Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2017

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Valve Corporation video games

Nominator(s): The1337gamer (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Valve is one of the most the distinguished developers in the gaming industry. After rewriting this list from scratch, it has gone from 1 reference to 134. The list is now comprehensive, covering all the games they have released to date along with information on a number of cancelled projects. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Golbez

• A few notes:
  • Does the first entry in a list need a note saying it's the first entry? :)

Removed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• • TFC is noted as a remake of a mod whose devs were hired by Valve. But CS just says "mod." I know it wasn't a remake, but were its devs hired by Valve? How did this mod, which originally came out before 2000, end up as a Valve product released in 2000? Likewise, Day of Defeat.

Added that DoD and CS devs were hired by Valve. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• • A lot of games lack genre. For example, Counter-Strike Neo is a blacklinked arcade game, so there's no indication as to what kind of game it is. I mean, based on my concept of arcade games it would seem to not be an online multiplayer first-person shooter, so what is it?

It is an online multiplayer first-person shooter that's available in Japaneses arcades. I didn't feel like it was necessary to restate genres for spin-offs/sequels if they were the same as the original game. Do you want me to state it? Which other games should I do that for? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. That one's tough, because I would say an online first-person shooter *arcade* game is pretty rare, and since it's a blacklink there's nowhere to go for more info on the gameplay except the source. But... since it's Counter-Strike, we can assume in the absence of other notes that it's the same type of gameplay.

• • Likewise, "multiplayer game" is a bit lacking in detail for Ricochet.

I'll write a description on this later. There's not a whole lot of coverage on Ricochet. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what you put works.

• • So this might just be me, but I'm curious about "Arcade". Is that a platform? Or should we be more specific and say, for Counter-Strike Neo, that it's on the Namco System N2, and for Left 4 Dead Survivors, it's apparently the Taito Type X3 but this is stupidly difficult for me to source. I dunno if this is needed, but as an arcade geek it would make me happy. :P Especially since they're blacklinks so there's no further place to find info on them on Wikipedia. This isn't needed, since it may be a style change, but I wanted to bring it up. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Typically we list "Arcade" as a platform in video game infoboxes rather than which particular board/system it is. So I think that convention should carry over to lists. I would add the system/board information to the notes but just like you I'm unable to source L4D Survivors system. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in responding, and a few extra notes above. Thanks! And btw Support since my new request is optional. --Golbez (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cognissonance

• Isn't it a wiki-rule that all images be reduced in size? File:Valve logo.svg is pretty big.

Only non-free images have to be low resolution to comply with WP:NFCC. Images from Wikimedia Commons can be high resolution. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and publisher founded in 1996 by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington and is currently based in Bellevue, Washington." – The sentence might flow better with the first "is" covering the entire sentence's verb use, making "and is" obsolete.
• intellectual properties – Link to Intellectual property.
• The list itself is interesting and comprehensive.
• "as the latter gained traction" – Was confused when I read it about which of them was the latter. Perhaps clarify that it was Half-Life.
• "Untitled RPG – A fantasy, action role-playing game" – For simple continuity, I would have written the genre with "Untitled role-playing game (RPG)" before using the abbreviation.
• If there is more information at all about the cancelled games, I suggest adding it. No stone left unturned.

• Overall:

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Y
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Y
3. Comprehensiveness.
   • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.Y
   • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.Y
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Y
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
   • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.Y
   • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordinglyY
6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Y

• Support. Cognissonance (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the suggested changes. The1337gamer (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments " to Portal 2' design" looks like a spare apos here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)  Done --The1337gamer (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Lead image has no caption or alt text. Added alt text. Does it need a caption? It's seems kind of self-explanatory what the image is showing. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure, I've objected to these frameless, captionless images in the past, so I'm just being consistent, I think it's obvious to most of us, but I also don't see any harm in having a caption in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Alright, added. Let me know if there are any other issues to address. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

;Comments by A Thousand Doors Oppose (for now) Clearly a lot of work has gone into this list, but I'm not convinced that it is FL standard just yet. My main problem is the lead, which quite brief. 1,461 characters wouldn't be enough to meet the DYK requirements, and is far fewer than I would expect to see in a FL. My overall feeling after reading the lead is "Is that it?" Is there really nothing else that you can say about Valve Corporation's games? For example, which games have sold the most? At 9m sales, is Half-Life Valve's best-selling game? Is Half-Life their most successful franchise? Why are Valve's games so critically acclaimed? What about them is so innovative and influential? Is it a particular gameplay mechanic? Is there anything else that you can say about Steam? You spend all of ten words on it. How do their multiplayer games of the 2010s compare to their earlier works? Have they been as successful, commercially or critically? I think it's fair to ask for a little more, but I would have expected to see this kind of thing in the main Valve Corporation article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Sure, but it's relevant here too, isn't it? I'm not saying that the information I suggested must be included, it's just an example of info that would be well within the article's scope. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC) That's why I said "I think it's fair to ask for a little more". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC) Strings of citations make the text look cluttered. Can you find one or more reliable sources that say that Valve's games have "received widespread praise for their innovation and influence on the industry", rather than just cherry-picking sources that support your point? Your sources to support the statement that Valve's games "are considered to be among the best PC games and the best first-person shooters of all time" are one list by Rock, Paper, Shotgun and a single issue of PC Gamer. Personally, I think the last sentence of the lead can go – this is a list about Valve's games, so information about comics or animated shorts would be, in my opinion, beyond its scope. But that's just me. For what it's worth, I agree that the lead image always looked better without the caption. I'll come back and see if I have anymore comments soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC) I've expanded the lead a bit, so tell me what you think about it now. However I'm not really sure how you expect me to address some of your comments. At 9m sales, is Half-Life Valve's best-selling game? – No way of knowing. Valve has never published digital sales figures of games sold through Steam. Is Half-Life their most successful franchise? – How are you defining "success" here? If it's by sales, then there is no way of knowing as explained above. If it's by critical reception or legacy then that is really subjective. Opinions vary among sources about what is Valve's best game/franchise. Why are Valve's games so critically acclaimed? What about them is so innovative and influential? Is it a particular gameplay mechanic? – They have many games that play differently and are thus praised for different aspects. I can't write a short reception section about every single game in the lead because at that point it stops being a list. Going in depth about specific mechanics for each game seems like excessive detail for a general list of all their products. Is there anything else that you can say about Steam? – I've explained that it is a digital service that they sell their games through. I don't know what more you want me to say here as it's not a game and thus it really doesn't fall under the scope of this list. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DarthBotto

My only criticism is that the placement of Counter-Strike Online 2, Counter-Strike Nexon: Zombies and Left 4 Dead: Survivors seem out of place. Not only is the release order of Counter-Strike Online 2 odd, (2008?), but these are licensed games, correct? Do you feel it would be better to have a separated list below the first party games, with The Lab being the last? I'd like to hear your thoughts before anything, however. @DarthBotto: That Counter-Strike Online 2 2008 date was a typo. Should be 2013. Corrected. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, those games are licensed but reliable sources still considered them collaborations of Valve even if they are not the primary developer, so I think they should stay on this page. I understand your point for separating them, but I think that would just make things confusing and the presentation of the page awkward. Also an argument could be made for moving other games out of the first party list, like: the original Counter-Strike developed by modders initially, not Valve; Counter-Strike: Condition Zero which was primarily developed outside Valve; Left 4 Dead which was developed primarily by Turtle Rock Studios before takeover; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive was developed primarily by Hidden Path for its initial release. And then it becomes messy and unclear about why we are separating them. I think the current format with one list for released products and one for unreleased products works best for clarity. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC) I have been visiting this page ever since I added Dota 2 to it in 2010-- I have had the privilege of watching it slowly alter, without much to be said. However, I came back after quite some time to see a Featured List nomination and when I see why it would be deserving? I am astounded to see an amazing list article of top quality. I am so pleased to see this list get the attention it deserves. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support: With that, I am endorsing Featured List status for this page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments – "Recently, Valve has been investing in virtual reality is currently developing a number of games that make use of the technology." Needs "and" before "is currently". Also, "currently" isn't really needed and just serves to leave an element in the lead that could easily become outdated. "along with the creation Steam". Needs "of" before Steam. All caps in ref 82 need to be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Giants2008: Fixed. Thanks for pointing those out. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I gave some pointers on this list back in February, so I've stayed away from this nomination... and now I'm the only closer left available. C'est la vie. Anyways, this has fulfilled all the potential that was there 4 months ago in userspace, and the source review passes, so promoting! Congrats, you're the first editor of a Video game FL since October 2016! --PresN 03:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC) [2].

---

Premier League Asia Trophy

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original version and now meets all 6 FL criteria. This list is largely modelled after the Emirates Cup, which was promoted almost a year ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments sorry you've had to wait three weeks for some comments, here are some starters for ten. No need to link "biennially" to Wiktionary in my opinion, keep it simple with "every two years". Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Don't think a link to common geographical entities like England is necessary. De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) " Barclays Asia Trophy" avoid bold links. De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) " three clubs that are members of the Premier League at the time,[A] " no need to link clubs and the "at the time" is slightly misleading as it has nothing to do with promotion and relegation - if a club could still qualify having just been promoted or just been relegated, I'd buy it, but that isn't the case. De-linked for first. Removed "at the time" for the second (hope that clears up the misleading part). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) To avoid easter egg, make the link to the 2017 edition piped to "2017 edition" not just "2017". Apply to all subsequent similar eggs. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) " at the last-minute" not really, the tournament doesn't start until late-July. Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) "Hong Kong has hosted the tournament three times, more than any other city." do you want to add that they are also the 2017 hosts? Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Pardon my ignorance but what do the %'s mean? I think the percentages refer to the % of households with a TV that had Premier League games available / could broadcast them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) " in Pompey's favour" first and only use of any club by nickname, avoid. Changed to Portsmouth. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) "a brace by Robbie Keane" I would usually say "a brace from" but YMMV. No, you're right it sounds better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) " thrashing the " not particularly encyclopedic. Changed to "routing the". Will that do, or will "beating" be preferable? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Africa and United States do not need to be linked. De-linked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Minor point, Sunderland is actually A.F.C, not F.C. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Would add TBDs into the 2017 row for 1st to 4th place rather than leave it blank. Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Do you actually say who is in the 2017 tournament besides Palace? Well I was planning to add that to the History section after the tournament concludes. Would it be preferable to list them out now? And if so, to the lead or to "History". —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Bloom6132 I think it's incomplete without them, and would probably add a sentence in the lead saying who is competing with Palace, and make sure it's also covered in the History section. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: added to both the lead and History section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) "with the latter side " side is unnecessary here. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: thanks for your feedback; I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support pending one niggle - in the notes section, you have "The three clubs are selected according to their position in the league table. One of the teams selected achieved the top five, the other team finished in sixth to tenth place, while the final team placed in the 11–15 position" (all three number ranges should be words or numbers. My vote would be to make the last words as well ("eleventh to fifteenth") but not fussed the other way. Otherwise I can't see anything to complain about WRT comprehensiveness or prose. A nice little read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Casliber. Fixed the note with your recommended wording. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "in another in" is a little clunky – could it just be "again".

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• "was dismal" is not really encyclopaedic language; using "dismal" like this is quite informal.

• Changed to "underwhelming". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. Harrias ^talk 11:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• The archived version of Ref #4 doesn't work for me. (The original does.)
• Same for ref #7.
• And ref #8.
• And ref #13.
• And ref #14.
• And ref #19.
• And ref #20.
• And ref #28.
• And ref #30.
• And ref #33.
• And ref #34.
• And ref #42.
• And ref #43.

• Since Wayback has proved to be unreliable in this case, I've archived all the above refs with WebCite. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ref #39 needs to be marked as subscription only, as even through the wayback machine, all I get is a single paragraph, before being redirected to a visitor landing page. Harrias ^talk 07:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Marked. That's strange because, other than me having to close a notice telling me to disable my ad-blocker, the article works fine for me (a non-subscriber). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Harrias: Thanks for the review; I've addressed all the comments above. Please let me know if there's anything else for me to fix. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support; all my (minor) concerns have been resolved, and this is a nice piece of work which meets the criteria. Harrias ^talk 16:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Quick comment – My only nitpick is the repetition in the lead photo caption: "Chelsea celebrate with the trophy after winning the 2011 Premier League Asia Trophy." I know the name of the event makes it tough, but they're celebrating with the trophy after winning the trophy. Chopping "with the trophy" gets rid of the redundancy while getting the point across. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: I've replaced "celebrate with the trophy" with "celebrate with the tournament cup". Will that be alright? I can change "tournament" to "competition" if it sounds better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC) [3].

---

List of accolades received by Paradesi (2013 film)

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2013 Indian Tamil period drama film, Paradesi starring Atharvaa and Vedhika. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fifth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• the cinematography and editing were respectively handled by Chezhiyan and Kishore Te. "respectively" may come last.
• Anything more formal and non-biased than "in a hellish manner"?
• You could add the INR Convert template for ₹400 million, or a note regarding the exchange rate (wish INR Convert was always accurate).
• When you say the film was nominated for/won x number of awards, major ones (producing, directing, acting and writing) should always be mentioned. I don't see the lead mentioning Vedhika being nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare, or Atharvaa being nominated for Best Actor at Vijay.
• Poornima Ramasamy won for Best Costume Design at the 60th National Film Awards - could you say "At the 60th National Film Awards, Poornima Ramasamy won in the category for Best Costume Design"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this FLC has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thank you very much, Kailash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - It's hardly been three days since your last nomination. Also, the unwritten rule is that a nomination must have a minimum of three supports with no outstanding concerns. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: why don't you review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress/archive1? This one has received only 2 reviews in the past 3 months. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: My other nomination now has 4 supports. Feel free to leave comments in both.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Could you possibly clarify "a degrading manner"? As someone who not seen this film, I am not certain what you mean by this as it sounds a little vague. Are you referring to an extreme mistreatment akin to slavery or is it something different? Some additional context would be helpful in this case.

Yes, it is slavery. I have added a bit more.

• Do you have any information on the box office of the film (how much it made) as it would be helpful to get some sort of number to show how it "failed to recover its production costs"? If it is unavailable, then it is fine as it currently stands.

Unfortunately, it is unavailable. If it were, I would have put it up before.

Wonderful job as always. I only have two very minor clarification questions/suggestions. Once they are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. Great work with this. I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted, and with your future projects as well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Anytime. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Can't see any issue in it. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you very much, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The prose looks good. Just have a minor comment for a reference: unless the article was originally published by IANS, I would remove it from reference 12. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I couldn't get the original IANS source though as the links die quite quickly.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Done. Replaced with another source.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Spot-checks

• The first reference never really directly mentions the release year.

Added another reference that does so.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ref. 2 mentions a certain Uday Karthik in the cast, is her of any importance?

He's paired with Riythvika in the film and doesn't really have much to do. He doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Included him though.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ref. 8 says that the film failed at BO, but never mentions anything about not being able to recover it's production costs.

Tweaked the sentence.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The table looks good. Fine work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk

@Numerounovedant: Hopefully, I have resolved your comments. Do let me know if there is anything pending. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to go. NumerounovedantTalk 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thank you very much, Vedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC) [4].

---

List of accolades received by Madras (film)

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian Tamil drama film, Madras starring Karthi and Catherine Tresa. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fourth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Finished watching the film just now. Found it slightly melodramatic, but that's okay. Well, on a formal note, i am going into the comments.

• "It was produced by K. E. Gnanavel Raja under his banner Studio Green" -- I suggest you opt for "It was produced by K. E. Gnanavel Raja's Studio Green company". Not really adamant on this.

Good call anyhow. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would have objected the listing of so many supporting characters, but they are integral to the plot. So, it works for me.
• "The musical score was composed by Santhosh Narayanan while the cinematography and editing were respectively handled by Murali G and Praveen K. L.." -- Two points here.

• What do you mean to say by musical score? Madras had no songs?

Changed to "soundtrack and score".

• Please either introduce the editor first or write it as K. L. Praveen. Watching two fullstops back to back is sort of weird.

Praveen K. L. is his name and that's how it is listed in the credits. I don't know why he calls himself that.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Released on 26 September, Madras received positive critical feedback and box office success, becoming one of the most successful Tamil films of that year." -- We already know it is 2014. Why "that year" and why not "the year"?

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, performances of the cast members, music, and cinematography." -- If i give up writing and sound design, almost every department of the film is here. Add writing as a key aspect of direction and screenplay. Let us assume that the sound designer will work along with the music director. Now, what is the use of "particular" here?

Its actually to specify that the crew under their respective categories/professions are appreciated for their work on the film. But since you mentioned that almost every department of the film is here, which is correct, I have removed "particular".  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not compulsory, but numbers above ten are not usually written in words. We can use numbers.
• In the last paragraph of the lead, except for Filmfare, i see you mention the heroine's last name. We introduced her in the lead. Why write Catherine Tresa again for Filmfare? Tresa is enough, isn't it?

Good point. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• We get that Madras is a Tamil film. Why mention Tamil in Filmfare awards? It is for granted that Tamil awards are given to Tamil actors, actresses and technicians. Please remove the word to avoid repetition; i see that everything is appropriately pipelinked there.

Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Same for South. It is given only to one among the four industries and it is mentioned that the ceremony was Filmfare awards south.

Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• "At the 9th Vijay Awards, it was nominated in fifteen categories and won in three..." -- Why "in" here? any featured inspiration?

Tweaked the sentence.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a deliberate error. But read this line once: "Among other wins, the film received seven Ananda Vikatan Cinema Awards, six South Indian International Movie Awards and four Edison Awards." SIIMA ws mentioned above, wasn't it? Why again?

Good point. Changed as per your suggestion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sources and Dablinks are fine.
• To be honest, i should not comment on the image (as it was uploaded by me). But, given that many follow Bollywood Hungama's template and upload similar files in commons, i take the liberty to say the image is fine considering that an administrator/reviewer (Vensatry in this case) has verified it.

Okay. These comments are a result of an unbiased assessment of this list made by me to the best of my knowledge and skills with a sane mind. I expect the contributor or his friends or anyone in such capacity to resolve these comments or provide a proper explanation. I shall return in three days and am hopeful that the comments shall be addressed by then. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Pavan. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Three days have passed and all my concerns have been addressed. The list has my support. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 07:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Thank you very much though, Pavan. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Extended content

The term “his banner” sounds a little odd to me; I would use “his production company” or something along those lines to be more specific on exactly what is being described and introduced. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) I would move the final sentences in the lead’s first paragraph about the film’s plot before listing all of the actors involved to better situate a reader who is unfamiliar with the film. You would have to revise the wikilinking and introduction of the actors if this is done. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) As someone who has never heard of this film, I was a little confused by the sentences on the plot. How does Kaali intend to avenge his friend’s death? What are the two political parties involved in this film? A little clarification on these two things would be very helpful here. It is actually two factions of a single political party which are arguing over a wall to establish their so-called supremacy. I have explained a bit more.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Is the part about Kaali being an IT professional really necessary? Is it important to the film’s plot? It seems rather trivial, and it would seem to be more beneficial to expand on the main conflict of the film and clearly and concisely explain it in a single sentence. Well shouldn't we say who the protagonist is and what he does for a living? Otherwise readers would assume he's unemployed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) That is a pretty big assumption to make; I would just think that the person's job is just not important enough to the plot to mention in a small, two to three sentence summary. I still do not see the value of this exactly, but I will not press it further. It may just be a small nitpick on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) In the phrase “becoming one of the most successful Tamil films of that year”, I would assume it should read “Tamil-language films”. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) In the table, I do not believe that the people need to be wikilinked following their first appearance to avoid over-linking. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Great job with this. It was an interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba47. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you. As for the FAC, I'm not aware of the subject, so I'm afraid going to have to decline the offer. I hope you don't mind.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I will support this nomination. Thank you for addressing my comments. It is okay if you cannot help with my FAC, but your reasoning is a little weird to me, especially when you post a request for me to review this out of the blue and I did the review even though I am completely unaware of the subject matter. Again, it is fine if you are unable to do the review, but your exact rationale seems a little hypocritical to me. Aoba47 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you very much though, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "The film's story revolves around Kaali (Karthi), an impulsive and short-tempered IT professional who lives in the Vyasarpadi area of Chennai. His friend Anbu (Kalaiyarasan) is killed in the midst of a feud between two factions of a political party over a building wall at one of the housing board apartments in the area. When Kaali hears of this, he decides to avenge Anbu's death." A little too detailed for an accolades list to be honest. How about something shorter like: "The film's story revolves around Kaali (Karthi), an impulsive ... Chennai. When his friend is killed amid a feud between two politicians, he decides to avenge his death"?

@FrB.TG: This is what Aoba47 asked me to do: Expand the plot for clarity. This is quite alright and anyways, the lead is not as big as La La Land's list (no offense).

None taken. Your reasoning makes sense, although the comparison to the La La Land list is not quite right because the musical has won many more awards than this film.

• The norm for film accolades list is that the plot is followed by the names of important cast members.

Done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Do we have the budget and box-office figures?

Kailash29792, please explain. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't focus so much on finding definitive budget/BO figures for this film, as this is an awards list, not a fiscal list. And definitive data on budget/BO figures in Indian films are elusive. Just saying it was among the highest-grossing Tamil films of the year is enough I think. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not something that should be done but it would have been nice if we had the data.

• I would remove "As of 2017" as it is unlikely that the film will win more awards in the future.

Done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• "and Best Male Playback Singer (Pradeep Kumar)" - what song?

Done as asked. Added the song.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• "won three, which are" - I would get rid of the other two words. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Nicely put together. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

• The titles in 12th and 13th refs can be changed to lowercase.
• Per the lead Pa. Ranjith won the Vijay Award for Best Director but the table doesn't support this statement.
• The above reviews have left nothing for me to comment on the prose quality.

Nice list. Good job on this one. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there's anything at all. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Now there's 1 redlink in the lead and Vijay Award for Best Supporting Actress and Actor both lead to the same article. These 2 issues need to be resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Done.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad to Support this nomination. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Thank you, Skr15081997. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Sorry for the delay. I was very busy. Coming to the list, I think it fulfills every criteria for FL. Hence I support this.Krish | Talk 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: Thank you, Krish. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Looking good, just the one thing: why do we not have a reference for the critical response for the various aspects of the film? Rest looks fine. Good work. NumerounovedantTalk 07:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I actually meant that the awards went to those particular categories. Do you want me to rephrase it?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that would be better. NumerounovedantTalk 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I have rephrased it now anyway. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Great work. Ping me if you need someone for the spot-checks, I'd be happy to help. NumerounovedantTalk 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thank you and yes, I would need your help with the spot-checks for both my FLCs (The other one's here. Feel free to leave comments there too) if that's alright.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't be able to do both, I'll try and get to this one later tonight. NumerounovedantTalk 09:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Spot-checks

• Ref 1. does not name K. E. Gnanavel, nor does it give the release year (look further).

Done. As asked. Used another source.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ref.2, 3, and 4 have no proper mention of any of the supporting​ actors. I am just not convinced with just the odd first/last names occurring here and there with contrived spellings. Is there no better source?

Tried everywhere but they don't mention the full names. Removed some of them for now. I'll re-add them if something comes up later perhaps.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ref. 5 Same, it's astonishing how no source uses the full names, for all we know it can be any Praveen, Murali, Hari.

Used another one with the full names.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• None of the 6,7, and 8 references give a direct mention of the Indian release date.

@Numerounovedant: Reference no. 8 (10 now) shows the poster of Madras which states "from 26 September". Hopefully, that can be counted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How about the bms source? NumerounovedantTalk 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Bookmyshow is deleted as it seems to be considered non-reliable. Better to go with IBTimes.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Going through the awards. NumerounovedantTalk 17:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The awards list looks largely fine. Sorry for the delay, let me know if I missed something. NumerounovedantTalk 17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In light of the recent changes, it looks good to go. NumerounovedantTalk 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thank you, Vedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

*The BH source for box office overseas leads to a category page and not a direct one to an article about Madras, the archived one is correct. You could probably remove this ref as the other two support the text. Ref. should be Ref(s) as there are multiple references in the column Non English references should have language= in the reference I think ndash should be used for 6-7 August. "Released on 26 September, Madras received positive critical feedback and box office success,[8][9][10] becoming one of the most successful Tamil-language films of the year" How about just? --> Released on 26 September 2014, the film garnered generally positive reviews and was a commercial success at the box office. It's kind of overegging it as one of the most successful of the year as according to that ref it was number 8 at the box office and was included in one newspaper's top 20 of the year. Any figures for production budget and final gross? Cowlibob (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC) @Cowlibob: I have resolved all your comments, Cowlibob. As for your last one regarding "figures for production budget and final gross", please refer to Kailash's comment in FrB.TG's comments.. I'll put it here for you: "I wouldn't focus so much on finding definitive budget/BO figures for this film, as this is an awards list, not a fiscal list. And definitive data on budget/BO figures in Indian films are elusive. Just saying it was among the highest-grossing Tamil films of the year is enough I think."  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thank you, Cowlibob. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [5].

---

Timeline of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 Atlantic hurricane season was more eventful than the years that preceded it, to say the least. It was the costliest since 2012 and the deadliest since 2008, and featured more tropical storm landfalls on the United States than any season since 2008. It was perhaps most known for Hurricane Matthew, which caused hundreds of deaths and billions in damage along its path in October. After some work, I believe this timeline is now ready to be reviewed against the featured list criteria. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "was also the deadliest since that year." Presumably deadliest in number of deaths but you should say so.
  • Reworded this sentence. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• The season began on 1 June and the first of the season was on 12 January? This sounds like a contradiction.
  • No contradiction. Alex formed January 12. The season officially began on June 1. In other words, Alex was quite a bit ahead of schedule. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think "The first cyclone, Alex, developed on January 12, before the official start of the season" would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "In June, tropical storms Colin and Danielle became the earliest third and fourth named storms, respectively, on record." I do not understand this.
  • Colin, the third tropical storm of the year, formed earlier than any past seasons' third tropical storm. Same for Danielle. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Your wording here is clearer than in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Hermine moved ashore the coastline of Florida as a Category 1 hurricane on September 2, ending the record hurricane drought that began in the state after 2005's Hurricane Wilma." Does this mean that no hurricane hit Florida for 11 years?
  • Correcto. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Hurricane Matthew caused $15 billion and 603 deaths. No change needed, but is this only notable in the cost but not the number of deaths?
  • Well, it's notable so I mentioned it accordingly. In terms of assigning a ranking like damage, no, Matthew was nowhere near the deadliest (over 27,500 deaths occurred in a hurricane in 1780). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• I cannot find anything to query in the timeline or notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support and a couple of suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 12george1

• You linked Tropical Storm Danielle, even though it doesn't have an article. If you did that with all of them, I'd be fine with it, but there's no link for storms like Fiona. Just delink Danielle. The other issue is that for Reference 2, the publisher indicates that it was the National Weather Service. However, it is not the American National Weather Service. It appears there is no article for the National Weather Service of the Cayman Islands. So I think you should either insert "|location=George Town, Cayman Islands", or added "Cayman Islands" in parenthesis after National Weather Service. I have no issues otherwise and will switch to support after these are taken care of--12george1 (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed the links and added Cayman Island to the ref. Thanks for the review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I see that you decided to link all storms--12george1 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments minor quibbles. No need to link major geographical entities such as United States. Otto is piped to Hurricane Otto (2016) which then redirects back to Hurricane Otto, suggest the middle man is cut out. Danielle suffers a similar piped redirect fate, as does "landfalls" which could simply be landfalls. " since 1938 and " easter egg links, would be better to say "since the 1938 season..." and link that. A few of these... " Hurricane Alex weakens" and next sentence " Tropical Storm Alex", shouldn't we say that this at some point Alex was upgraded to a TS? Otherwise a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Delinked USA, fixed all the piped redirects, and changed the easter egg links. Alex transitioned from a subtropical storm to a hurricane (all hurricanes are tropical by nature), so I just noted that it gained fully tropical characteristics upon becoming a hurricane. Thanks for the review. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Local Nature Reserves in Northamptonshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This my latest nomination of a list of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as Cambridgeshire and Essex, which have passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't Britannica be "Encyclopaedia" rather than "Encyclopedia"? Or even Encyclopædia? Done. My 1971 Britannica has Encyclopedia but I see that the online one has new-fangled Encyclopædia! " 72.7 hectares" add convert to Imperial. Done. "...and great crested grebes.[10][9]" etc can we get refs in numerical order? Done. A few piped redirects, e.g. herons, kingfishers etc. Done for herons and kingfishers. Is there a tool for finding piped redirects? I have something in my monobook which highlights redirects, and then I check them (it's a great tool for finding dabs too). I'm okay with plain redirects most of the time, but piped links which then redirect piss me off. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "one kilometre long" convert and "adjective-ise" it. Not sure about this one. From the template instruction {{convert|1|km|mile|sigfig=1|abbr=off|spell=in|adj=mid|-long}} gives one-kilometre-long (0.6-mile) but that looks like too many dashes to me and the -long in the wrong place. But maybe that is just my prejudice against dashes? I would just have {{convert|1|km|mile|sigfig=1|abbr=off|spell=in|adj=on}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Done. Thanks again The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC) That's it. Not too shabby, as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list. Just a few minor comments and questions:

• In the description of Farthinghoe Nature Reserve the word Landfill could be wikilinked as some readers may not know what this is.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The number of entries didn't match those at Category:Local Nature Reserves in Northamptonshire and it took me a while to work out that both "Hills and Holes" and "Scrub Filed" were pointing to Bradlaugh Fields, would it be worth mentioning in their descriptions that both are part of this same site?

• I have added an efn note. The only source which explains the position is a noticeboard on the site, and I have given this as the reference, but I do not know whether this is acceptable. It is unfortunate that an absurd Commons rule forbids uploading a photo of a noticeboard. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is "Daventry Reservoir" mentioned in the description of Daventry Country Park the same as Drayton Reservoir? If not it should probably have a wp article at some point.

• They are different, and I cannot find reliable sources for a separate article on Daventry Reservoir, but I have created a redirect to the country park. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not totally sure what the term "brick pit" means on Greens Norton Pocket Park. I'm guessing it was used for clay to make the bricks (in which case Clay pit might be more usual)

• Brick Pit is not a common term but there are several SSSIs called X Brick Pit. It seems to be more common in Australian sources. So far as I can discover, when it is defined it means a pit where clay is dug for bricks, except for a nineteenth century OED quote where it means a compost pit. I have piped brick pit to clay pit and added the alternative usage to the clay pit article with a citation to an NI offical source. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• How old is "ancient" on "Hills and Holes"? (Natural England says "between the Middle Ages and late 18th Century.")

• Changed to "This is a disused quarry which was operated during an unknown period between the Middle Ages and the late eighteenth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• On River Nene the "Brampton arm", mentioned in the description of Kingsthorpe Meadow, is called the Naseby Source or Brampton Nene - can we get consistency in naming?

• This is a difficult one. A google search shows that Brampton Arm is more common than Naseby Source or Brampton Nene, but some of the Brampton Arm reference are to "Church Brampton Arm" or "Westbridge Arm Junction Also known as the Brampton Arm". I am not sure whether all these refer to the same stretch of water. "Naseby Source" may be an error as it also means the source of the Warwickshire Avon in Naseby in Northants. This South Northamptonshire Council source implies that the Brampton Arm is a tributary of the Nene. Maybe just refer unspecifically to a tributary of the Nene? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience "Arm" tends to be used on a side branch of a (man made) canal rather than a river but it is possible it was given when the river was canalised.— Rod ^talk 14:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Apart from these minor queries the list is looking good.— Rod ^talk 07:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Rod. Please see the query on Brampton Arm. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your responses. I can now support as meeting the FL criteria.— Rod ^talk 14:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I fixed one hyphen to be a dash; other than that this looks like more great work in this area. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Check another off the list; promoted. --PresN 01:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC) [7].

---

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it summarizes all of the rail transport installations currently and previously located in properties run or licensed by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (the largest theme park chain in the world by annual attendance) and every data item on the list is referenced. Jackdude101 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources look good, but I'm not a featured-nominations expert so someone would be better looking these over. However, I have two main issues:

Do you really need the lead image to be such a wide panoramic view? It might be better at the bottom of a section, like the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts#Walt Disney World section. You should add a lead image that doesn't need to be as wide. Like File:WDW MonorailRed ApproachingStation.jpg (not recommended) or File:Monorail Coral.jpg (slightly more recommended)

Also, the routemaps in the bottom of each section take up a whole lot of server space. It's fine to include routemaps—see Select Bus Service for an example of routemap implementation. But there are about 20 of them in this article. Putting the maps in the bottom of the section is better than putting them in the individual tables, but it's just that there are a lot of maps which, with the exception of {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, are located in the respective articles as well. (Also, {{Disneyland Resort Line}} and {{Disneyland Resort Line RDT}} look similar. I did see the TFD nomination, but I think it would be best to have one template that you can toggle based on the parameter.)

Overall though, everything else looks fine to me so far. Again, I'll have to take a look. epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I'm fine with changing the lead image if you think that's going to be a deal breaker. In a perfect world, I would choose an image that has more than one Disney rail line in the same shot (the Disneyland Railroad and the Disneyland Monorail System criss-cross each other near Tomorrowland Station and from there you can take a picture of both at once, for example), but since no such image is available on the Wikimedia Commons, I'll just change it to another WDW Monorail image for now. As far as the route maps go, there are sixteen total and according to my edit from last year when I added them all at once, they each take up ~55 bytes of memory in the article (i.e.: not that much). The main reason why I included them in the article is so you can compare and contrast them all side-by-side without having to click back-and-forth between the individual articles. I also went out of my way to make all of the route diagrams uniform in size and style (I am the original author for all of them except for the WDW Monorail and the Disneyland Resort Line) specifically so that they would display nicely in this article. Notice for instance how all of them are exactly twelve pictograms high (that's not an accident). Jackdude101 (Talk) 5:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: Sounds good. The BS-maps can be easily modified to have one more blank line (just add a back-slash \ on its own line). Also, you can use {{Multiple image}} to add multiple images in the lead if you want to have both the monorail and railroad in the lead.

In regards to "server space," I'm not talking about how many bytes are in the string {{XYZ routemap}} if you actually add it to a page; I'm talking about the post-expand include size after all the templates are loaded. For example, the string {{Disneyland Monorail System}} is 30 bytes, but it may actually use up more CPU. Wikipedia has a restriction that when there are too many templates transcluded on a certain page, it will display a certain number of templates as normal until the limit is reached, then the remaining templates are displayed like wikilinks, like Template:Disneyland Monorail System instead of the actual template. That's what I'm concerned about—the fact that the routemaps may actually go over the template limit. This is not a major issue, but just something to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually discovered the route map template limit the hard way when I first added them. Originally, all of the Disney route diagrams were written using the old {{BS-map}} template and when all of them were included in the article, not all of them would display. So, I converted them all to the new {{Routemap}} template and now all of them display together correctly. The {{Routemap}} template appears to have resolved several of the techincal problems that the old {{BS-map}} template had. Jackdude101 (Talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jackdude101 this nomination has been stalled for six weeks now, have you pinged a few people/projects to see if anyone would be prepared to review the list? If nothing forthcoming soon, we'll need to archive the nomination as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I messaged several people and task forces just now. My apologies. I am not very familiar with the nomination process for featured list status and thought that it would be similar to the good article status process, where you simply have to wait a few months for someone to come by and review it. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be like that, but we tend allow nominations to persist for a few weeks without comments before archiving them for lack of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Based on my comments above, I support the Featured List distinction. I'm the only !voter here, so not sure if this means much. epicgenius (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments The lead is far too short and doesn't cover the major aspects of the article.  Done I added an additional paragraph to the article's lead section. Let me know if that is sufficient or if you would like to see more. I am a big proponent of the "less is more" philosophy, personally. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Sure, less can be more, but WP:LEAD is what we're talking about. I'll review. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Very well. Let me know what you think after reviewing my changes and we can go from there. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Have you searched Flickr for images to fill the gaps? The Jolley Trolley (maybe not the right one mind you) seems to have a few hits with appropriate Creative Commons licensing for use on Wikipedia, the others may well do too since they were such big tourist attractions.  Not done All of the railroad lines without a picture in the article have one thing in common: they are no longer operating. I looked on Flikr anyway to see if I could find anything and I did find some for the two Jolley Trolleys; however, the copyright claims for the handful of images for the Viewliner Train of Tomorrow and the Mine Train Through Nature's Wonderland are questionable, and there were no public domain-friendly images at all for the Fort Wilderness Railroad. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) See also is bloated, and even includes articles which don't exist, trim down and remove unlinked see also's.  Done Otherwise it's a nice piece of work. The lead is the key for me, a couple of sentences on each of the parks would probably suffice, a couple of beefy paras and that Disney quote would work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I made significant changes to the lead section since we last spoke (I changed the marking on the lead section issue above from partly done to done). When you have a moment, please review and indicate whether you support or oppose FL status for this article. Jackdude101 (Talk) 13:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  It's much better now, but as I'm an FLC delegate and as there looks to be sufficient interest here, I'll recuse from voting right now so that I'm in a better position to close the nomination as appropriate in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

*On the subject of the intro, if you want to use that quotation from Walt Disney himself to provide some conext, then that's fine, but I would suggest using the format employed in, say, Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record or NME's Cool List and put it in a quote box under the lead image. In its current position, the quote breaks the flow of the lead and introduces some awkward whitespace.  Done "The following is a complete listing of..." – this entire sentence can be deleted. We shouldn't need to say that a list is complete; it's what our readers will be expecting anyway.  Done The notes in the right-most column that are single, incomplete sentences don't need terminating periods (i.e. these would be the sentences that begin "Based on the anthropomorphic...", "Replaced by the...", "Used purely as...", "Designed to recreate...", "Served by commuter trains...", "Originally named..." and "Served by Line 11...").  Done How are the railways sorted? It almost looks as if it's by opening date, but if that's the case then both Disneyland Monorail System and Disney Resort Line should be lower down their respective tables.  Done The rail lines serving the general resort areas (the ones guests are most likely to see first and the ones that are ridden most often) are listed first, followed by those located inside individual parks listed by opening date. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) You mentioned above that you'd found some free images for the two Jolly Trolley lines. Could they be included?  Not done I attempted to upload some images of the two Jolly Trolleys from Flikr a few minutes ago, but it turns out the licenses they have are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. No other suitable images for these that also have compatible licenses appear to be available. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The image for Gare de Marne-la-Vallée is a little unfortunate – it's just a bare train track, and the composition of the photo almost makes it look like the escalators are the main focus. It's also one of the only photos not to include examples of the vehicles that ride the railway it illustrates. Could this image be used instead? It's not much better, admittedly, but does at least illustrate what the trains look like.  Done The See also section is also creating quite a lot of whitespace. The neatest way that I can see to remedy this would be to add {{Div col|2}} after "Other similar railroads:" and {{Div col end}} before "Private railroads utilizing equipment that previously ran on Disney property:".  Done The portal bar seems quite overfilled. I can't imagine that anyone will want to learn more about, say, aquariums or Los Angeles as a result of reading this article, as they're not mentioned at any point. I'd recommend reducing the links in the portal bar down to just Disney, amusement parks, trains, and trams.  Done All of the geographic location portals have been removed. The Zoos and Aquariums portal has been kept, as one of the parks listed, Disney's Animal Kingdom, has live animal exhibits and is an AZA member. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: All of your comments have been addressed. Please let me know whether my changes to the article are sufficient when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Per MOS:DTT, the tables need row scopes and column scopes. Let me know if you'd like me to talk you through how to add these.  Done You're pretty much there, you just have to replace the uses of Class=wikitable with Class="wikitable plainrowheaders" (not for the route diagrams tables, of course). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done Per WP:OVERLINK, countries (e.g. United States) need not be linked to.  Done United States is still linked to in the Disneyland Resort section. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done Oppose (for now) Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but unfortunately I feel that it is not quite at FL quality. My biggest issue is the lead, which is quite brief. Considering that at least three books have been written on this very subject, surely there must be more that you can say? Are there any interesting facts that you can give about the trains? Which was the first railway to be opened? Who builds them? Which ones are free and which require fares? That fact about how Disney's monorail system was the first of its kind in the US is definitely worthy of being mentioned in the lead. When was the monorail given Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark status? Have any of the other Disney railways been given this status? Which railways get the most passengers each year? Are the railways based on Disney characters generally more popular than their counterparts? Which tracks are the longest or shortest? I'm not saying that you have to include any or all of this material, but I do think that it's close to the sort of information that could be included in the intro to make the article more comprehensive.  Done Length-wise, that's certainly an improvement, but I'm now concerned that the lead doesn't have the professional standards of writing that we'd expect from a featured list. Almost all of the prose that has been added is simply "Some railways have [certain quality], such as [railway x] in [theme park x], [railway y] in [theme park y] and [railway z] in [theme park z]." It just doesn't make for an engaging lead. If you vary the prose a bit, the article will be more enjoyable to read. For example, you could have something like this: The Disney Corporation owns six resorts across five countries, all of which utilize railroad transportation within their grounds. The first such railroads were built in Disneyland Resort, the first Disney theme park. They were opened on July 17, 1955, by Billy Q. Importantman, who remarked at the time: "These railways are for the ages!" Three railroads were opened: the steam-powered Disneyland Railroad, the gas-powered Casey Jr. Circus Train and the working animals of Main Street, USA. Following the expansion of Disneyland in [year], a monorail was built by [engineering company] to connect the theme park to the general resort area. Opened in June 1959, it was the first operational monorail system in the United States, and was subsequently named an Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark by [organization] in [year]. Disney's second theme park, Walt Disney World, opened 16 years later, in 1971. For their new resort, Disney commissioned Baldwin Locomotive Works to build the railways in Walt Disney World, at a cost of $X million. Like Disneyland, Walt Disney World opened with three railways that included steam-powered locomotives and working animals. Two further lines were subsequently opened in the park: the Fort Wilderness Railroad in 1974 and the Wildlife Express Train in 1998. The Fort Wilderness Railroad was plagued with poor designs and operational problems, and was closed after six years. Speaking about the train in 1981, Gary K. Engineer remarked: "Our mistake was letting my six-year-old son design it." This obviously isn't how you MUST write the lead, I just want to give you an example of the sort of prose that might be closer to FL quality. This article might benefit from a thorough peer review. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  Done @A Thousand Doors: I put pen to paper to perfect the prose. The lead was condensed in the process. Let me know whether you believe this is an improvement. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry Jack, but I'm still not entirely convinced by the prose. It has definitely improved (the information about passenger usage and how Disney has one of the largest private collections of operational steam locomotives is certainly interesting), but it's still not quite, in my view, at FL level just yet. Take the final sentence of the first paragraph: it's incredibly long (74 words), and the only real information it imparts is that rail transport can be found in all six Disney theme parks, which is something that we learn from the opening sentence anyway. Try this: wherever you are right now, read that sentence out loud. I don't know about you, but I get a bit bored round about the word "France". Additionally, ending a sentence with five inline citations makes the text look cluttered. The second half of the lead is almost entirely unreferenced and has no wikilinks. The first sentence of the second paragraph is also really long (65 words). Phrases such as "in fact" risk violating WP:EDITORIALIZING. "Eclectic medley" sounds like a quote, but it's not one that I can see in the reference. If it is a quote then that would be fine, but otherwise it skates close to original research. I'm fine with absolutely everything else in the article; it's just the lead that I feel needs a thorough copy-edit. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  Done @A Thousand Doors: I addressed all of the specific fixes you requested. Everything in the lead section is now referenced and the longer sentences have been shortened. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was invited to participate in this discussion yesterday. On my first glance, I like what I see, but I have not yet read through the prose in the article. I hope to take a closer look tonight. Slambo (Speak) 11:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I support the nomination, especially because this is not a blunt list in a table but an interesting article with photographs and maps, which is very concise. To improve it further, I put forward two comments: The statement "the most-visited theme park on Earth" in the first caption of a figure could be seen by critics as a bit promotional. It does not add anything to the subject discussed unless it implies that the theme parks have such large car parks that the visitors need to be transported by railways. In the first line of the paragraphs on Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World I would add their locations such as In Anaheim, California. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I support the nomination, The map templates help make the list more eye-catching to the viewer. Cards84664 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it stalled out for a while there, but all done now. The latest support is a little lacking as there's no indication that a real review was done, but I've read through it myself anyways and I'm good with it. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC) [8].

---

Death Grips discography

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on the discography quite a bit recently and I think it is a useful list of Death Grips' many releases which could be useful for anyone interested in the band and I think it meets the criteria for featured list status. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: This list has many problems, to much to count. You should request a peer review before nominating this for featured list. - AffeL (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments. AffeL's oppose seems unreasonable; you need to be specific with the issues that you think prevent the list from becoming featured. Also, it looks like a retaliation for the oppose made by the nominator in his FLC, which is a little immature to be honest. Anyway, here is what I think about the list:

• "American musical group" how about simply writing it as band considering that you refer to them as a band later in the lede?
• "The band was formed by Stefan "MC Ride" Burnett" no need for his real name here. I wouldn't call Lady Gaga Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germonatta in articles other than her biography.
• "In the spring of 2011" => "In March 2011"
• "received critical acclaim from contemporary music critics" it does not seem right to have "critical acclaim" and "critics" in the same sentence.
• "in the spring of that year" again mentioning the month would be more helpful instead of season.
• " in the fall of 2012", "In the summer of 2013", " in the summer of 2014" ^^.
• A lot of sentences have the structure, "was released to positive reviews and peaked at number xx on the Billboard 200".
• The tables look good and I haven't looked at the references. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I think I've addressed all of your issues. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Good work. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support The lead is well written and plenty of sources are provided. One thing I did notice however was that the infobox says four remixes while the lead say three. Tsange (Talk) 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tsange: I fixed that and thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Everything appears to be in place based on my thorough reading of the list, twice. For the most part, the prose is succinct and covers significant aspects of the band's career history; the nominator did a better job compiling everything she could for comprehensiveness. This one's good to go. Bluesphere 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments "As a result of this and ensuing conflict" feels like it's missing a word, e.g. "the" in front of "ensuing". "In July 2013, Death Grips launched Third Worlds, an imprint label of Harvest Records" it's not explicitly stated, but I assume they made their subsequent releases on this label? Probably worth making that clear. Compilation album isn't noted in the lead at all. "2xLP" use the multiplication symbol rather than x here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I think I've addressed all of your issues. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment good work, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC) [9].

---

List of songs recorded by Ivy

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite never really receiving the attention they deserve, American indie pop band Ivy creates only the finest of music. I have worked on all of their articles over the past two years and have just completed this list (which I began working on in December 2016). I am submitting it to reviewed as a competitor in the 2017 WikiCup. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria and have no doubt that it will eventually become a featured list. Thanks to all who may help me achieve this. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47

• I would revise the first sentence to avoid the repetition of the phrase "has recorded".
• I would rephrase the second sentence to as follows to make the flow a little bit stronger (Formed in 1994, the musical trio consists of Dominique Durand, Andy Chase, and Adam Schlesinger.)
• I would clarify in the lead that Lately is an EP.
• Could you clarify this part (a disappointment for their record label)? Was the record label disappointed in the sales or just the general product?
• The phrase (including by the group) seems a little odd and forced into the sentence. I would recommend trying to find a way to more seamlessly incorporate this information into this sentence.
• I would remove "all-covers" as you say "cover songs" later in the same sentence so it is a little repetitive. Do you think it would also be beneficial to include a link to cover version for the phrase cover songs?
• Just a clarification question, but is there any current news on the band? Their last song was released in 2011 so I was just curious if they disbanded or retired? It may be helpful to include a brief sentence about this at the end if this information is available.

• I really enjoy this band, and "Edge of the Ocean" is one of my favorite songs of all time. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Hope these comments help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I believe I addressed your concerns. Regarding any current news, their official site has pretty much been obsolete since 2012 and considering they've never been too popular, I can't find anything regarding their current status as a band. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review this. Also thanks for the kind comments on my talk page. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

• Thank you for addressing my comments; your final comment makes sense, and I assumed that this would be the case but I just wanted to make sure. It is a shame that this group is no longer recording music, but it is pretty nice to get as much as we got from a relatively obscure indie group. I support this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Oh, and "Edge of the Ocean" is a great song. Carbrera (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments File:Vinceguaraldi blackwhite.jpg no fair use rationale for the use of this image in this article. Dr. Robert is piped to Bruce Robert Howard which then redirects to The Blow Monkeys, I would avoid such piped redirects. "After taking a brief hiatus" no need for "taking" in my opinion. Any reason that Chase and Schlesinger aren't linked in the lead? That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man – thank you. I actually removed the image of Vince Guaraldi altogether as the sourcing seemed somewhat sketchy and that song has been recorded by so many artists on so many occasions that now it seems silly to use his photo here. Thanks again, Carbrera (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC). Are you sure "I Don't Know Why I Love You" is linked to the right thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man – Ah, nice catch. Thanks as well. Carbrera (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

Comments from AffeL

• Support: The list looks really good and well written, can't seem to find any problems with it that sticks out. - AffeL (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "A pop album, two singles were released". Feels like a word is missing after the comma. If not, "A pop album and two singles were released" would be a better-written version of the sentence.
• Very minor, but "Guestroom" at the start of the second paragraph could use commas before and after, as was done when Realistic was mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008 – thanks a bunch! I fixed the list accordingly. Much appreciated, Carbrera (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Looks good so far. Extended play is linked twice. Done Consider listing the photos in alphabetical order of the song that refer to, so that they more closely match the table, i.e. James Iha, then Dr. Robert, then Edwyn Collins, then Serge Gainsbourg, then Chris Collingwood. Done The caption text in the table doesn't require a terminating period. Done "An Ordinary" needs to sort under O. Done The singles in the Album column aren't sorting alphabetically. Use of Template:Sort should fix that. Done Spaced hyphens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ). Done "liner notes" or "Liner notes"? You use both in the references. Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors – Thank you so much! I believe I took care of everything. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC). It seems a little redundant to have an entire column that has the exact same information is all but one cell. I'd propose following the format used in List of songs recorded by Guillemots and List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters, i.e. remove the Artist(s) column, and instead have a note at the top saying "All songs credited to Ivy, except where noted." or similar. Done You still need a note at the top saying "All songs credited to Ivy, except where noted." or similar. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC) "I Guess I'm Just a Little Too Sensitive", "I Hate December", "I've Got a Feeling" and "I've Got You Memorized" all need to be moved further down the list in order to be in the correct alphabetical order. Done They're still in the wrong places. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors – My bad. I believe I resolved the issues. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC). "I've Got a Feeling" and "I've Got You Memorized" need to be below "I'll Be Near You". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors – Ah. Sorry, I must have been going off something else. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

• One last question: similar featured lists highlight in the table which songs were released as singles – any reason that you've chosen not to do that in this list? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• A Thousand Doors – I have never done it on my other two featured lists, but I actually did think of doing it here. However, I decided not to because I still cannot find any concrete evidence regarding if their cover of "Let's Go to Bed" was a single or not. A music video was released and a cover was created, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a single either. Being a featured list, I wouldn't want to list it as a single only to possibly find out that it really wasn't one. And for that reason, I would prefer to list the singles here. Carbrera (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Australia Test cricket records

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I present for review this list of Australian cricket records played in the oldest and greatest form of the game – Test cricket. Based on the Sri Lankan list which was promoted to featured status back in April 2010, this has just appeared on the Main Page in the DYK section. I look forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, Ian. I've started to take a look at it, making some minor fixes. One question - declared totals show as 758–8d (for example). I've only ever seen scorecards show it as 758/8d, and as it's an Australian list, should it be 8/758d? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, thanks very much for your comment. This format was a carry over from the Sri Lankan article. I have changed it as requested. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, significant work has gone into this list since you last commented. Would you mind please reviewing again. Thanks – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian. I took a look yesterday and nothing jumps out that needs fixing and it looks like all the major concerns have been addressed, below. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, thanks very much for your support. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments "A Test match is scheduled to take place over a period of five days" what about timeless Tests? Oh, and this, could be a footnote.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC) The first Test can be linked, there are a couple of possible targets, e.g. English cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1876–77 or History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883#The first Test. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) "have played 801 matches against every other Test-playing nation" picky but that sounds like they've played each other nation 801 times. Removed "against every other Test-playing nation" – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) "well ahead of" avoid "well" here, shades of POV! Removed "well" – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) "Bradman still stand" would add "also" before "still" here. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) "He is second only " in world cricket. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Why is the ICC Test Championship table there in the Key section? It was a carry over from the Sri Lankan list. Agree it seems out of place. Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC) A general comment, it would be nice, especially for non-expert reader, to have some analysis ahead of each table, or at least some prose to introduce each set of stats. "=5", is that an ENGVAR thing? I would write "5=" because logically to me that reads as "5th equal". Not unduly concerned. Is that what you Brits say? In Australia, we say someone finished in equal 5th? [11] – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Since this suggests that Oz are the only team to be involved in more than one tie, I guess that's a Test cricket record? Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Any golden ducks? Diamond ducks? Anyone to trouble Daddles?? Not done. A couldn't find any reliable sources for this sorry. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC) A lot of whitespace on the right-hand side, and plenty of opportunity to use some more classic images of historic cricketers... I have added images of J. J. Ferris, Jack Gregory and Bill Ponsford. I have also added a photograph of Steve Waugh in the Team records section – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Update – I have added three more images to the team records section, one of Border, one of Neil Harvey and one of the 1902 team that toured England – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Every "over" record came from six-ball overs? Excellent pick-up TRM. I have added a note to the Worst figures in a match table where Lindsay Kline's 0/157 came off 8 ball overs – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC) I have a nagging memory of the flag used in West Indies cricket, has it been the same since the beginning of their Test status? You're memory is correct on this. File:WestIndiesCricketFlagPre1999.svg was the flag used until 1999. File:West indies cricket board flag.png is the flag that has been in use since 1999. The former is now in the public domain whilst the latter is under copyright. {{cr|WIN}} calls up the former flag and is used for post-1999 Windies teams, even though it is anachronistic – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Just a bizarre thought struck me, what about Australian Test umpires?! Good one! I have added a table for most matches umpired – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC) That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Really nice. One thing that maybe useful, in the Ducks table, is the amount of innings these guys had. I'm not sure why runs is relevant, although I can accept that even though Waugh had loads of ducks, he made loads of runs, I just think their innings (or their batting average?) would be more appropriate as a comparison. Also, I think an explanation of a "five-wicket haul" preceding that table would be good. Otherwise this is top notch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - very nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• Currently -> As of ...

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• "He also hold the highest fifth-wicket partnership with ..." -> He also holds ...

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given McGrath still holds the record for most wickets by a fast bowler in Tests, I think the fact warrants a mention in the lead.

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Why isn't there a mention about captaincy records in the lead?

• Great pick up Vensatry. I have added the captaincy records to both the lead and the body. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:ALT, you need to mention the names of the players in these lists - talking about File:1902AusTeam.jpg

• Sorry Vensatry, I am at a loss of what you mean here. If you are implying that WP:ALT states that when there is a team photograph, the alt text should list each person in the photograph, well that simply not true. The purpose of alt text is to provide additional information to visual impaired people using screen readers. It should be short, clear and concise. In the image you have raised, it is a photograph of the 1902 Australian cricket team. The team set two records which still stand. The alt text reads "Australian cricket team that toured England in 1902". The caption then states what records the team set. I hope that I that cleared things up. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• What does "=" signify in the table?

• It means "equal" or "tied", eg equal second or tied fifth – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is "scoring a duck" a record? Ditto with "Worst figures in an innings".

• Not all records are positive, eg. Greatest and narrowest loss in the team records section. I have included these as it gives balance. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page no(s). needed for PDF references

• Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Some refs. are archived while others aren't.
  

• Only those refs that do not appear in the Internet Archive are without an archived url. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

—Vensatry _(talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review Vensatry. I will address these concerns shortly. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vensatry, I have addressed each of your points above. I hope that is to your satisfaction. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry, do you have any further comments on this list? – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, meets the standards. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vensatry, thanks very much for the review. It is very much appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I'm seeing a bunch of grammatical glitches so far. Having read most but not all of the list, this is what I've found: Minor point, but the "also" in "A further two Australian partnership records for the second and the sixth wickets set by Bradman also still stand" is a redundant word (given the presence of "further") and could be removed to tighten the prose. Removed "also" as suggested – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Comma needed after Glenn McGrath, I'd imagine. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Key: The highest wicket partnership link isn't working properly; you might need to check the capitalization. Great pick up. Link fixed and reworded. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Team wins, losses, draws and ties: Add "in" after "resulting" at the start of the second paragraph. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Remove first "a" from "Australia has a never lost or drawn a match against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. Done, also added refs to support these claims. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC) It says here that England have competed in over 1,000 Test matches, while the lead says just under 1,000. Which is it? Also, this should be cited here. Ah, my mistake! The lead is correct, it should be under. They have played 983 matches to date. I have corrected this and a ref has also been added. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1902 photo caption: At the end, shouldn't "narrowest lost" be "narrowest loss"? Yes, you are correct. Caption amended. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Most centuries: Needs "a" before "score". Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Same for the double century section. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Best (bowling) figures in a match: "to with finish with match figures of 19/90" needs copy-editing. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Worst figures in a match: Could use "the" before "second Test of the Ashes series". Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Most dismissals in an innings: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "22 wicket-keepers...". In this case, you could just spell out the number. Reworded sentence – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Most dismissals in a series: "Brad Haddin holds the Test cricket record for the most dismissal taken by wicket-keeper in a series." Needs "a" before "wicket-keeper", and "dismissal" should be plural. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Most matches as captain: "holds the record the most matched played as captain in Test cricket with 109." "matched" is a typo, and a word is needed after "record". Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Partnership records: Middle two words of "In sport of cricket" could be removed to improve the sentence. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Highest partnerships by wicket: The Wicket column of the table isn't sorting properly. You'll need sort templates to prevent the 10th from being sorted with the 1st (a common issue in lists). Another great pick up. Thanks Giants – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Giants, thank you very much for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Giants, I have added and amended some of the prose in the team and batting records sections. If you could please review and let me know if you have any further comments that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Is "for" needed in "holds the record of the most wickets for taken by a fast bowler in Test cricket."? Actually, it sounds like "holds the record for" would be better. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Now I see two "for"s in that sentence. The one after "most wickets" should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Giants, I have fixed the sentence. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – A lot of good work has been done to improve the writing in response to my comments, and I think it meets the standards now. Do be sure to do a quick read-through before your next nomination, so that you don't end up facing a long list of issues that you need to fix in a hurry. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giants, thanks very much the support and your comments. I will take it on board moving forward. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC) [12].

---

List of NASCAR race wins by Jeff Gordon

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondit created the article, while I cleaned it up a bit, added a lead, and cited all the wins through ESPN's website. Tried to model this after the Featured Lists of List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. All feedback is welcome. This is my first FLC so forgive me if I have a couple of questions along the way. Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101

• One of the first things I noticed was that none of your references have archive links. I don't think it's a requirement to get an article upgraded to featured status, but if the websites that you are referencing go down in the future, or if the website admins rearrange the website's content and put the relevant data in a different place, it could lead to a lot of dead links, which could lead to an article's featured status being revoked. This could be an especially significant problem if the ESPN website, from which most of your references originate, rearranges its data. Archive links in your references will prevent this from happening, as it will "freeze" your reference the way it was when you retrieved it. In case you don't know, creating archive links is super easy. Just copy the url and paste it into archive.org/web, then copy the new archive link it spits out and include it in your reference using "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Other that that, your article looks good overall. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: Thanks! I am familiar with this process and will take your suggestions into consideration. ESPN still has articles from over a decade ago that still have workable links, but it's certainly something I'll keep an eye on. Of course, many websites have these race results available; I just used ESPN to be consistent with the other two featured lists. Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support – The vast majority of the references are now archived. Great work! Jackdude101 (Talk) 13:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I would start by introducing Gordon's start of his career, before hitting us immediately with four titles. I would say he raced NASCAR between X and Y, winning four championships. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) I would also promote the total number of wins in the lead to the first paragraph. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) " October 20, 1990 at " comma after 1990. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) You could add the season as a row-spanned item in the table so it's clear which races came in which seasons (I know the year can do that, but it'd be nicer to see it up front). Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Avoid easter egg links, i.e. don't just link 1995 for 1995 NASCAR Winston Cup Series, perhaps use something like the 1995 series. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) As the list is sortable, you need to link every linkable item every time, e.g. the tracks and locations which have articles need to be linked each instance. Hmm... I've been told in the past that this is WP:OVERLINK; is this an FL-specific requirement? Again, I'm flexible so no worries, but I just wanted to check first. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) If you've been told that about a sortable list, you've been misinformed. If you can sort a list by anything other than its default order, you cannot guarantee that the linked item will be at the top, so all linked items in sortable tables should be linked each time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC) "Gordon in victory lane " isn't that "the victory lane"? Twice? Done (assuming we've resolved this issue). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Make the ref col unsortable. Done? I think I know what you meant but let me know if you meant something else. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in the references. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) This is currently an orphan, it needs to be linked from other articles. Now linked from Jeff Gordon and Sprint Cup Series career of Jeff Gordon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I'll take your comments into consideration later tonight. Also, in NASCAR, "victory lane" is generally referred to as such, the place where the winner goes to celebrate his victory. If you insist, however, I have no problem changing it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) it was the grammar, I just think it should say "in the victory lane". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Clarification: I meant it is almost never referred to in that way. The television announcers will always say something like, "Let's go down to victory lane to see Jeff Gordon celebrate his win." Victory lane is a place. Saying, "Gordon celebrates in the victory lane" would be like me saying, "I live in the Delaware." That is what I was trying to convey; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Again, if you insist, I won't let it stand in the way. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Ah, well in that case, it should be "Victory Lane" and not "victory lane". It's a proper noun in this situation, so it should be capitalised. That would avoid any confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Well, look at this: NASCAR Victory Lane is an article, not a good one, but it explains what you assumed we'd know and what I'd never heard of! Perhaps worth linking, and observing the italics if that's actually correct... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, that's the TV show on FS1 named after the term. Not sure linking it here would be appropriate though, since the article is about a TV series rather than the term itself. Ok, but it looks odd unless "Victory Lane" is capitalised, it looks like it's missing "the". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC) I have capitalized it in the captions. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Also, I've had some unexpected schoolwork come up so it may take me longer than I at first expected to get to this. I also have an FAC that needs some more attention right now as well as a GAN that's about to go under review. I (think!) I can handle all of this but please be patient with me. Thanks again! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Comment he won 11 poles when he still wasn't full time? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) He was full time in the Busch Series that year...also should it be "full time" or "full-time"? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I believe everything has been resolved. Let me know of any outstanding issues if you come across them. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to any potential reviewers: I will be on vacation from April 15-24 and will likely be unable to respond to comments until I return. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Hopefully you're not on vacation yet so you can have a look at these:

• "Gordon won at least one pole in 23 consecutive seasons, making this a NASCAR record." The "making this" is wordiness that doesn't add anything to the sentence, so you can just cut it to make the writing tighter.
• Sprint Cup Series: A comma would be useful before "leaving Kentucky Speedway the only track where he failed to win." Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Those were the only issues I had with the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk "went on to win it in the 1997 series, the 1998 series, and the 2001 series as well." The repetition of "series" is unnecessary: shorten to "went on to win it in 1997, 1998 and 2001 as well." Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Changed "He currently ranks third..." to "As of 2017, he ranks third..." Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Race 64 sorts wrong by date, presumably because of the two dates. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I'd recommend using "format=md" rather than "format=mdy", as at the moment the year is displayed in both the Date and the Season column, which is unnecessarily repetitive. It would also look better if the seasons were merged, as done in List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Similarly, pipe the name of the race to remove the year. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Make the References column unsortable. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Referencing looks great. Harrias talk 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @Harrias: Not sure how I missed this until now. Thanks for the review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great work, I don't have any more issues. Harrias ^talk 10:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC) [13].

---

Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There are 79 Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. This list is modelled on the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all FL.— Rod ^talk 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The first sentence of para 2 repeats the first of para 1. I suggest having separate paragraphs on listing rules and government structure instead of mixing them in para 1.

• Rearranged.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The last part of para 1 is unreferenced.

• Ref added.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• "North Somerset includes areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974." This will not make sense to people who do not know the history of Avon. I would delete as irrelevant.

• Removed.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• "There are 79 Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset." Is there a Historic England list for North Somerset which could be given as a reference for this?

• This is complicated. If you go to Advanced search & select North Somerset from the list at District/Unitary Authority/Borough and II* for Grade:, untick everything apart from "Listing" you will see the list (which now says 80 so they must have added one I will find) - I am unable to give a URL which will point directly to this search.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Waterworks at Blagdon: Pumping Station with Receiving Tanks had been upgraded from II to II* so now added to the list (also the most recent completed 1905).— Rod ^talk 07:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The oldest are Norman churches. From the Middle Ages onward there are more churches and some manor houses with their ancillary buildings. The list includes several village or church crosses and monuments in churchyards." These comments are unreferenced.

• I doubt I will be able to find a specific reference claim but if you sort the list by date or type you will see they are true.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would like the last paragraph expanded with more information about particularly interesting buildings.

• I will look at expanding this, but they may have general statements like those mentioned in the previous comment which may be difficult to reference.— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• No change needed but it seems to me surprising that no building is listed earlier than the Normans or later than 1902. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Anything earlier then Norman is likely to be Grade I & there aren't that many 20th century buildings listed yet (those that are tend to be Grade II).— Rod ^talk 07:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - pity we don't have images for all of them...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support – The only minor thing I'd consider changing is the blank cell for the building type of No 2 Former Hannah More Infants School; perhaps a dash of some kind could be put there to fill the blank space. However, that isn't something that I would withhold support over, as everything else looks great. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've added "Barn" for No 2 Former Hannah More Infants School as it started as a barn then school & now community centre & Historic England tends to use original use as the type.— Rod ^talk 07:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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