. So it's your own research. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A BIG LOL for "it's your own research". Provided another source which says they are brothers. Their parents would be so upset up in heaven by your claim. :D
  • Oh come on man. Stop being childish and do some homework before going in for some crude jokes. I'm not denying that they are siblings; I know that much before you know. You need to provide a source which says the three pairs are the only siblings to receive the award. —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not interested in going into the details of what you or I knew earlier. Its irrelevant here. When three of the sources say that the respective recipients are siblings, we need not provide bunch of sources to prove that others are not related to each others as siblings. Second opinion needed.
  • Then you shouldn't have made comments like that. In case you are not aware of our policies, we need multiple reliable sources to prove strong claims like this. Else remove it, it's your own research. —Vensatry (ping) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you would not find a source of something that doesn't exists. So there will be no source that says "A B C P Q R are not related". I have and will always be against Wikipedia's blind dependency on "reliable sources" especially in trivial and minuscule matters. We Wikipedians on many occasions do better in-depth research than so called researchers with access to a printing press. At end WP:COMMONSENSE exists, hopefully. Btw, going by the rule book, the reference at the end of the statement "The most recent recipients are Rajkummar Rao (Hindi) and Suraj Venjaramoodu (Malayalam)" in the article National Film Award for Best Actor does not actually support the "most recent recipients" claim. In case you have doubts on some people in here being siblings, we can try getting OTRS emails from them. Until then, lets use commonsense over rules. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim about the most recent winners is a case of WP:OBVIOUS. The one which we are discussing right now doesn't fall under that. —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as obviousness applies to the style of writing, it applies to the content too; per what is commonly known as common sense. Anyways, you may put your doubts here and i can go and get OTRS or file RTI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for making the table unsortable?
  • Not done: Only two out of six columns contains info that makes sense to have it sortable, I would keep it unsortable. Again, its not mandatory.
Are you saying that row scopes should exist only when some column of the table is sortable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure as the guideline is not very clear. But I've normally seen tables that use row scopes and column scopes being sortable. At least the winners column need to be sortable as it helps in accessibility. Besides WP:FL? has something about tables being sortable. —Vensatry (ping) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not mandatory. Many FLs do not use sortable columns. This is just one example.
Sortablity is a very useful feature in tables. In this case, we have 40+ recipients. The one you showed doesn't use row scopes. Anyways, you can have multiple opinions on this one too. —Vensatry (ping) 03:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list which you showed doesn't need to be sortable as they are many tables with just one or two rows. —Vensatry (ping) 03:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entries in the "Film industry" are awkwardly aligned.
  • I think it looks nice to have bullet format than simple <br>
  • None of the entries in "Notes" col. are sourced; seems like you've copied text from other pages without proper attribution.
  • Wow! I am absolutely certain that you haven't read any source. Tell me whats not sourced then I will correct it. Don't just type because you have keyboard!!
  • Yes. I've not done any spot checks. Here we go: The very first ref. for Devika Rani (Britannica) doesn't mention her being the first leading lady of Indian cinema and Bombay talkies being the first public limited company, etc., If you want me to carry out spotchecks for other refs, I'll do some "keyboard overloading" (if time permits). —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ref already present in the article says "Dube Industries, which was mainly into construction, was founded by Rajnarayan in 1929. It diversified into films with the opening of Bombay Talkies, India's first public limited film company. " §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I cannot find any mention of her being the first leading lady in either of the sources. Also why is the ref nested? —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a key to indicate posthumous win as there is only one recipient
  • Done
  • The FN for Raj Kapoor gets into too much of unnecessary details
  • I don't think so. Its a well published "fact" in multiple books and reliable sources, knowing that we had a DYK published on the main page about deciding vote about NFA!
  • It doesn't mean we should write every crap that's being published. Published trivia should be included based on it's importance and relevance to the context and not because of personal interest. Bringing in the DYK fact is absolutely irrelevant here; that was not an FLC. Besides, the fact carried a greater relevance to the context and was quite interesting when compared to some attributed hooks like the ones mentioned here. But in this case, it's running out of context and looks purely trivial. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have randomly entered the entries for "Film industry" column. What's the criteria you;ve taken for each recipients? For eg., you say K. Balachander (Tamil and Telugu) while the Reddy Brothers were confined only to Telugu films.
  • Its taken from the source. Again, tell me whats not sourced, I will correct it. However, several sources can be provided to support the "industry" but then it would be cite kill.
  • It's better to remove some images as there are copyright issues. ANR's image is definitely not PD-US. Having images are good but not mandatory in these kind of lists.
  • Not done: I would keep all the images and remove only those which are not compliant.
Once deleted from Commons, a bot automatically removes the red-linked images from Wikipedias. In case you have doubts on any specific images, please get them to DR over there or highlight them here so others can get them to DR. "Remove some images" is too vague for understanding whats to be removed and what not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion process might take some weeks. We don't want such copy-vios to stay here if the list gets promoted in the meanwhile. Regarding your last point, I think I've made it clear in the previous comment. —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DR is open for a week and usage in that period is perfectly fine. If it wasn't the one-week norm would have been reduced with common broad consensus. Anyways, all DRs are now closed as keep. Images are fine and good to stay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harv errors in references.
  • Very vague statement!
  • Reference parameters are inconsistently formatted.
  • Very vague statement!
  • Corrected
    • I've listed only a few issues, but I can still go on and on. The main issue here is the content keeps changing drastically every moment since the list was brought here. It goes more like a peer review rather than an FLC. To be very honest, the list needs a fair amount of work before it gets promoted. Suggest the nominator to go for a peer review. —Vensatry (ping) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "content keeps changing drastically"! Only "Notes" column has been expandedsince the list is bought here, that too based on the suggestions of two renowned reviewers and not one. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – I found a few samples where the statement is not even correctly reproduced. I can do it for the whole article, but finding it difficult to find time as I'm terribly busy in real life. So requesting others to carry out a spotcheck. —Vensatry (ping) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image update

Only 2 Some images are under DR at commons.

Rest all are okay or were kept post DRs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated some of the images myself for the deletion for not having valid sources. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strike when images are replaced. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the suspected images are deleted. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
L. V. Prasad img is nominated for deletion. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:L.V. Prasad.jpg. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sitush
Table columns
The year column in the table makes little sense at present because it suggests that the first award was the 17th. I suggest that another column is added - "National Film Awards - and the information split between that and the current "year" column. Or the column title is changed to "National Film Awards" and the contents reformatted to [[17th National Film Awards (India)|17th]] (1969) etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The year and the number has always been an issue with NFAs. Now being accustomed to it, some regular editors/readers would know how to interpret it. The current format of calling it "Year" and the writing "YYYY(nth)" has been followed on National Film Award for Best Actor and National Film Award for Best Actress; both being FLs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comparatives. I still think that it jars: we are not necessarily (or, indeed, usually) catering for regular editors and readers. Everyone is new once. That other lists have the same construct might indicate a wider problem. I've only just noticed that this is a FLC - perhaps we should copy/paste these relevant sections from here to the FLC page? Are we allowed to do that? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. I have added (Ceremony) to the column header for better clarification. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Film industry
I'm not entirely convinced that "Film industry" in the table heading will make much sense to non-Indian readers. We may need some explanation of how Indian cinema is grouped linguistically. Also, since the table is not sortable, we seem to be massively in breach of WP:OVERLINK. That said, I guess that some people might like to re-order the table by film industry or recipient name, so perhaps consider making the thing sortable? - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sortablity would hardly be of use when some have more than one industry mentioned. It would only sort by first entry. And then as only one column of names was left worth sorting, the whole table was left unsorted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised that. Thus, we should reduce the overlinking in that column. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced over-linking. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications needed
  • CN is requested with reason "something wrong here - introduced in 1969 but he was born in 1870, so it is not the centenary of his birth" for the statement "First presented in 1969, the award marked the centenary birth year of Phalke (1870–1944)".
The award is presented at the NFA ceremony. The NFAs are given for films released from 1st Jan to 31st Dec. So the entries are collected, sorted and whatever, and the awards are declared in the first quarter of next year. In recent few years, the ceremony is being held on 3rd May and the recipients are announced in April or so. So even if the award is actually handed in 1970, it is for the work done in 1969. The award ceremony is popular by its own serial number, but is at times also confused by media between the year presented and the year its actually for. That's how the 1969's award which was presented in 1970 falls under the centenary birth year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we explain this? For example, "the awards are made retrospectively, at the NFA for the following year." - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this award, in particular, is given for the contribution over the years. So tying it with last and following year would not justify the purpose. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think my primary point is being missed: we say that Phalke lived 1870 - 1944 but that the award was first presented in 1969 to mark his birth centenary. Since the centenary of his birth was 1970, this makes no sense and it is only if you click on the link to the NFA article that you realise the ceremony was in 1970. Am I really the only person who is confused by this? As Vivvt says, the award recognises a corpus of work rather than a single event and my gut feeling is that the year should show 1970 even though all the other awards doled out at the ceremony are for 1969. Obviously, this then has a knock-on effect for every other entry in the table, which will need advancing by a year. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is kinda confusing but I am not sure how to address this concern. We cannot simply add up years by one because in the past we have had two of the NFA ceremonies in a single year. Like, 16th-17th in 1970, 46th-47th in 2000, 49th-50th in 2003, 51st-52nd in 2005, and 56th-57th in 2010. So this would not solve the problem. Rather should we say that it "marked a beginning of the centenary birth year"? - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did it? How can 1969 mark the beginning of 1970? I really don't know what the answer is here and I think we need extra input. Is there a way to highlight this issue? - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the centenary part for now along with the tag. I dont see it getting resolved soon. I would raise an RfC probably sometime later.
OK. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CN is requested with reason "what is the point here? the statement is a non sequitor" for the statement "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988." and probably on the footnote "In 1972, Raj Kapoor received the posthumous award given to his father, Prithviraj Kapoor. However, on 1 May 1988, when he was being conferred the award by the then President of India, R. Venkataraman, Kapoor had an asthmatic attack and was rushed in the President's ambulance. Kapoor died a month later on 2 June 1988."
The paragraph later on talks about the related recipients. And we have to somehow mention the relation of these two Kapoors. We also had to mention that Sr. Kapoor was awarded posthumously. For me, the link of son accepting the award and then being rushed to hospital and eventually dying was interesting. To not give undue importance to it, it was added as footnote instead of the main body. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the information should be removed entirely from the thing. My point is that there is no connection other than name between the two parts of the statement and thus the phrasing - especially the "but" - is wrong. "But" creates a dependency between two clauses - eg: "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but less so when it is stale" rather than "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but is made from wheat that grows in fields". - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this makes sense? "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees and Prithviraj Kapoor is the only posthumous recipient awarded in 1971. Kapoor's actor-filmmaker son Raj Kapoor, who accepted the award on his behalf, was also awarded [with Dadasaheb Phalke Award] in 1988."[Footnote] - Vivvt (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Please see if we could provide necessary clarification for the tags. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot this, sorry. Your draft is not great English. Try "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees. Among those was the sole posthumous recipient, being Prithviraj Kapoor in 1971. His actor-filmmaker son, Raj Kapoor, accepted the award on his behalf and was himself a recipient in 1988." Or something close to it. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:Changed a bit. Please see if its suitable and remove the clarify tag if its alright. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine by me. I'm sorry if I have been a pain - I was asked to copyedit and have been drawn into a process of which I have no prior experience. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, you were fabulous with your comments. We were looking for a native speaker to do copyediting and your edits were much helpful in the process. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awardee names in tables
  • With apologies but this first time at a FLC has brought out the pedant in me. We say Devika Rani Chaudhuri Roerich but our article is titled Devika Rani and a cached version of the DFF source for the table also seems to use the shorter form (the live site is not accessible to me here). We also say B. N. Sircar when our article is Birendranath Sircar, and in this instance I can't even see what the DFF prefers from the cached version.
I'm not trawling through every line of the table but do we need to standardise? There may be a fight between COMMONNAME and what the DFF says in some cases but we probably need to follow either one or the other rather than mixing things up. I guess that some of these issues are because our article titles do not always follow COMMONNAME even though they are supposed to do but others might be because the DFF adopt a more formal tone. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats correct. Its very confusing at a times. So, changing table entries to the current wiki article names. Moving them to COMMONNAME needs another discussion and is out of the scope for this FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see inline citations in the description part rather than one in a column referencing the claims directly as I suspect for some the one source won't cover all of the claims in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know which claims are unsourced? I would rather not like to have it changed to the inline than ref column as most of the FLCs follow the same format and I personally find it tidy. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to ask one of the delegates on this. My feeling is that when you make several strong claims about somebody in a column the facts should be directly attributed. Does the one source in each column really back up all of the claims made in each?? For me it would look tidier and more easily verifiable if you removed the reference column and used inline citations in the column. Will be willing to support once changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With two of the reviewers suggesting the same thing..working on it. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the sources to be inline with the text. I still have kept one source from DFF at the header of the table which indicates the year in which award was given. Please let me know if you think multiple sources are required for any of the claims. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A pity that it took other editors commenting to bring about the change I'd been on about for a while but this is much improved from when it was originally nominated and I'm now content with it. Good effort!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was looking into promoting this, but I am concerned over the possibility of source misrepresentation. I am not too concerned over the only brothers (iff this list is complete, and iff they are the only brothers/siblings on the list, then that's enough referencing for me). However, I'd like a source spotcheck anyways, just in case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much sure but do we have to ask an uninvolved editor to do spotcheck or can it be done by currently involved editors? Or would it be done by delegates? - Vivvt (Talk) 03:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks

On this version:

  • Ref 2 for "selected by a committee consisting of eminent personalities from the Indian film industry". The parts of the google book page linked that I can see says "sub-committee would recommend that a small committee consisting of eminent persons...". So, this reference states that a certain sub-commitee is recommending setting up of a committee for the Phalke award. I could not find the year of that recommendation, and what happened to that recommendation. I think this inadequate to support the sentence.
Since 57th National Film Awards (2009), DFF started mentioning about the committee members for the award in their official catalogue. So I would have at least 5 sources to support the statement. Should I add those along with the existing source?
You should add at least one good additional source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources from 57-58th NFA official catalogues. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3. Checks out fine. No copyvio problems.
  • Ref 6. "Vidura" - the hyperlink is giving a 404 error to me. Also, the citation itself "C. Sarkar. "Vidura". Vidura. Press Institute of India 25. Retrieved 24 May 2014.", what is it? I mean, a chater called Vidura in a journal called Vidura?
Darn. Its a dead-link now. Let me find another source.
Added two sources. One for RK receiving award on behalf of PRK and another for RK getting the award himself. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10. At page 72 of the Nihalni, Chatterjee, Gulzar book, I did not see any sentence supporting the data. Maybe I am seeing some other edition of the book. Can you please point out which sentence(s) in the book supports the fact in the article?
Here is the related sentences for Mangeshkar sisters. "Of those who began their playback careers after independence, the Mangeshkar Sisters, Lata and Asha (professionally known as Asha Bhosle), dominated the women's scene right into the 21st century." and "Lata and Asha are the daughters of the noted singer and actor, Dinanath Mangeshkar."
It's fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15. The Gulzar Nihalni book, page 632. This is not available for me to see in google book. So, could not check.
The page is accessible for me. Here is the snippet... "Subhash Chandra Bose inaugurated Sircar's theatre, Chitra (now called Mitra), on December 30, 1930. Since Chitra only screened Bengali films, Sircar opened another theatre, New Cinema, for screening Hindi films."
Thanks for the sentence. It's fine, then.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 18. Should there be a space between the comma and the succeeding page numbers?
I'm not sure what does MOS say for this.
I believe there should be a space (non-breaking space?) after comma.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 26. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 32. Ok
  • Ref 39. One of the top ten greatest performances. I failed to see this mentioned in the source. Is the source a part of "top ten" slides/gallery?
I believe its part of slide as it has left-right nav arrow. Here is the direct link which mentions "Great Performances Raj Kapoor, Awara By Richard Corliss Jan. 19, 2010"
Still not convinced for this one. The article/series referred to discusses top 100 films; I did not see anything on "top 10 greatest performances of all time".--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. There is no explicit heading but the link "Great Performances" above RK and one on the right hand side lists ten performances from various movies starting from Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront till Brigitte Lin in Swordsman II. I dont think TIME has given such explicit heading for these ten entries. Please advice if this is not convincing. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the guide. Yes, now I can see that the performance by Raj Kapoor in Awara is included in the top performances slideshow (which has total of ten entries). Yes, now it appears appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered some of the concerns so far. Let me circle back with rest. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Crisco 1492 11:25 20 July 2014 [6].

Alastair Sim on stage and screen

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Sim was a character actor par excellence, portraying faded Anglo-Scottish gentility; he was described by the comedian Ronnie Corbett as a "sad-faced actor, with the voice of a fastidious ghoul". His appearances in a series of comedies in the 1940s, 50s and early 60s are what will keep his memory going, but he was also a fine theatre actor with a long stage career. This list has been separated from the main Sim article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a model of its kind. A few minor comments:

  • Lead: "although he had turned down": I think you mean "although he turned down", as this was in the 1970s after the earlier honours.
  • Caviare – the absence of a role is explained by the fact that this was a revue. Worth explaining in the table?
  • As You Desire Me, September 1933 – this was at the Gate Theatre, Notting Hill, not the Dublin one. (See The Times, 18 September 1933 p. 10)
  • The Devil in the News – a Stage Society one-off I see from the press archives, but none of them say which theatre it was on at. Very odd. I wonder if you might put in the table "Stage Society" with a footnote that it was a one-off matinée at a theatre not named in the reviews. Hold everything! It was at the Grafton Theatre in Tottenham Court Road: see here And Volpone was at the Fortune (same source).
  • You of all people – same source on p. 776 doesn't mention Sim, but spells the character "Portwine". By the way, I think you mean 1939, not 1938 unless your chronology has gone awry.

That's my lot. A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 19:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Great actor, last saw him in Stage Fright, although I must admit to thinking that the film was one of Hitchcock's weaker efforts!

  • You might change Britain to England (if it was only in England) or the United Kingdom. Britain always looks colonial and old-fashioned in such a context!
  • You might add in Albert Parker's The Riverside Murder..
  • It might be a good idea to state the directors of some of the films. Whenever I search for a filmography knowing their most notable films and the directors they worked with on the notable ones is what I generally look for. Other than that you could add a director column to the filmo table. Mentioning the directors of his notable films though I think would really help in the lead.
  • I've added to the lead, although that para now is a big blue smack in the face! I'm certainly not keen on adding directors to the list: we don't tend to add such details to filmogs (along with other film-related info, such as budget or box office), but simply focus on the actor side of things. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC
Agreed, just the directors of the notable ones is fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although he turned down a knighthood that was offered to him by Edward Heath." -when was this?
  • The Elephant's Foot April 1965 Touring -touring where?

♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me, just three things:

  • In the first paragraph we say he appears in many light mediums, including theatre film and television. We then go on to make no mention of his successful television credits (if any), but mention both theatre and film. Where there any notable television credits?
  • Not really! His TV work was slim and, although the programmes were notable, his parts in them were not really. I'm happy to try and work something in if you feel it would benefit? - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interests of chronology, we seem to give his death before he was honoured and talk about his rectory post.
  • Giving the directors after the films is all well and good, but it does make for some bumpy reading. Is this a new thing at FLC?
  • Shame there is no image in the lede. Bloody copyright laws!

...and now to finish with a fact. Did you know Alec Guinness based his Professor Marcus in The Ladykillers on Sim? Sim turned the role down and Guinness decided to pay homage to his idol. Note the close similarities ;) -- Cassiantotalk 09:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cass, much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of accolades received by Gravity (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC), Corvoe (speak to me)[reply]

Corvoe and I are nominating this list because we believe it meets the six criteria for a featured list. We welcome constructive comments and are happy to make changes to better the article if required. Cowlibob (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are quite a handful of red links in the table. Could you remove them? It would make the list look better.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: I've unlinked all the red links of people who are unlikely to have their own articles created in the near future. I've kept the ones which won or were nominated for major awards as those red links will help wikipedia grow. Hope that's ok. Anything else you would think needs changing? Cowlibob (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although I'm not done doing a thorough proofread on the list, I think there's no serious problems with it.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent list, and I don't have any major concerns with it. Just one small point: the film is described as a "science-fiction thriller and space drama film". I think calling the film a science fiction thriller is sufficient. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Corvoe (speak to me) 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 14:00, 19 July 2014 [8].

Premier League Player of the Season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list over the last week and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: picture of Thierry is the same as on the Golden Boot, perhaps show a different pic/Ronaldo?
  • Paragraph 2 is pretty similar to the one at the Golden Boot, was it copied?
  • Support. Sorry for the delay. Thanks, Matty.007 10:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: "an annual association football award presented to footballers in England" - repetition of "football" seems a bit redundant, maybe change "footballers" to "players"?
  • First two sentences are quite short and could easily be joined: ".....presented to players in England, which recognises....."
  • "the Player of the Month and Player of the Season awards was only" - two awards mentioned, so "was" should be "were"
  • "given to Blackburn Rovers striker Alan Shearer for winning the Premier League title and the Golden Boot" - is there a specific citation from the awarding panel that says that this was why he won the award? It may seem obvious, but unless it was specifically announced that he won the award for that specific reason, it would be OR to state it. Maybe replace with "given to Blackburn Rovers striker Alan Shearer, who won the Golden Boot that season and helped his team win the Premier League title"
  • "Thierry Henry, Cristiano Ronaldo and Nemanja Vidić have been Player of the Season on two occasions each – more than any other players" - I think this would read better as "Thierry Henry, Cristiano Ronaldo and Nemanja Vidić have been Player of the Season on two occasions each and are the only players to have won the award more than once"
  • The lead talks about players who won the Golden Boot in the same season as this award, but they aren't highlighted in the table - is this worth including?
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 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously at the FLC but didn't get sufficiently reviewed. I'm nominating the list because I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Comments/ suggestions appreciated! Regards, —Zia Khan 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • @Seattle: I don't think this is necessary as the pages say "either the symbol or the alternative text is displayed according to the browser". In this case dagger and double-dagger are explained in the Key section! Other featured lists of the same kind (Gavaskar's, Lillee's, Steve Waugh's etc) don't have alt text for these kind of symbols, too. —Zia Khan 20:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret the term "either" to mean one or the other. Meaning, the dagger will display on some browsers, or, the alternate text will display on other browsers. On the some browsers that won't display the dagger, if the alternate text isn't there, they won't be able to tell what the dagger represents because it won't be visible. No one will be able to tell who the dagger represents without the alternate text. Seattle (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Overall a good list. Leaning to supporting. A few suggestions for improvement.
I think it reads better if you keep scores as numbers and the other numerical stuff as words. Examples:
He has scored Test centuries at 12 different cricket grounds, including 8 --> twelve different cricket grounds, including eight
Gayle has scored ODI centuries at 16 different cricket grounds, including 17 at 13 --> sixteen, seventeen and thirteen
The above sentence could also potentially be split into two to make it clearer. I thought it was a bit confusing to read as one sentence.
one of 11 players --> eleven
first player to score a century in T20I --> score a century in a T20I

Cowlibob (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Hrithik Roshan filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully working on Rani Mukerji filmography, Aamir Khan filmography, and Shahrukh Khan filmography, this is my fourth FL nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Overall. A great list as we've come to expect from you. Minor wording suggestions in the lead:
"for which he won two trophies..." --> for which he won two Filmfare awards...
"Also in 2000" --> Later in 2000
"After starring alongside...." --> In 2001, after starring....
"Koi Mil Gaya (2003)" doesn't need the (2003) as you've already mentioned it earlier
"highest grossing film of the year" --> highest grossing film of that year Not sure about this one
"earned Roshan a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actor and a Best Actor" --> could this be clarified in some way to show it's given by two different awarding bodies of Filmfare? Currently it's a bit confusing as it says Best Actor twice.
a mention that Dhoom 2 was his third Filmfare Best Actor award perhaps?
"best actor trophy" --> best actor award Replace this on the two occasions that this appears in the lead
"Roshan played one of three" --> Roshan also played one of the three...
Maybe break up Agneepath and Zindagi into separate sentences?
"Roshan reprised..." --> Roshan reprised his double role...
Is Rediff news a credible source for his role in Aasha? I'm wary of articles which start with X things you didn't know about this celebrity..
This is probably nitpicking but the sources for his singing in Guzaarish and Zindagi don't actually specify he sang that particular song in the film. The same for his special appearances in film songs. Cowlibob (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments @Cowlibob:. I have addressed all of them, except for the last two. I believe the Rediff.com source is quite credible for the Aasha info. As for the final comment, it's very difficult to find a reliable source that states the exact name of the song in which he performed. Having said that, the sources provided do state that he performed a special appearance or sang a song in that film.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a child, he appeared in uncredited cameo appearances in three films directed by his maternal grandfather, J. Om Prakash" -you might add "the first of which was Aasha (1980)" just to give the reader context of what time period we're talking about immediately.
  • You might change "garnered" in second instance to "earned" to avoid repetition.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Done. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I do not see any problems with this list. I may add a comment, but I think the previous comments were addressed. Therefore, there is nothing really preventing this list from being promoted.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 Crisco 1492 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Discography of Audie Murphy

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a series of articles on Audie Murphy I'd like to nominate for Good Topic and Featured Topic. Audie Murphy honors and awards is already a FL. The main article is GA and currently at FAC FA. Film career of Audie Murphy and Military career of Audie Murphy are both GA. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the standard format for discography-article titles is "X discography", rather than "Discography of X". See here. The article should be moved to Audie Murphy discography.—indopug (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy didn't record these songs; it should rather be moved to List of songs recorded by Audie Murphy, in line with other articles. Adabow (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, but I think you mean List of songs written by Audie Murphy?—indopug (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes. Adabow (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: (1) The main article Audie Murphy just achieved FA status; (2) I'm not opposed to moving the article one direction or another. But experience tells me that everybody has an opinion on things like this. And the very real possibility exists that if we move it now, someone else is going to post here and insist a move to something else. If a move is necessary, let's do it at the end of this review, giving time for anyone else who thinks otherwise. I respect your opinions and experience on this issue. However "Discography of Audie Murphy" was not chosen by me, and was suggested at the main article talk page by someone else who has experience in this area. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel that List of songs written by Audie Murphy is the correct name for this article. But yes, a WP:RM would be better. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can move it myself, and will do so at the end of this review. Just want to give everyone a chance to weigh in on this. In the meantime, the review needs to proceed. — Maile (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Since you have made this a sortable list you need to make sure everything sorts correctly. Song titles that begin with "A", "An", or "The" should sort by the second word in the title. People should be sorted by their last names. See Template:Sort and Template:Sortname.
Facepalm Facepalm Done. And I've done this for enough lists for women's halls of fame that I shouldn't have overlooked this. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think that the title of this article should be "List of songs written by Audie Murphy" rather than "Discography of Audie Murphy".
OK. We can do this before this nomination closes. Just want to make sure there aren't any strong objections to the move. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the Charley Pride album should be in italics.
Done. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.— Maile (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — looks good. Jimknut (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a couple caveats

  • I find it a bit odd that you just launch in with "Audie Murphy was a collaborator on several songs between 1962 and 1970", without taking half a sentence to tell the reader who Audie Murphy was, just something that he was also an actor and a decorated soldier in WW2.
I expanded. Thanks for mentioning. Sometimes I forget not everybody knows who he was. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Audie Murphy:American Soldier" - space after the colon? Although, in the references you use a comma-space instead
Good catch. The comma is how the book is actually titled, so I changed the colon to a comma. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camp and Canyon Music assigned to Vogue Music Inc. 1966" - might be a bit more readable as "Camp and Canyon Music; assigned to Vogue Music Inc. in 1966"
Done, per your suggestion. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support PresN — Maile (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat

[edit]
Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*"Audie Murphy" should not be bolded in the first line – it's only entire titles that are.
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(20 June 1925 – 28 May 1971)": I think I'm right in saying we don't need the full dates here as it's not his main article: the year range will do just fine.
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of his most known poems" -> "One of his better-known poems" would be better
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "top hit churned out by Murphy": is "churned out" encyclopaedic language?
Changed to "written by". — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twelve of their songs were written by just Murphy and Turner. However, others also worked with them at times." -> "Twelve of their songs were written by just Murphy and Turner, although others also worked with them at times."
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has recently added a 46th film, Rock 'Em Cowboy in 1958": this reads as recently in 1958. Prob best to do Rock 'Em Cowboy (1958)
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 8 & 18 should be pp., not p.
Done. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is taken care of, per your comments above. Thank you for your input. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thanks for the quick response on this; I'm happy to support this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]

John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrymore was an superlative actor whose career ran between 1904 and his death in 1942. Although lauded as one of the finest stage actors of the time, he won only one award, and his career suffered in later years from monumental bouts of drinking. Part of America's "Royal Family" of actors, Barrymore was "perhaps the most influential and idolized actor of his day", according to one biographer. This list has been separated from the main Barrymore article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cassianto (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

You dark horse! I had no idea you had this planned. Oh well, here goes:

lol - yeah, I had it stashed in a sandbox for a month before deciding to launch it on the world! - SchroCat (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Barrymore tried to start his career in art" -- at this point, we only know his career to be within show business. This suggests that art was part of that career. How about swapping the "his" for "a"?
  • "the theater proved a more interesting proposition than the newspaper world". Two things; firstly he worked in the newspaper industry and as far as I can see, never received a proposal of sorts. Secondly, "newspaper world" seems a bit unencyclopaedic. Perhaps industry?
  • "That year he also began to appear in full-length films; and he appeared in nine films" -- Not sure a conjunction works with a semi-colon.
  • "During the 1920s his serious stage work soon transferred to film" -- redundancy of "soon".
  • "... two major stage productions of Shakespeare." Would it be a given that most would have heard of Shakespeare?
  • "where is ran for a further 68 performances"?
  • "Such was the success of Hamlet, Warner Bros. signed Barrymore up..." →"Such was the success of Hamlet, that Warner Bros. signed Barrymore up..."?
  • On an iPad, there seems to be a huge amount of white space, caused by the images.

Support – per resolved comments. I'm astounded at how good you have made this in such a short amount of time. Cassiantotalk 14:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut

[edit]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Picture: "Barrymore in the 1920s or 30s" → I would say this picture is most definitely from the 20s.
  • "together the family were known as America's "Royal Family" of actors" → "together they were known as America's "Royal Family" of actors" (eliminates "family" being used twice in one sentence)
  • "... and Barrymore was "perhaps the most..." → "... and of them John was "perhaps the most..."
  • "That year he also began to appear in full-length films, and he appeared in nine films between 1914 and 1918, all of them slapstick comedies." → "That year he also began to work in feature-length films, appearing in nine between 1914 and 1918, all of them slapstick comedies." (eliminates "appear" and "films" being used twice in one sentence)
  • "During the 1920s his serious stage work transferred to film" → Really? This sentence makes it seem as if the stage plays he appeared in were made into films (which was certainly not the case).
  • "Such was the success of Hamlet, that Warner Bros. signed Barrymore up for a film deal." → "Such was the success of Hamlet, that Warner Bros. signed Barrymore to a film contract."
  • I think it should be noted that Don Juan is historically important as the first feature with a recorded synchronized soundtrack and also that in two of his Warner Bros. films – The Sea Beast and When a Man Loves – he co-starred with Dolores Costello, whom he later married.
  • I'm not sure about this: this is a list of his appearances and the key points that affected his career, rather than a full history of him (we don't, for example, cover any of his other wives here. At some point (after I've re-done a different biography) I hope to give the main Barrymore article a major overhaul (looking to a possible FA standard there), and this will, of course be covered there—I note Costello is paid scant attention in that article at the moment). In terms of Don Juan, I think the same is true: the National Film Registry entry is good (as would any Academy Award wins), but "first feature film with a synchronized soundtrack" seems a bit of a stretch. Again, this should certainly be in the main Barrymore article (it's only referred to there in an uncited manner in the lead). - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his discharge from hospital he..." → "After his discharge from the hospital he..." (Just "hospital" is, I believe, correct in British English, but "the hospital" is correct for American English. The latter, then, should be used as Barrymore was an American.)
  • Stage appearances: The Man From Home should be in italics.
  • Film appearances: Unless new information has come forth, I believe the first four films listed are dubious credits. From what I've read, An American Citizen is generally regarded as Barrymore's official film debut but information came forth in 1969 stating that some now lost Lubin shorts from 1912-13 listed a "Jack Barrymore" in their cast although it is not certain if this is actually John Barrymore. I think, therefore, that the filmography could be sub-divided so that the first four films are separate from the remaining films and listed as dubious.
  • I'm not sure they are dubious, and there are a few sources which list them, so I'd rather not lose them altogether. Instead I've added a more complete note to raise the point with people, which should cover it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radio broadcasts: No listing for the names of the characters Barrymore played?
  • Radio broadcasts: The third column is marked as "Channel" which, I believe is correct in the United Kingdom. However, "Network" is correct for the United States — Jimknut (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep: missed one! (you can tell I'm British, can't you!)
  • Many thanks for these Jimknut: I've done the straightforward ones, and will go back to my sources in the morning to go through the remainder. Many thanks for taking the time and effort here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Some more suggestions
  • "That year he also began to work in full-length films, and he appeared in nine between 1914 and 1918, all of them slapstick comedies." → "That year he also began to work in full-length films, and appeared in nine between 1914 and 1918, all of them slapstick comedies." (Eliminates using "he" twice in one sentence.)
  • "Although Barrymore appeared in a number of successful films in the 1930s, including Counsellor at Law (1933) and Twentieth Century (1934), his increasing alcoholism was leading to a poor memory and the inability to remember his lines." → *"Although Barrymore appeared in a number of successful films in the 1930s, including Counsellor at Law (1933) and Twentieth Century (1934), his increasing alcoholism led to memory loss and the inability to remember his lines."
  • Thanks for the further thoughts: I've done 1, 3 and 4, but just want to check your second point against the sources. (I'm sure you're probably right, but just for my peace of mind!) Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear, reader-friendly, evidently comprehensive. The second para of the lead is rather a slab of text and could with advantage be split in half. That apart I have no quibbles whatever. Tim riley talk 12:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated (both for the review and the tweak); I've taken on board the suggestion about the para and split off the film section, which seemed the most logical. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names

[edit]
Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, 37 players with (so far) unidentified given names have suited up for a game in a league considered "major" by modern standards. Surprisingly, newspapers have mentioned a few players in write-ups without identifying their first name. In essence, these 37 individuals have been lost to history and it is unlikely their true identity will ever be uncovered.

I enjoy the dignified game of the past, but now, I'm disillusioned with the modern commercialism associated with the it; the anonymity of these athletes shows me their true commitment to the sport, a kind of dignity that I want to promote on Wikipedia through this list. Seattle (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How has it changed since the last nomination? And, please put more effort into this. The comment above literally says "Please try and say something more interesting than "because I think it meets the criteria," and you've somehow discovered a phrase less interesting than that. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! Alright. From the start of the first nomination to now, it has changed as such. From the end of the first nomination to now, it hasn't changed. The first featured list nomination failed due to a lack of reviews and input: now, I'm reviewing several featured lists for input. Seattle (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I supported before and see no reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support and comments from Jim. I know even less about baseball than you know about birds, but I found this to be accessible in that most of the jargon was linked. I've never heard of anything similar in UK soccer or cricket, but teams here only very rarely disappear, so it is more likely that there will be a record. Just two minor points follow
  • box scores—I don't understand the "box" bit
  • allowed 12 runs—would "conceded" be more accurate?
I'd wager there are more than 37 players who played in the early years of the Football League whose first name is not recorded. Hmmmmm, there's an idea for an article......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Premio Lo Nuestro 2013

[edit]
Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because we have been working researching the Lo Nuestro Awards history (Erick and yours truly), and for the 2013 ceremony we found the most references (obviously), so we think the list meets the criteria. This list is based on several FLs, mostly the 84th Academy Awards. We will be watching closely this nominations as we did with the Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year, the recently FL and the first about this award. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • "The telecast garnered more than 6.4 million viewers (in North America)" - are the brackets actually needed here?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were announced in December 2, 2012" - were announced on, surely?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the morning show ¡Despierta América!" - on/during the morning show, not in
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the most number of nominations" => "the highest number of nominations" or "the most nominations", each is valid, but the current form isn't
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "against each other in three categories at the Tropical field" => in the Tropical field, not at
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jenni Rivera being the one of the most awarded performers" - "being one", not "being the one"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "singer's death in December 9, 2012" - on December 9, not in
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Royce became the nights biggest winner" - need an apostrophe in "night's"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Royce became the nights biggest winner, receiving six accolades, four in the Tropical Field (Album, Song, Male Artist and Traditional Performance), and for his duet with Mexican band Maná, also earned Collaboration of the Year and Rock/Alternative Song. Maná dominated the Rock Field, receiving Rock/Alternative Album and Rock/Alternative Artist for a total of four." - this is a bit of a mess. It would read better as "Royce became the night's biggest winner, receiving six accolades, four in the Tropical Field (Album, Song, Male Artist and Traditional Performance), and a further two for his duet with Mexican band Maná (Collaboration of the Year and Rock/Alternative Song). Maná dominated the Rock Field, also receiving Rock/Alternative Album and Rock/Alternative Artist for a total of four."
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • the most for any performer in the award show history" => "the most for any performer in the award show's history" or "...the history of the award show"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the album reached number-one at the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart" - on the Billboard..... not "at"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Romeo Santos, and Olga Tañón, were part of the program also" => "Romeo Santos, and Olga Tañón were also part of the program"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Univision was the second in the ratings at the 18-34 demographic" => "Univision was second in the ratings in the 18-34 demographic"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the most socially active program in the network history" => "the most socially active program in the network's history"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "language" is spelt wrong in the penultimate sentence
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

  • Everywhere in the list you call it the "25th Lo Nuestro Awards", but the article title is at "Premio Lo Nuestro 2013", a term which is never used. Please mention the real name in the lead.
I have been thinking to rename the article as "25th Lo Nuestro Awards", (like the Grammys), but I do not know if that would be ok. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine. --PresN 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the ceremony a tribute for her was held" - maybe mention it was a posthumous tribute, and flip it to be "a posthumous tribute for her was held in the ceremony".
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent if its 3BallMTY or 3Ball MTY.
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with additional awards for the General Field that includes nominees from all the genres, for the Artist of the Year" - either drop the comma or change the "that includes" to ", which includes"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "show" button for the presenters table is hovering over the image for me; maybe move the image to the right side?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The broadcast was the second most engaging entertainment show of any language or network" - says who?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider archiving your online references via a site like archive.org or webcitation.org, so that changes/removals of content don't affect your references.
Thanks for the suggestion. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flipped to Support. --PresN 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of Mass Effect media

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to flip back from Sci-fi lists to video game lists, and for once it's not Square Enix-related! If you thought Mass Effect was just a trilogy of AAA games that couldn't possibly support a list, think again- it's actually 6 games + expansions, 4 books, 2 art books, 11 comic books/book series, a movie, and 10 albums. More than enough to deserve its own list! I've pulled the formatting from other video game media featured lists I've done - mainly a mix of List of Final Fantasy video games and List of Dragon Quest media. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've made some edits in the intro to help it flow better, which you can remove if you'd like, but otherwise this list looks good to go. I will note that you may want to elaborate a little on the expansion packs - perhaps a sentence on each - but you aren't obligated to, and I'm also not sure "anime" is the proper term for Paragon Lost since its production was tainted by the unholy non-Japanese world (and the film's status as anime/regular animation is inconsistently used in its article). Tezero (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • Wow, this has gotten nothing in almost two months.
  • I don't think MOS:BOLD supports having media of the Mass Effect series in bold, particularly that far down the paragraph
  • Fact tag added

Comments Support from Taylor Trescott Not a whole lot to complain about here. Some minor nitpicky comments.

  • "Minigame companion app to Mass Effect 3" - citation would be nice since there's no article
  • Added
  • Would some Wikilinks be helpful? I'm not familiar with this series, so I don't know what a "hanar Spectre" is
  • Linked all characters to their section of the character article, and changed that bit to be "a fictional character featured in media inside the Mass Effect games" since there's no good article for hanar or Spectre.
  • "July 24, 2013—July 23, 2014 (Ongoing)" - any reason why the date's backward?
  • It's not- 2013 is before 2014.
I guess we can't always be on point... Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor Trescott: - All done. --PresN 23:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this article's promotion to FL status. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Favre1fan93

  • Lead: Second paragraph, repeated "such as" in the second sentence. Also, "was derided as inconsistent with the games, and the comics," change the 'and' to 'while'.
  • Fixed
  • Any particular reason the printed material tables have small blue rows? I don't really feel they are necessary or are doing anything.
  • Removed
  • You left the ones right at the top of those tables, though I notice that presents a coloring if it is removed, as the header seems to flow to the first row. Aesthetically, having the blue rows do not look good in my opinion.
  • Removed the blue- is that fine or would you want the little gap removed altogether?
  • I think it is better. It would be ideal to remove it. But because of your formatting, you would have a block of the light grey from the header into the first row, so it is not that big of an issue for me.
  • Alright, removed.
  • Ongoing should not be used for Mass Effect Foundation. That can have multiple meanings as a comic series. Ongoing generally means it is a series without a specified end, or (as it seems you are using it) that it is currently being published. I think you could possibly just remove that, as seeing the end date of July 24, 2014 would imply that it is still being published.
  • Removed
  • Could the film section be changed to prose, as it is just one item? It might work better for that, though would be inconsistent with the rest of the content.
  • I'd rather keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
  • Sure.
  • Any free media you could add to the article?
  • There isn't, really, since it's a list of copyrighted media. There's a photo of the writer for the last two games and the comic books, but it just looks strange hanging out on its own, bumping one of the tables over. I usually don't use decorative images in my FLs.
  • That's fine. Just wondering.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: - responded. --PresN 01:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: - responses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: - responded again. --PresN 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: - same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: - removed the spacers; anything left that prevents you from supporting? --PresN 18:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nope. We're good. Good luck! If you are still willing to do a review in return, I'll ping you when I have one I'll need. :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am! I've done a PR for Taylor Trescott and an FAC review for JimmyBlackwing, so just let me know whenever you have something that needs a review. --PresN 22:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by JimmyBlackwing

Saw that you needed reviews, so here you go.

  • First off, your lead sentence contradicts the article title. This is a list of Mass Effect media. Mass Effect is therefore a media franchise; not a "series of science fiction video games".
  • I also don't understand the "Microsoft Windows and a variety of consoles" line. Why single out Windows and give the others the "and the rest" treatment? It wasn't developed specifically for Windows, nor did it sell the best on Windows, nor was it known primarily as a Windows game. As I see it, you should either list every system or none of them. What you have now just makes no sense.
  • The lead's second sentence is quite a snake, and it features a lot of unnecessary and/or vague words. Perhaps this rewrite?
  • "The core of the series franchise is the an eponymous trilogy of action role-playing third-person shooter video games released on multiple platforms, starring which follow the character Commander Shepard, who is on mission on his or her mission to save the galaxy from a race of mechanical beings known as the Reapers." (italics signify an addition)
  • And sentence three is one of the biggest snakes I've ever seen. Another rewrite:
  • "In addition to the main trilogy, the media of The Mass Effect series franchise also includes three mobile games, each with a different gameplay style; four books novels, written by Drew Karpyshyn and William C. Dietz; two art books; ten comic books series or mini-comics and their anthologies, published by Dark Horse Comics and all written wholly or in part by Mac Walters, the lead writer for Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3; an animated film, released in selected theaters in 2012 and through download; and eleven soundtrack albums or singles."
  • "The video games have sold very well" — The informality of this wording makes it feel like a violation of NPOV, even though I know it isn't one.
  • Rewrite three:
  • "The non-game Reception of other media in the franchise have has received a been mixed reception;: some novels, the comics, such as Mass Effect: Redemption, have been praised for their writing, and novels such as like Mass Effect: Revelation, have been recommended to fans of the games,; but Mass Effect: Deception was derided as inconsistent with the main trilogygames, while the comics, such as Mass Effect: Redemption, have been praised for their writing."
  • Looks pretty good, but there's a new problem. The first and second sentences now repeat that the Mass Effect franchise is based on BioWare's games. Even though they're blatantly redundant, both sentences offer different takes on the same information, so they can't be merged. It needs to be fixed, but I can't figure out how to do it without losing good content. Any ideas? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not super comfortable with the way you've formatted the print media lists. You've bulleted standard stuff like the writers and publishers right next to your own summaries of the works. In my opinion, this makes it kind of unintuitive. It feels like spine-of-the-book stats should be listed in a more official-seeming way, like you did with the book ISBNs. However, you're the list expert here; I'm just throwing in my two cents.
  • I was trying to keep it the same as the video game boxes, which go "developed by A, published by B, Third-person shooter side story to Mass Effect 3"; so the books go "written by A, published by B, A prequel story to Mass Effect". There isn't really a standard format to these kind of things, since few people work in this area; pretty sure it's done differently in every FL, and I like this better than the way it's done at List of Final Fantasy media#Companion books or List of Dragon Quest media#Books and manga. I left writer/publisher in the bullet points primarily because if I pulled them up into the header there would just be one bullet left usually, and if I pulled that up it makes the whole thing really dense, especially on small screens. --PresN 18:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, is there anything more to be said about the soundtracks? They're sort of tossed in at the end, without any descriptions or fanfare.

A few things to fix, but nothing earth-shattering. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyBlackwing: - I love this ping thing. Replied. --PresN 18:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there; responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing: - Played with the first two sentences, and reworked the music table in the style of the other sections. --PresN 22:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few further tweaks to the lead sentence. Looks fine to me now. I also like the new soundtrack setup, although there seems to be some kind of technical problem with it: the references jut out strangely. Since I assume you'll fix that, I'll go ahead and support now. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]

75th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2003 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Please note that some references were retrieved via Internet Archive. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the links are dead. The ones in green may have domain changes, but are still accessible and readable.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work as usual.--Earthh (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Winners and nominees: "It was the eight film to receive that many nominations." "eight" → "eighth".
  • Double punctuation by ref 12 should be removed. The period isn't needed with the exclamation mark there.
  • Ceremony information: "However, as time passed and Crystal still undecided regarding the job". Needs "was" before "still", or you could just replace that word with "remained".
  • Ratings and reception: The number for the % decrease in viewership is missing.
  • There's a stray bracket in the publisher of reference 49.
  • The end of the bibliography has a template regarding citation inconsistency. It looks like it has something to do with the postscript parameter, which I haven't encountered before. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Terrific work again. Keep it up --Jagarin 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • "making it the least watched and lowest rated telecast at the time." - I'm having trouble figuring out what this means. The lowest-rated awards show broadcast in the US in 2003? In that timeslot on that day? The lowest-rated Oscars ever?
  • File:Oscars2002.JPG has an incomplete WP:FUR. {{Non-free use rationale}} may help in including all the necessary details.
  • A minor point, but this list is in the category Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, so there is a print source used with a redundant accessdate. This should probably be fixed.

Adabow (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: I changed "making it the least watched and lowest rated telecast at the time" into "making it the least watched and lowest rated televised Oscar ceremony at the time." I also updated the {{Non-free use rationale}} for the poster. I don't know how to fix the accessdate problem. All the sources with accessdates have links to the website(s).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 07:08, 1 July 2014 [17].

List of New York Giants first-round draft picks

[edit]
Nominator(s): Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've nominated a list at FLC, and I thought it would be nice to do something here other than typical director duties for a change. This is a fairly new list on one of my favorite sports teams (clearly), which combines features of existing NFL team draft pick FLs and the great series of MLB draft pick lists. Following a pre-FLC talk page review by The Rambling Man, I'm confident that the list meets FL standards and will address feedback, as always. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, just some pedanticisms needed for a featured list. Seattle (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. All points should be addressed above. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Sourcing is good and I did not pick out any textual errors. All the images check out. Good work my man. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great list. The only thing I would change is removing the red links. Looks fine other than that.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up creating an article for one of the red-linked players (they were on my list of things to do even before this comment), and still have the others on my agenda. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 07:08, 1 July 2014 [18].

List of songs recorded by Lorde

[edit]
Nominator(s): Simon (talk) and User:Adabow (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that this list is appropriate for a Featured List. I will appreciate any comments that help improve this list. Cheers, Simon (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of featured songs lists have pictures of the other song authors along the sides. Have you considered adding pictures of Tears for Fears and Paul Westerberg? There appear to be Son Lux photos with an Attribution 2.0 Generic licence that could be used from Flickr, too. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I uploaded one for you here to save time, even though it'd not the best image) --Prosperosity (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there having images is necessary. Lorde has just started her career a year ago and she hasn't recorded so many songs. — Simon (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]
Not part of FL criteria. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(credited as Ella Yelich-O'Connor)" could perhaps be slightly rewritten as "(credited by her birth name Ella Yelich-O'Connor)" just for additional clarification to unfamiliar readers.
Done. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the table of contents, can you change the "0–9" to "4" because Lorde only has one song that starts with a number? (For now at least!)
All the styles at WP:CTOC use 0–9, rather than individual numbers.
  • I would suggest replacing the purple color used for marking singles with a green; I think of green as in "go" on a traffic light, and I just feel like using a softer shade of green would better indicate that something was "green-lit" about the song more effectively than the purple would.
Done. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a purely stylistic standpoint, I think that the yellow used for promotional singles should be a softer shade that is a little easier on the eyes.
Agreed. Changed to a pastel orange. Let me know what you think. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the note on "No Better" is necessary, since the way you list the album as "Pure Heroine (extended edition)" gets the point across on its own.
Done. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find a fair-use image from Commons or another service, I would recommend including a picture of Joel Little in the article because he has co-written nearly every one of Lorde's songs and is evidently an important one of her collaborators.
I had a decent go on Flickr, but I can't find anything. Adabow (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of Goodnight Nurse fan-cam rips on Youtube. Perhaps you could message the users, asking if they'd like to release some screenshots for Wiki Commons? --Prosperosity (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRedactor (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Everything you concerned has been addressed, except the files issue. But I think that the files do not necessary for this list. Simon (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to give my support to the nomination, good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

[edit]

So far, looking pretty good. My only concern is that iTunes is used a bit much. Not that it's bad for credits, but I'm sure you can find reliable third-party sources to use in place. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the iTunes source for "Bravado" with the 7digital source. — Simon (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The iTunes link for "Tennis Court" was also replaced with the Official Charts Company link. — Simon (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK sounds good. One other thing I just noticed (and fixed myself) is how Stephen Thomas Erlewine was only listed as "Stephen Erlewine" in one AllMusic ref. You've now got my support! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm the first name is "Stephen" and the last name is "Erlewine" so the middle name (Thomas) is not included in the template {{cite web}}. Thank you all the way! Simon (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, HĐ. To include the middle name, just have it in the "first name" field along with first name. Yes, middle names actually should be included if they are used in source, so it reads "Erlewine, Stephen Thomas" in the ref. If the source only listed him as "Stephen Elrewine", than it would be better to just have it read as "Erlewine, Stephen". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go! Thank you once again. Simon (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't really have many comments; it's a tidy little list. Studio album and self-released are redirecting links in the lead, and you should consider archiving the remaining references, but it all looks good to me. --PresN 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 07:08, 1 July 2014 [19].

List of National Trust properties in Somerset

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 07:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides the only comprehensive list of the properties owned or managed by the National Trust in the county of Somerset, England. Each entry is supported by details of its status as an ancient monument or listed building where appropriate, along with details of location, a picture and description. It may form a template for other counties listed at List of National Trust properties in England.— Rod talk 07:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dudley Miles

  • "These range from sites of Iron and Bronze Age occupations including Brean Down, Cadbury Camp[1] and Cheddar Gorge." Ungrammatical as ranging from should range to.
  • "These unitary authorities include areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974." I do not understand this.
  • I've link this with the previous sentence which explains the 2 unitary authorities were part of Avon & before that Somerset - is that any clearer?— Rod talk 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A scheduled monument is a "nationally important" archaeological site or historic building," I think you need to say something like some NT properties are scheduled monuments or some listed buildings are also scheduled monuments in order to explain the relevance of this statement.
  • Bath Assembly Rooms. "which are now open to the public as a visitor attraction." as a visitor attraction is superfluous.
  • Brean Down. "The site has been owned by the National Trust since 2002 who instituted a £431,000 renovation project." I think it should be which not who.
  • Bruton Dovecote. "The building was once within the deerpark of Bruton Abbey and was adapted by the monks from a gabled Tudor tower." Adapted to what? The conversion to a dovecote was over 200 years later. (It must have been adapted soon after it was built as the abbey was dissolved in 1539.)
  • Cadbury Camp. I think a picture would be more attractive than a plan.
  • Cheddar Gorge. "Cheddar show caves" - sounds a bit odd. Why not Gough's Cave?
  • Crook Peak. Dinantian is an outdated term which is not officially recognised. It would be better to say Lower Carboniferous. (This redirects to Mississipian, which is the official name for the period). Also, Devensian redirects in this article to the Wisconsin glaciation in North America. I think last glacial period - which is what the default Devensian redirects to - is more understandable.
  • I'm unclear here last glacial period says "110,000 to 12,000 years ago" while the source book used (Haslett) definitely says "the rocks underlying Shute Shelve Hill are sedimentary rocks deposited during the beginning of the Carboniferous Period and are assigned to the Dinantian Series of rock some 350 million years old."— Rod talk 16:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am making two different suggestions here. 1. Change Dinantian to Lower Carboniferous (meaning early Carboniferous and a more familiar term than Dinantian). 2. Change the existing redirect [[Wisconsin glaciation|Devensian]]. There are several possibilities, but perhaps the most familiar to readers would be [[Last glacial period|last Ice Age]]. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments so far. I think I've done most of them but a couple of queries set out above.— Rod talk 16:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Crook Peak comes before Coleridge, out of alphabetical order.
  • Coleridge. "three corresponding bed chambers above." Why corresponding? I would delete it.
  • "The castle lies on the top of a steep hill called the Tor, and has been fortified since the late Anglo-Saxon period." This implies that the castle is Anglo-Saxon. Perhaps "which has been".
  • Dunster Castle. "which operates it as a tourist attraction." Doesn't this apply to almost all NT properties. I would delete it unless there is some special reason for applying it to Dunster.
  • Dunster Mill. "The present mill, which was built around 1780, is built on the site of a mill mentioned in the Domesday Book" Repetition of built - the second one is not needed.
  • Fyne Court. "The Quantock Hills AONB Service have their headquarters in the grounds." What is AONB (and is this really interesting enough that it needs to be in the article).
  • Glastonbury. 1. "The site is managed by the National Trust." Surely not needed in a list of NT sites? 2. "with the surrounding flats," A bit distracting as it conjures up an image of blocks of flats marching across the countryside!
  • Holnicote. Horner and Dunkery NNR is designated as Dunkery and Horner Wood. See [20].
  • You already link Dunkery Beacon. How about Dunkery Beacon (part of which is Dunkery and Horner Wood National Nature Reserve)?
  • Lytes Cary. "The property, owned by the National Trust," I think this is superfluous. You give details in the few cases where a property is not owned by the NT.
  • Prior Park. "with advice from both Pope and Brown." This repeats what is said above.
  • Sand Point. "calcareous grassland". Suggest wikilinking. I see this term is used several times. The convention (in case you do not know) is that in sortable tables terms should be wikilinked each time they are used.
  • Tintinhull. "The property is in the ownership of the National Trust." Superfluous and repeated below.
  • I meant you say below Reiss gave the property to the NT.
  • Treasurer's House. No change needed but interesting that a priest's house was so grand that it had a great hall.
  • Walton. "The Trust acquired 0.248 hours (0.89 ks)" I do not understand this.
  • One final point. "The two administratively independent unitary authorities, which were established on 1 April 1996 following the breakup of the county of Avon, are North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, which were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974." I still find this a bit awkward. How about something like: "North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset historically came under Somerset County Council. In 1974 they became part of Avon, and in 1996 they became administratively independent when Avon was broken up into unitary authotities." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Note I will be at Glastonbury Festival from 24 June until 1 July and will not have any internet access to be able to respond to any comments.— Rod talk 11:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Didn't really see anything to object to in this this list, except for one wonky sentence in the lead- "to Elizabethan and Victorian era mansions include examples such as". Supporting on the assumption that will be fixed. --PresN 21:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded.— Rod talk 09:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

As delegate I won't give a formal support comment here, as I wouldn't be able to close it later. I've made a couple of tiny tweaks here and there to some very minor points: feel free to revert if I've erred anywhere. The only thing I'll point out is the capitalisation in some of the references. You should look to capitalise the following notes, but have a good look through to see if I've missed any others: 26, 37, 60, 68, 78, 89. I hope you had a good time at Glasto: my last visit was four years ago (before my daughter was born), and I keep trying to persude the missus that we should start going back again! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've been through and hope I've caught them all. Glastonbury was great as ever (my 28th year). Tell your missus that the kids area is great - we've taken all 4 of our kids for years - youngest at 6 weeks old & they now boast to their friends about how much of a Glasto veteran they are!— Rod talk 11:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 10:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC) [21].[reply]

List of unprotected cruisers of Germany

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another edition in my series on German warships, this covers the handful of unprotected cruisers built by the German Navy in the 1880s-90s, which eventually led to the modern light cruiser warship type. These ships all served on Germany's colonial stations and were mostly out of service by World War I, though one did see some (limited) active service during the war. This list of course caps this topic, which is in turn the last component of this much larger topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Overlink on 10.5 cm K L/35.
    • Good catch
  • Not sure I see any point for conversion into short tons.
    • I tend to leave them since Americans have more experience with short tons than the other varieties - there's no real difference between converting to long tons either since Washington was a few decades away.
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs, external links good.
  • Don't forget the ampersand in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't usually review ship lists, but this is so far down the page without a lot of comment that I feel obligated. There's really nothing to say, you know exactly how to write these lists. Only point of note is that there's a few redirecting links that don't look intentional—US Navy, Eight Nation Alliance, sea trials—but that's minor and not required. Well done. --PresN 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crisco comments
  • "Newer" and "quick-firing" a pair of adjectives that describe the guns, so yes, the comma there is needed.
  • Was China a colony of Germany? That's what the second paragraph seems to suggest (collocation between the first and second sentences). The second paragraph of the second section also suggests that
  • No, China was never formally colonized (in the way that Britain colonized India, for example) but the concessions (both territorial and legal) to the European powers approached de facto colonization.
  • In that case I'd find a way to avoid having simply "colonies", as the difference between "de facto" and "de jure" colonization can be quite contentious. "Germany's colonies and ..." what? "Vassal states" would probably be incorrect. Then what would be best? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the motley collection of old sailing ships that Germany possessed in the 1880s - the motley collection of old sailing ships that Germany then possessed, perhaps? Avoid repeating 188*
  • Sounds good to me.
  • were woefully insufficiently armed to be useful as fighting ships. - might read better without two adverbs in a row
  • See how it reads now.
  • the Bussard class in 1888 as improved versions of the Schwalbe class - one class but many versions? I'd nix the second "s" in versions
  • No, they were separate classes, just not radically different (in much the same way that SMS Seydlitz, though similar to the preceding Moltke class, was an improved design and not a member of the class)
  • Condor was the only member of the class to survive the war, and she was broken up for scrap in 1921. - And feels odd here. I'd probably use a semi colon.
  • Ok, sounds fine to me.
  • For example, powerful engines necessary for the high top speeds needed in a fleet scout were also very coal hungry, which reduced the ship's endurance; a long cruising radius was mandatory for ships intended to police Germany's far-flung colonial empire, however. - what does "however" add to this sentence? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/July_2014&oldid=618063492"