Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2013

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 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over these past few weeks and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

[Please note that the 3 rows that have no refs are already sourced at the bottom in the "General" references. The other columns all have individual sources due to the availability of play-by-play boxscores and/or the need to source Hall of Fame membership.]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "no player has ever struck out more than three batters on nine pitches in a game." - Doesn't a strikeout, by definition, require three pitches or more? If so, this is fairly redundant to state. I linked the "more than three..." part to the section in the strikeout article discussing striking out more than three batters in an inning. If it makes it any clearer, I could change the wording to say "no player has ever struck out four batters on twelve pitches in a game." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) That would be a bit less redundant. Remember, it's "three strikes you're out at the old ball game" so there is no way to strike out four batters in nine pitches (which is what was implied by the sentence you had there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC) immaculate inning - why the bold? It's a significant alternative title. I did not bold the main title because it's too long and "does not lend itself to being used easily…in the opening sentence." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, but it's awfully far down the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC) becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues. - relation to MLB unclear Fixed. Changed to "becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues of the MLB." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) What are the numbers in the "Batters faced" column for? It signifies a batter who has been the "victim" of an immaculate inning 2+ times. I've removed the (1) from the list in order to maintain consistency with the pitcher's column, which does not designate the first occasion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Should preferably be in the key as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Images look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose and images. Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about baseball. But the prose and the table look good. The only thing I noticed is that three entries in the table are missing refs.—Chris!_c/t 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire table is sourced from the "General" subsection of the "References" section at the very bottom. I only added a specific ref if Baseball Reference provided a box score. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What about having a column for the box score. It would be interesting to see which team actually won. I think Baseball Reference is not the only baseball database out there. Maybe others can provide that info.—Chris!_c/t 18:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Baseball Almanac (the general ref), Baseball Reference nor Retrosheet provide the box score of the games before 1916. And c. 1920s box scores only have the games' final score but do not have the play-by-play description that references the actual immaculate inning as having taken place. Both are needed in order to reference the event. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Bagumba Similar concern with missing entries in "Ref" column. It just looks weird, although I understand the general ref covers this. Perhaps a better question is whether "Ref" should be renamed something else? Also, a footnote for individual entries that explains why they are empty would would remove the perception that the table is incomplete. Could I simply put a "—" through the empty cells? Or is there some way I can create a footnote that links directly to the "General" refs section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC) What do the refs for 1889 and 1902 entries provide if they are not boxscores? BR bio refs for Hall of Famers (see response below). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Why do some rows have two refs and others only one? I included a ref to the player's BR bio if they are members of the HOF in order to verify their status as such. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Got it. Maybe a general ref to HOF listing like http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof.shtml would allow a dedicated boxscore ref column? n/a could be entered for those without a boxscore.—Bagumba (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Added general HOF ref at the bottom and kept the "Ref" column to just box scores. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC) You really should rename the "Ref" column; otherwise well meaning edits like this most recent one will add a reference thinking the entry is unsourced,and it wont be a boxscore as as you intend the column to be.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Renamed to "Box" instead. Sorry for the late response. I just got back to uni—the internet WiFi there isn't working and the earliest it can be fixed is Tuesday. As a result, I haven't been able to edit for the last 3 days and can only make limited edits off my iPhone. :( —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Remove last "the" from "becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues of the MLB."? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support One nitpick: Wade Miley is linked twice in the lead (in the second paragraph). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per the request at WT:MLB, I used my "expert" eyes and checked the prose. Looks fine, although perhaps the Hall of Fame aspect is emphasized a little too much. Then again, perhaps it is not. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: shouldn't the title of the article be "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches in a single inning"? Lots of pitchers have struck out 3 batters (non-specific on when - 2 batters in one inning, 1 batter in the next inning) on 9 pitches, but only a few have done that feat in a single inning. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LISTNAME, the name of a list "is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." This saves from overly long titles (and the current one is already long as it is). The inclusion criteria can be further detailed in the article. A shorter title might be "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who pitched an immaculate inning", but do many people know what an immaculate inning is?—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The article states that the feat is "commonly known as an immaculate inning". Rejectwater (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments award for longest list name in Wikipedia goes to.... (I think this just pips this FL I wrote a while back!) Are these nine pitches consecutive, I think it's sort of implied... (I'm just not familiar with the terminology of "on nine pitches", I'd expect that to be "with" nine pitches, but whaddoiknow?) Yes. Struck out on 9 consecutive pitches (three strikes for each batter). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Would you consider adding "consecutive" for us non-experts? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC) For consistency, should "Batters faced" in the key be "Batters faced (x)"? Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC) What is referencing that 11 of the last 12 to achieve this feat are still "active"? (I would also consider changing that to "Active as of the 2013 season..."... It was suppose to be Baseball Reference.com. However, after a previous comment on individual HOF'er bios, I removed those and utilized a general HOF player ref. Would you like me to add the BR refs for active players into the table? And if I were to do so, what do I do for all the empty cells where individual BR refs are not necessary? (i.e. do I place n/a or — ). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You could add the ref next to the name of the "active" player? That way you don't need a new col or n/a or en-dash or anything? Or, you could change Box to Ref(s) and add it there? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Mixed in the title as "Box & Ref", since I'd like to keep the boxscore explanation in the key. Also, instead of adding "Active as of the 2013 season...", I added a note explaining what being active entailed (as per Golden Spikes Award FL). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

More resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

*I noticed the recent changes to address The Rambling Man's above concern about references for active players. I guess it was an unforseen consequence of moving to a single ref for Hall of Fame members, as opposed to individual refs for each player. Still, if we need a ref that a player is active, it seems a ref would then also be needed to verify that the remaining players are not active. Also, I don't see why we are averse to a dedicated column for boxscore links, as opposed to the current co-mingling "Box & Ref"—which makes an extra step for the reader to find the link they are interested in.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not averse to the "Box" column containing solely boxscores. It's just that another column with blank, — or n/a symbols in it would look awkward. And the only reason why I needed a ref for active players (as oppose to inactive players) is because of the prose in the lead (i.e. "These requirements leave 11 players ineligible who are active") and their designation in the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Unless it's verified that the others are inactive, we would not know that there are not more than the 11 identified so far.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC) As per List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game FL, there's no need to cite each and every single player's in a table. Asking me to do so would be downright cruel; that'll be 40 different BR refs I'd have to unnecessarily comb through. :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF example doesn't address verifiability. However, I have an easier solution. The Baseball Almanac general ref lists all the players, which also has links to each player's profile where it can be verified if they are active/inactive. Therefore, I propose to remove the additional links for the active players as they are redundant to the general ref; otherwise for consistency, similar links should be added to verify which players are not active. If the links are removed, we can rename the column back to "Box" again.—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Sounds good. Can I use Baseball Reference instead, for the sake of consistency (i.e. same source origin for HOF players and active/inactive ones)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC) That link is too general. The almanac link at least already lists all the players with an immaculate inning. I would just rely on the existing general refs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Removed all specific BR player bios. (P.S. Does this count as the "thorough review" you said on your talk page?) —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, just doing cursory checks :-(—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (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 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes

Nominator(s): DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The last featured anime list was List of Buso Renkin episodes. I want to see if this list can reach FL status. Even if it doesn't, criticism will help improve the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - A well-written list, satisfies the FL criteria. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It isn't necessary to use {{nihongo}} since the main article uses, is it? And is necessary to italicize Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion in the lead. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Nihongo was a preference. Yeah, it's a title so it has to be italicized. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's very good in all subjects. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A good list. All references appear to be reliable and are well formattted.Tintor2 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – I'm not convinced that a DVD cover can be justified by WP:NFCC. We don't need the image to understand the list, after all. Yeah I guess. I could remove it. The logo is probably of importance and the art just represents the art style of the episodes. I would like your opinion if it should be removed, its image should be replaced, or if I can somehow satisfy NFCC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC) "The episodes use five theme music". Feels like it's missing something before "theme", because the sentence isn't grammatical the way it is now. "uses five pieces of" Should be "use" after "episodes". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Episode 3: "Having reason to suspect his mother's death, Marianne vi Britannia, was planned by one of his relatives". Order would be more logical with "to suspect that the death of his mother, Marianne vi Britannia, was planned...". Done "is the voice who lead them in the previous battle...". "lead" → "led"? Done Episode 7: "Shortly" should be decapitalized, as should "The" after the semi-colon later on. Done Episode 11: "amongst" → "among"? Done "forcing him to eject and crash-lands near Shirley. Shirley...". Try not to have the name repeat from one sentence to another like this. Second Shirley replaced with She. Episode 24: "The Black Knights are able to push the Britannian Army back and uses Ashford Academy as their headquarters." "uses" → "use". Done Other English releases: "In Australia, Madman Entertainment released a DVD collection was released...". Last two words should be taken out. Done Stage 9.33: "The girls fight over Lelouch and concludes with Milly demanding him to choose a girlfriend." "concludes" → "conclude"? Done Stage 22.25: "and the media cuts all broadcast." I think the last word should be plural. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Not sure about this but I took your suggestion. Thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "into 9 volumes" nine. Done "into 2 DVD " two. Done What's UMD format? Replaced first UMD with Universal Media Disc "a week before" -> "a week earlier"? Done "was done by " don't like "done", reads clumsily. Replaced done with produced Media tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS (i.e. MOS:DTT for row and col scopes). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I'm unclear about this, but do you mean I should add scope so rows and columns are clearer in the syntax? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Added scope="column" in the media release tables. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Also added rows which slipped my mind. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:00, 25 May 2013 (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 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Cœur de pirate discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be well referenced and informative. I look forward to your comments. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Where are the 10 guest appearances (as stated in the infobox) because in the article there are 9.
• "The album reached number two on the French albums chart" → It reached number two on the French albums chart
• Allmusic → AllMusic
• The Ultratop and Ultratip are two different charts, for "Golden Baby" you have put the Ultratip position when it actually didn't chart on the Ultratop (main chart).
• "Hélène" also charted in France, you should add the column for that too.

Till 02:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done and thank you very much for commenting :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 "3× platinum" → "platinum" should be capitalized. For styling consistency, I'd use a </br> in the Extended plays table to separate the parts of the "BEL (WA)" onto two lines. In the single tables, sometimes the additional information (i.e. the "featuring xxx" parts) is separated from the song title onto a new line, and sometimes it is not. Again, be consistent – I'd keep them all of separate lines. The reference for "Brutal Hearts" should be next to the song title and not the additional information. Move it before the line break. In the Promotional singles table, "Non-album release" should probably be plural, as there are two. "Everyday Things (Acoustic)" → is "(Acoustic) actually part of the title? If not, move it outside the speech marks. In the Music videos table, again be consistent with the use of line breaks. "Brutal Hearts"(Version two) → space? Overall, a very well constructed list. If these issues are resolved, I'll happily support a promotion. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I believe that I have made all of the changes. Thank you for your comments :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Excellent, a few minor points. "It peaked at number five in Canada and France" well it peaked at number 2 in Wallonia... The promo singles aren't mentioned in the lead/infobox. Ah, okay, are you merging "promo singles" with "guest appearances" to get nine in the infobox? It's a little confusing because I don't see how "Everday", for instance, is a "guest appearance"... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I have made some changes and hopefully clarified singles/guest appearances. I must have never changed in during a previous edit :S Thank you for commenting. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
List looks great – just one point: One portion of the lead reads "10 singles [...] and ten music videos". You should probably stick to one form of writing the number (either 10 or ten) for consistency's sake. Holiday56 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Nice catch! Fixed it :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Great work. Holiday56 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (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 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members

Nominator(s): Fandraltastic (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC), TriiipleThreat

TriiipleThreat and I are nominating this for featured list status as we believe it has now developed to a point where it is comprehensive, well-sourced and neatly structured. A cast list for a highly-visible film series that is large and getting larger, this list has been collaborated on by a number of editors over the years, and I believe it now meets the criteria laid out for FLs. Please leave any comments/suggestions below, and we will do our best to address them. Cheers. Fandraltastic (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Extremely well referenced and very nice tabular representation and layout. — Cirt (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

*Comment. In reference to MOS:DTT, the table looks like it might be an example of both bad use of color and bad column headers? Rejectwater (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) The use of color should be fine. DTT says to ensure that color is not the only identifier in a table and it is not, both the emptiness of a cell and a gray background indicate that the character is not in the specified film here. As for the headers, I'm not sure if that's really an issue? The "solution" provided on the DTT would leave this page with about 10 tiny tables and counting, losing its flow, and also remove the section anchors from the TOC. Does the fact that their scope is specified as "row" in the wikitext not help? -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Color: I see what you're saying- the color does not convey information, but a lack of it. Rejectwater (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Column headers: You're saying that the size of the table and the table of contents are critical aspects of the page? I don't understand. Rejectwater (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I would think so, the page becomes really disjointed when it's split into 10+ small tables, and the table of contents allows the reader to jump to a specific portion of the table instead of having to scroll through the entire page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I wasn't thinking of splitting it into ten small tables but of adding a column on the left side of the existing table(s). The information in the column headers is useful, I don't think it should be deleted.Rejectwater (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I really do not see the need to add any more columns. As for accessibility, I tried it on multiple browsers with no issues. And this might seem like other stuff but List of Harry Potter films cast members was promoted with a very similar layout.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I'm just asking. Personally I have a hard time understanding what standards to apply when. Thanks for the feedback. Great page, by the way, very nice work. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great page, very nice layout, easy to read and understand, covers the topic cleanly and completely. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Lead first sentence has "Marvel" three times and "film" twice. Feels a little repetitive. The first mention of "Marvel" is for the common name of the film series, the other two are the names of corporate entities. Not sure if there's anything that can be done about this. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) May well be worth noting that the film was called Avengers Assemble in the UK (and elsewhere?) so it wasn't confused with The Avengers. It's mentioned that it's the 2012 film, I would think that's enough of a disambig? Not sure where you could really slot in an alternate title like that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) It seems we refer to Joshua Dallas as Josh. Fixed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Six lead paras is a little too hefty. Not sure what you'd like to have removed here. Don't think any of the paras are extraneous, really. Explain what the film series is, talk about the lead actors a little bit, talk about recasting, mention recurring characters, and then list a few of the notable actors who appear but don't recur. Yeah, there are a lot of paragraphs but they're all fairly brief and they all add to the reader's understanding of the topic, at least from my point of view. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Please check the tables comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes where appropriate. Looking into this, never done it before so I'm not sure what goes where. Will give it a go. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, I think I've got the row/col scopes done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Not sure about the various different font sizes, what's going on there? Looks a little like a school HTML project. I think you were referring to the small text in the headers? Removed that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Check refs (avoid double hyphens, that should be an en-dash for example). Done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Avoid SHOUTING in the refs (e.g. ref 27). And done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'm looking into the row and scope accessibility thing, will try to get that done. I think I've covered or addressed everything else, if you have any more comments or concerns please feel free to leave them. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – It looks good and is well referenced. I think the reviewers above have covered all problems big and small. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2013 (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 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Citra Award for Best Leading Actress

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm certain it meets the requirements. Following the Citra Award for Best Director, I give you the leading ladies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks quite good but it seems to already have the bronze star at the top right, this might be a mistake somehow? — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• LOL, nuked. That was left over from the Directors list, which I used as the basis for this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There's a boatload of redlinks on the page which is kinda glaringly crying out for creation of new article stubs at least ... but otherwise, seems to be high quality indeed. — Cirt (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! By my count five articles would get rid of 80% of the redlinks (shame the whole field is so poorly covered on Wikipedia...). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "…to Indonesian actresses in recognition for their achievements…" – should read "in recognition of their achievements." Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC) "Four other actresses have won multiple Citra Awards:" – might want to use a "—" instead of a colon, but optional, since I understand there may be minor formatting/style differences. I think the colon is better here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC) "Four actresses (Jajang C. Noer, …) have" – I would use "—" instead of brackets, but once again, optional. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Spaced ndash used instead (I usually use endashes and not emdashes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Good job! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Formatting and prose look good. It might not be a bad idea to fire in some quick alt text for the images, though it's more of an academic issue since they're all descriptively similar enough that it wouldn't really make a noticeable difference. I would however reworded the sentence "Four films have seen multiple cast members receive nominations, although of these only Mengejar Mas-Mas's Dinna Olivia received the award"—what you're going for here is to say that Mengejar Mas-Mas is the only film to feature multiple noms with a win, but filling in all the information in the sentence at once like that makes it a little confusing. Try splitting it up a bit, perhaps as "Four films have seen multiple cast members receive nominations. Of these, only Mengejar Mas-Mass earned a win, with Dinna Olivia receiving the award" (feel free to tinker as my prose style isn't the best). Aside from that I'm more than happy with this list. GRAPPLE X 18:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done both, thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Check image captions - complete sentences need to take a full stop.

• Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "recognition" and "recognised" in quick succession...

• Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That second sentence is quite lengthy, I'd split it.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "recipients from a shortlist of three to six films." mildly confusing, it's a shortlist of people, not films, surely?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just curious, what's the meaning/origin of "Citra"?

• "image" or "view", such as "citra diri" (self-image) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were first given at " - were first presented at... perhaps?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1973 the IFF began to be held annually." not great, maybe "From 1973, the IFF were held annually"?

No, as IFF is "Indonesian Film Festival" (singular). Done with "was" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "who won six awards out of ten" six awards from ten...

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "receive concurrent nominations" I found that mildly confusing, perhaps "more than one nomination in a single year" or something similar?

Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, The Rambling Man. I think I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2013 (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 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

84th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1st Academy Awards and 82nd Academy Awards were written.Birdienest81 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

Everything should be uniform, but the references are all over the place. Here are some of the problem I have found: Ref 2 → oscar.com shouldn't be in italics. Also, it doesn't link to a specific article. It just lists articles from 2013. In all refs: AMPAS → Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). This shouldn't be written in italics either. Ref 3 → wikilink Entertainment Weekly. Add Time Warner as the publisher. Ref 8 → The Hollywood Reporter in italics. Add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher. Furthermore, it doesn't link to the article listed ("Milla Jovovich to Host Academy's Sci-Tech Awards"). Ref 11 → BBC News shouldn't be in italics. Ref 13 → Daily Mail needs to be wikilinked. Add Associated Newspapers as publisher (Note: this is a tabloid newspaper and may not be reliable). Ref 15 → CNN shouldn't be in italics. Ref 16 + 64 → MTV shouldn't be in italics. Refs 19 + 49 → needs date retrieved. Ref 39 → Slate needs to wikilink to the publication. Ref 44 → Add News World Communications as the publisher. Ref 49 → Wikilink The Hollywood Reporter and add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Fixed: I have fixed everything with some notations Replaced link 13 from Daily Mail to Denver Post an American daily newspaper. Reference 8 was supposed to link article mentioning Honorary Oscars for Oprah, James Earl Jones, and Dick Smith. Milla Jovovich reference link is number 9. -Birdienest81 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The references are overlinked at the work/publisher space, for example Entertainment Weekly is linked in number 2 and 3. Just link the first time the work/publisher appears. In general, it looks good. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed: I have fixed everything. Though I must ask, Underneath-it-All said I have to link everything including the references, but you said only the first mention. Who's right?

-Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen it done both ways. In older FLC's it was requested by other users, but I'm fine with just the first mention being wikilinked. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, now if only I can get more feedback

– Birdienest81 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, if possible. I edit Oscar-releated awards, but most of them just vandalism and disruptive editing. If there is no problem, support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• No comma after 1990 in the first paragraph.
• Should read "between five and ten" instead of "to ten"
• In ceremony section, change pending to depending.
• Remove 'and' before Eddie Murphy.
• The Voting trends and summary section deals just with the box-office performance of the nominees. I see this is the case with the other recent ceremony articles, but these contents do not match the section title. Material relating to voting trends and summary should be added, or please change the name of this section in this and other articles.
• In Critical reviews section, change 'last year' to 'the previous year'
• Quotation marks are unnecessary in the second paragraph of the Ratings section.
• If In Memoriam in the header is italicized, its use in the first sentence there should be too, not in quotation marks.
• Steve Jobs' role shouldn't be pointed out if no one else's is.
• External links: Oscar's -> Oscars
• The ABC and Hollywood Blog links now just refer to the 2013 show.
• Sources and content look great, good work!

Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed: I have fixed everything. However, if I had kept the 'Voting trends and summary' intact would you have wanted like a summary of who won or what?

-Birdienest81 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking further back, 80th Academy Awards, 79th Academy Awards, and 78th Academy Awards have more information, but little of it can really be called trends or has any reference to the votes: it's mostly records and special occurances about the winners, though of course none of that can necessarily be applied to this ceremony. If you want to try to find any, that would be nice but not necessary. I found that Christopher Plummer became the oldest person to win an acting award, and Hugo was nominated in all seven technical categories, so those would definitely be worth mentioning, though I don't know the best way to incorporate it. Also, the multiple nominations section could be made a subsection of Winner and Nominees, which could also be done for other articles. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried creating a notable winners section for the 82nd Academy Awards, but Tbhotch said no to it because it sounded like trivia. If I remember, the 1st Academy Awards does mention some brief notable winners at the beginning. Maybe I could try to incorporate a notable winners section but in prose style (as opposed to a list style).

Birdienest81 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, prose would be good, maybe as another subsection of the main winners and nominees section. Some of the other pages' material gets too trivial, but a few major winners like those two are noteworthy enough. Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done: I added notable facts under the second paragraph of the Winners and Nominees section just before the awards boxes. I followed a similar format to the 1st Academy Awards which has brief tidbits about the major winners.

Birdienest81 (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work, looks great. Support Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 10 May 2013 (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 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney

Nominator(s): Surge_Elec (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney holds the record for most Academy Award wins and nominations. Over the past two days I have done intense editing on the list. I believe this list now meets all six featured list criteria. I have used Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the primary source for all the awards. I have added a few more reliable sources for some of the awards. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

;Comments Support

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Order refs: [27][14] → [14][27] + [15][14] → [14][15] Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Ref. 42 is broken (please find another reliable replacement) Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Add Tribune Company to the publisher info for the Los Angeles Times Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Add author info (Alyssa Carnahan) and date published (January 4, 2013) for ref. 41 Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) history.[1]. → remove the extra period Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 16:11, 2 May 2013‎ (UTC)

'Comments 'Academy-Awarded' is not a word. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Include the hypen in 'twenty-six'. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The first paragraph says "individual in history" three times. Please find some way to combine these sentences. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Commas are unnecessary in the first and second sentences of the second paragraph. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The final sentence in the second paragraph should be shortened to say he consecutively earned nominations and won. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The comma after 1939 in the third paragraph is unnecessary. Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Everything else looks great! Reywas92^Talk 03:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

;Comments: at the 5th Academy Awards. - Year? Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) won in the same category (Best Short Subject (Cartoon)) - This is an awkward construction. Any way to rephrase? How do you like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) One minor change: "consecutively earned, and won, nominations" to "consecutively earned nominations and won". Nice reconstruction of the paragraph, I really liked it. Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Posthumously - Without a year of death we don't get the full implications of the word (I'd suggest having Disney's YOB and YOD in parentheses after his full name above: Walt Disney (1901–66). Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) "significant screen innovation which has charmed millions and pioneered a great new entertainment field for the motion picture cartoon." - This is not NPOV unless it is a direct quote This should have quotation marks as below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Added quotation marks. Kindly review. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC) To Walt Disney, William Garity, John N. A. Hawkins - what's with the line break? Also, link names other than Disney Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Image issue: File:Walt disney portrait.jpg was flipped, so this is not an accurate representation of Disney. Any other pictures we can use? This would be nice if you can confirm there was no copyright symbol on the trailer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC) You should see if a copy of the trailer is on the internet (if it's really PD usually the internet archive will have it), then watch it and see if the (C) symbol is anywhere.08:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Here is a copy of the trailer. I did not see the (C) symbol anywhere.[8] Surge_Elec (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Agree. That colour image should be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Looks good to me! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on the nomination. I believe it should be a featured list because Walt Disney needs to be recognized for his achievement, and everybody else should see it too of his proud work. Mickey798 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - articles gain FL status based solely on the quality of the article. The perceived "importance" of the subject is not relevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Both images could use alt text.
  • They now have alt text, but for the second photo's text I'd recommend adding "a" before "few certificates" for grammar purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Done—Surge_Elec (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Reference 1 needs an en dash to replace the hyphen in the title per the MoS. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (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 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

List of highest scoring NBA games

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 02:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL requirement. This is my first nom in over 2 years. —Chris!_c/t 02:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Before continuing with a full review, I was curious as to where the scope of the list comes from. Is there a source that lists 15 games each for the regular season and playoffs? If not, I don't know where a logical starting point would come from. Who's to say that 15 is a better number of games to include than 20 or 25? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit that the 15 games cutoff point is somewhat arbitrary. When I wrote this, I searched the Internet for a similar list that list this info. I can't really found one. The closest one is this, but it only lists several games. I can see that this list could fail 3a because there is really no defined scope. If this is the reason for a quick fail. I can understand. —Chris!_c/t 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not just use a common number like top-10? At any rate, there is coverage of the list in books, though you might need to go offline to get the full content. Also, sources like these[10][11] can be used to establish WP:LISTN for the topic of highest scoring games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: how many entries are in the reference Official NBA Guide 2006-07 that was used.?—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

10. And I use the BR search tool to verify the list as well.—Chris!_c/t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

List the BR link in sources as well.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Added—Chris!_c/t 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the links added, they are just links to the highest scoring games by a single team, right? So you afterwards do your own calculations to find the highest scoring combined score? If this is the case, I can do without these sources being listed :-) —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to tell you that before, but I was viewing that page earlier and I just added for you to see.—Chris!_c/t 03:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Bagumba Need a general reference that lists the highest scoring games to verify that the list is complete. Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Need more links to this article. It was an orphan until I linked Run TMC to it. Perhaps adding it to a navbox would help e.g. {{NBA statistical leaders}}. Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Be useful to breakdown the number of 20- and 30-point scorers (and perhaps even list the players) directly in the table among the number of double-digit scorers. I don't know if that is a good idea. I don't want to overwhelm the note column and one can see that from the note.—Chris!c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The table already has notes like "3 players scored 40+ points". Granted 40 > 30 > 20, but 30 and 20 point IMO is more interesting than double-digit scorers, and this would also address your concern that the footnotes section is quite large. I know you've invested a lot of time into this, but I think this would make the list more concise and interesting for an FL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I made the change to the first row. Is that the formatting that you prefer? I don't want the whole article just yet.—Chris!c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Let's continue this point at Talk:List of highest scoring NBA games.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Might be more interesting to see the scorers breakdown per team, instead of an aggregate total for both teams. Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Make a sortable column for whether or not the game went into overtime. Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:CITEHOW, publisher is considered unnecessary for all but books. If it is to stay, Template:Cite web recommends to leave off designations like "LLC". Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Why include link to NBA season with the date? It would be more useful to link the teams to their specific season article (e.g. [[1958–59 Boston Celtics season|Boston Celtics]]). Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The season is still in the date column, which looks clumsy to me. Perhaps you can explain the motivation for including it with the date.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I see the regular season list has removed the season, but the playoffs list still includes link to playoffs and note on which series it was (e.g. semifinals, finals, etc). I suggest instead to link the year in the date, i.e. "May 11, 1992", and add the series to the notes, i.e. "The Trail Blazers won the conference semifinals series 4–1".—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN, link to [[city ,state]], e.g. [[Boston, Massachusetts]] Done. I didn't change the links when the city name is the same as article name.—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) I think the reader is interested in {Denver in Colorado), not both Denver and Colorado. In any event, the state would always be in the lead in the city article. This to me seems like the spirit of WP:SPECIFICLINK. If it's a matter of effort, I'd volunteer to make the changes if there are no objections. I won't make this a condition for approval, either way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Might be worth mentioning Nuggets coaches Doug Moe and later Paul Westhead and their offensive philosophy, considering their teams appear multiple times on the list. Done—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Need citations for Westhead using run and gun. Also, cites for both coaches tenures with Denver.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Should discuss that scoring per team was in the 100s until the mid-90s. Here is one source [12]. The recent teams like Phoenix and Dallas were coached by offensive coaches Mike D'Antoni and Don Nelson, respectively. Where do you think I should add this?—Chris!c/t 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Nelson coached the Warriors game mentioned in the lead, so that it one point to integrate him. The source says "As late as the 1992-93 season, teams were averaging 105.3 ppg" Since then, only Suns with D'Antoni and Nelson with Mavs are on the list. You could bring D'Antoni in there. Maybe you can find some other sources on scoring since 2005–06 (which is where this source stopped).—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Here's a b-r link that lists league scoring avgs per year.[13]—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I added something. Did I address this point?—Chris!c/t 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC) "Only one post-1993 game makes the top-ten list": It wasnt entirely obvious the statement is limited to regular season. I was thinking to cover both regular season and playoffs with the trend analysis, as the eras for the records for both seem to coincide. Then Nelson can be mentioned with Dallas as well as GS.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I made the change. I didn't add Nelson with the GS since I use the 1995-96 as the cutoff. I also moved the paragraph to the end as a way to conclude everything.—Chris!c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Nelson can be mentioned in the regulation game record after Mullin and before Moe. Throw in Nellie Ball style of run and gum too. Then you can make note in last paragraph that his team is on the list again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Mentioned Nelson after Moe. Since the Moe part introduces run and gun and then the Nelson part brings in Nellie ball, a variation of run and gun.—Chris!c/t 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC) "Besides Vandeweghe, English, Thomas, Long ...": I wouldn't assume that a reader has read every preceding footnotes, so I would link names again and not consider it WP:OVERLINK. Done—Chris!c/t 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Since † is used in Notes, which has full text, it seems more straightforward to add the short description "NBA record" directly into the notes instead of relying on the dagger and an entry in the key. Done. The only thing I worry is that there too many notes.—Chris!c/t 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Actually, I meant that "NBA record" should be in the "Note" cell, not relegated to a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC) done—Chris!c/t 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Some of those number of days are quite large. Use {{Age in years and days}} instead of having readers trying to divide by 365 in their head.—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Since there is already a dedicated "Notes" column, is there a reason to add more notes in footnotes in other columns as opposed to centralizing them all under "Notes"?—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Putting everything under "Notes" would overwhelm the column. This format allows readers to see basic info from the table and they can read the additional info from the footnotes.—Chris!c/t 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The fact that an entry is a former record is significant, and having "Former record" in "Notes" or using coloring in the "Total points" cell with an accessible indicator should be used. I agree that the duration of the record is semi-trivial and is suitable to remain a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Can we have the dates footnote after "Former highest-scoring record", to keep them together. I guess to keep the locations of the dates consistent, the highest on the list will need a "Current highest-scoring record" in the notes, with the date footnote after it too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC) "High scoring games were not possible in the early days ...": "not possible" sounds strange, as "high scoring" is a relative term, i.e. game could be high-scoring for their era. Needs rewording to convey point that scores were lower relative to the shot clock era. Quantifying with some numbers would be a plus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) "Games above 100 points were not possible ...": "not possible" still does not seem right. Maybe rare, but a ref that has PPG avgs doesnt prove definitively that nobody scored 100 in some games.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) How about "Games above 100 points were rare ..."? Or do you have a suggestion?—Chris!c/t 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Suggest "Teams only averaged around 80 points per game in the early days ..."—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Need a source for 51 being Vandeweghe's career high.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Hyphens: Including the title of the article, there is an inconsistent use of hyphens with "highest scoring", "highest-scoring" and "low-scoring". I'm not an English expert, but MOS:HYPHEN seems to suggest using hyphens in this case. Googling news articles also shows inconsistent usage. Pick one and be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) For marking the games won by road team, it seems like the "Winner" cell should be marked instead. I find myself looking at the score marked as won by the road and then having to go back to the "Winner" cell to again see who won.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support List contents and organization are FL-quality. As the article is less than a month old, I'd feel more comfortable if someone more qualified than myself reviewed the prose for grammar and flow.—Bagumba (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from CRwikiCA talk 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment The list looks well structured and sourced properly. Naturally a cut-off point would need to be chosen, either a certain number of games, or a minimum number of points. The top 10 of both the regular season and the play-offs could be reasonable for this. I have some comments about the lay-out, in particular The red shading for the road team wins is distracting, it makes this the focus off the list. I would suggest removing this color. An additional option could be to switch to home and away team columns, removing the star and denote the winning team by making it bold. This would then be more in line with normal NBA results (it had me confused for a bit). Your suggestion is good though boldface should not be used for emphasis per MOS:BOLD. I want to see what others think.—Chris! c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Very well, maybe an other alternative should be used, although I stand by my point that the red shading over emphasizes road wins. But waiting for other peoples opinion on this is fine. CRwikiCA talk 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC) If there isn't already an explicit MOS on this, I'd tend to agree that red is jarring (make people think back to red marks from their school teachers).—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Color changed—Chris!c/t 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The softer color does add a more subtle emphasis which is good. It is a lot clearer this way. CRwikiCA talk 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The note about it being the record for N number of days would probably be more appropriate in the "Total points" column than the "Results" column. Done—Chris!c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Moved to "Record" per above.—Chris!c/t 00:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Centering the numbers in the "Total points", "Result" and "OT" columns might make the table more visually pleasing. Done, though WP:DTAB formatting prevents me from centering "Total points"—Chris!c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Changing !scope="row" style="background-color:transparent" into | might do the trick, although I do not know what the disadvantages of this might be. CRwikiCA talk 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC) That formatting is required to satisfy WP:ACCESS.—Chris!c/t 00:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Okay, for my information, what is the reason you use the row-scope on the second element of each row and not the first one? CRwikiCA talk 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Because that column shows the key entry of the table.—Chris!c/t 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Okay, fair enough. CRwikiCA talk 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC) It seems strange that anything but the first col in a row would be scoped. Isn't the relevant part of the row the rank, since this is a ranked list? Otherwise, why isnt the pts col moved to first if it is more important. This seems inconsistent.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I found a way to force centering. I think points are most important as the list is ranked by points. The rank column helps readers see better and looks better locating to the left of the table IMO.—Chris!c/t 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) My understanding from WP:DTAB is that screen readers read out the scoped header data first. If this is the second column, it seems to be a different experience from those who view the data directly. The rank column should be first, I just question points being used as scope.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I don't know. WP:DTAB does not have clear explanation. I just thought the scope thing should be placed in the most important column. I would like to see what others think first.—Chris!c/t 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit lost. What in WP:DTAB or WP:ACCESS explicitly prevents centering?—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The problem is technical. Anyway I managed to go around it.—Chris!c/t 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The playoff list might have an additional line in the notes stating who won the series. Done—Chris!c/t 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Overall it is a very good list, the only real big issue that could be brought up is the inclusion criteria CRwikiCA talk 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support CRwikiCA talk 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "If the team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, the team would lose possession." – sounds somewhat awkward with just "the team"; it'd be better if it specified "If the offensive team fails to hit the rim with the ball within the allotted time, they would…" "most field goals by one team (74), most assists by two teams (93)." – end of sentence, so there should be an "and" in between. "Most of the highest-scoring games happened before the 1995–96 season, where average scoring (points per game) per team was always in the 100s." – in order for it to sound grammatically correct, it should read "Most…happened before the 1995–96 season, when the average scoring (points per game) per team was always…" The key should have scope rows for the column on the left. Don't make the backgrounds of scope rows invisible per WP:DTT. The whole point of having the scope rows visible is to "clearly identify [the] headers." Table captions should be added (again, per WP:DTT Everything else appears to meet FL standards. If you have time, could you help review my current FLC, please? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The color doesn't matter. The purpose of making table into DTT is to allow blind users to better read the table using screen readers. Everything else done.—Chris!c/t 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments nice work. Six paras in the lead is a little hefty. If there's stuff here that's really important, I'd create a subsection for it and meet WP:LEAD. I've restructured the article, so hopefully this is fixed.—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) " in the early days of the" when was the early days? I'm not an NBA expert so there's no context for me here. Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) " with many fouls, boring fans and affecting attendance" I know what you're trying to say but the first time (and the second time) I read this, I got the feeling the fans were boring, not bored... Sentence rewrote. Did it help?—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "the NBA happened during the shot-clock era." again, I'm no expert, but aren't we still in the shot-clock era? If so "the NBA have happened during..." Sentence rewrote.—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Link overtime. Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Nuggets are overlinked in the lead. At least twice. Fixed—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) What does "in regulation" mean to a non-expert? I added some clarifications in the earlier paragraphs. Did it help?—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) You reference a lot of things in the lead, but, for instance, you don't reference "Wilt Chamberlain scored an NBA-record 100 points." Any reason? Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "Winner" -> "Winning team", "Loser" -> "Losing team". Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) What's a "road team"? Linked—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) "40+ points" ->" at least 40..." Done—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Not at all keen on just the year being linked for the playoffs, definitely borderline easter egg. I've tried to have a separated links in the box, but it overwhelms the box with too much info. I was then told by another reviewer to adopt the current format. Any suggestions on how to resolve this problem?—Chris!c/t 21:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I was the one who suggested the egg-like compromise, but my preference would otherwise be to just remove it. the article already has links to the individual teams' season articles, which ideally would have details on the playoffs (if they were more developed). We don't have links to the general NBA season for the regular season entries, so it would be consistent to not have them for the playoff entries either.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Check for dead links... ref 37 doesn't work for me. I fixed ref 37. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=List_of_highest-scoring_NBA_games now runs a clean report.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "In fact, all of the highest-scoring games in the NBA have happened during the shot-clock era." Don't see why the first two words are in here. If this wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be worthy of a sentence. In the alt text for the lead images, we have "situates", which I'm not sure is a word. Wouldn't it be "situated" in each case? Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum caption: "playoffs" → "playoff"? This is also present a couple of times around the table itself. Summary: "The Nuggets and the Pistons both ranked as the first and third highest-scoring teams that season respectively." The "both" is a little confusing and the sentence doesn't need it; I'd suggest taking it out. Redundant use of "game" in "The highest-scoring regular season game in regulation is a game...". Replacing "is a game" with "was" is all that is needed to fix the issue. "In that game, Warriors' Chris Mullin scored a game-high 38 points." Needs "the" before the team name. General reference needs an en dash in the title for the year range, and it would be nice if Sporting News was italicized.

• What makes 82games.com (ref 14) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done all. A reviewer suggests 82games.com as a source. A quick Google search reveals that the site is used by reputable sites like ESPN and WSJ, so I believe it is reliable.—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave the source question out so other reviewers can see it and decide whether they think it's reliable. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

With all the references from reliable news sources to this site, I consider it reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

List of NFL tied games

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is an interesting topic that gives the reader a solid overview of not only the current rarity of tie games in the NFL, but the overall history of ties in the NFL. This article features two tables - one showing the number of ties each season from 1920-1973, and another detailing the tie games since then. Ties were once very common in the NFL (256 from 1920-1973, or about five a season), but this was mainly because overtime for regular-season games was not established until 1974. Since then, there have only been 18 ties, and there have only been six since 1989. Ties are so uncommon that many players were unaware that they could happen, and they are almost always due to all-around poor play from both teams. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Astros4477

Comments – Column heading "Ref." – replace with "Ref(s)", since some have more than one. Remove the period that you put at the end of "Ref(s)".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) You're missing a comma after March 28 in ref # 3. Make sure all tables have scope rows. It looks like only the "Tied games (1974-present)" section does. "Season" as well as the "Refs" should be centered. "Ref(s)" should be centered like how "Seasons" is with each individual row.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see. I think I fixed that there now; I thought you had been talking about the column itself. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC) "Note(s)" shouldn't sort. Make sure your consistent in what your calling a team. In most of the article, your saying "team" while in the "Total ties per club (1974-present)" the section and column refer to them as "Club". "Due to the rarity of tie games, some players who have been involved in them , such as former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, have recounted that they did not even know NFL games could end in ties." This sentence sounds kind of funny, maybe you can reword it? Also, there should be no space after "them". -- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I've fixed all of the concerns except for the 'club' issue; strictly speaking, a club (or franchise) and team are not the same thing. For NFL purposes, the two are different - the league rulebook refers to 'teams', as those are the players participating in a game, while the league bylaws refer to 'club's, which are the organization. The word 'club' is therefore used on this page to refer to the organizations involved, because the teams are not static, while 'team' is used to refer to the group of people that play games. Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The "Notes" column still sorts and the refs in the "Ref(s)" column should be centered. There's also no period at the end of "Ref(s)".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Those should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• 'From' should always be followed by a 'to' in a range. Everything else looks good. Reywas92^Talk 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure what you mean there. Nevermind, it was fixed Toa Nidhiki05 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Second regular-season overtime game in NFL history and highest-scoring tie game under modern rules." What do you mean? Do you mean second-highest scoring? --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the highest-scoring - it was the second RS overtime game as well as the highest-scoring tie game. I've fixed it to be more clear. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Ugh, whoops, I completely misread - I thought it was saying "second regular-season tie game in NFL history", my fault. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - MOS:ENDASH should be used.—Chris!_c/t 04:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have fixed this issue. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• I still see faulty hyphens in three of the section titles.
  • I don't think the MoS encourages us to make years two-digit numbers. How about making the first section's heading Tied games (1920 to 1973)? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• What makes RealClearSports (ref 15) a reliable source?
  • I'm still not that convinced on the source and think that better alternatives may exist. Searching Google for "gus frerotte tie game" leads to an article in the Joplin Globe newspaper that seems to connect his injury to the tie game adequately for our purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I've replaced the citation with the Joplin Globe one since that does seem more reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• Publisher of ref 18 (Time Magazie) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the first and third issues. As to the second, it is a sister site of RealClearPolitics, a well-regarded and reliable polling firm. Additionally, the cited claim is extremely minor - it is common knowledge that Gus Ferrote was injured while headbutting a wall, the citation merely links it to the tied game. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose on lack of completeness amongst other things... Perhaps introduce the fact we're talking about American football in the lead. "tied games occur when a regular season game has" -> games ... game.. yuck, maybe "a tied game occurs when ... both teams... equal score .... in regular season." No images at all? Is it "Tie games" or "Tied games"? You use both. " since 1989" perhaps "since the 1989 season" appropriately linked (etc). Instead of soccer, say "association football". "They have been described as the least wanted result that a football game could produce, but a deserved outcome for the participating teams due to the poor play they exhibited" I find this whole sentence really awkward. "least wanted" and "due to the poor play they exhibited" are really awful phrases! "finished the season 8–7–1" what does that mean to a non-expert? " field goal tries" do you mean "field goal attempts"? "Total ties per club (1974 to present)" not sure this is relevant. You could add these to the main table I suppose with (1), (2) etc for the number of times they've tied.... "Huffington Post" is The Huffington Post. Ref 10 needs an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC) My responses to the issues I've added American football. I've modified it a bit. Does it work now? I honestly can't think of an image to include... Ties are a team occurrence, not due to any one player, and there aren't that many free images out there of tie games since they aren't very common. I was trying to vary the terms up a bit to be less repetitive. Do I need to stick with just one? Although the topic is in American English, I've added the term - 'soccer' is retained in parenthesis since many Americans are unfamiliar with the term 'association football'. I've shortened it to 'ties are the least desired outcome a football game can produce'. To any American, the term 8-7-1 would mean '8 wins, 7 losses, 1 tie'; I forgot the term would mean '8 wins, 7 ties, 1 loss' elsewhere, so I've updated the upper-alpha note to note that. Fixed to address that. I've removed it since it is not too important. Fixed. Added. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand if we listed all the tied games pre-1974 we'd have a huge list, but I don't really see a justification for not doing it.... Without those ties, this list appears to be incomplete to me. Perhaps you need two articles?
  • I have no issue making another article for pre-1974 ties; part of the reason I didn't was I was not sure if it would be notable, since ties were a standard result back then. I'd be perfectly fine working on an article about that, but could the FL status of this nomination be retained under a rename? I have a basic template of a pre-1974 ties page here.
    • I think I'll leave it for others to comment on the suitability of the pre-1974 ties... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do not want to have to re-do this nomination, so I'd be more than happy to contact a few WikiProjects. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Although I can see an argument for including all of the pre-1974 ties in the list, the argument against including them is stronger, in my opinion. The whole point of this list is that a tie is an unusual occurrence in the NFL nowadays – this was not the case prior to 1974. Therefore, to limit the main list to the post-1974 ties makes perfect sense to me, and there is even a list of pre-1974 seasons with the number of ties included for interest value. Other than this, the list meets all of the other FL criteria and should pass this nomination. – PeeJay 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I don't know a thing about football, but I have a couple comments.

• please add line breaks between citations (some cells in the second table have more than one); also, center the column since the Ref column in the above table is centered
  • Done.
• is there no image that could be incorporated into the article? no game stats sign displaying the same score? (not a big deal, just curious)
  • While such images do exist (see here), I can't find one that is free use.

I would support the promotion of this list as long as all other reviewers' comments are addressed. (Disclaimer: I did not complete any source- or fact-checking; I looked for style and consistency.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Given that references ten and eleven are used as the primary references for the two tables, I would suggest removing the "Ref" columns and placing the primary reference in a "General references" section or similar. The references for the notes can be easily placed at the end of the note. This is only a personal preference though.
• I would remove the bolding of "tied games".
• Support I have no concerns with the way the list is split to only give details of the recent ties; the reasoning seems sound, and it would be an unnecessarily long and confusing list otherwise. My above comments are minor enough that I am happy to support irrespective of any changes made. Harrias ^talk 10:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support - I've taken the two suggestions and implemented them. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Note: I haven't reviewed anything in two years, so bare with me. So there was a "rule change in 1974 that extended the existing sudden-death overtime for post-season games into the regular season", but when did that rule stop? In the first paragraph, it explains that overtimes are only 15 minutes. Not sure what you mean here. The basic principle of the OT system has stayed the same since it was implemented, the only difference now is a field goal doesn't win it. So are overtimes 15 minutes or sudden-death? When were overtimes changed from sudden-death to 15 minutes?! Apologies if I'm still not clear. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) They are both. The period is 15-minutes, with a modified sudden death system to determine a winner. If the period expires, the game is over. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC) A clarification would then be needed in the first paragraph. I would suggest "... a 15-minute sudden-death overtime period is held". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC) In regards to the pre-1974 list, I'd say keep it as it is. I'd suggest you have the show and hide function for that list. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC) For the table, it would be nice if there are indications of the number of times a team has tied a game; an example of this can be shown in NBA MVP. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC) You need a key/legend for that. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Currently, it's an Oppose. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. Please message me on my user page when everything has been resolved. I am currently semi-retired, so it would be nice if you can do that :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mention something about the NFL being the APFA for two years.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Have this as a separate sentence instead. I would suggest, "The league was known as the American Professional Football Association (APFA) for its first two seasons." or maybe even include that they were the American Professional Football Conference during its founding, if you want. If you include a year(s), make sure to wikilink them to a respective season.
• "since 1989 season" --> "since the 1989 season".
• Don't add this into the article, but I just thought it was cool how the last six ties happened in the month of November. :D
  • That was actually reported by one of the sources as one of the oddities of NFL ties, but I didn't include it because it doesn't have much to do with the topic itself. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • How are we doing with these comments? This is the last batch that is unresolved and we need to get this off the bottom of FLC. By the way, the year range by the APFA mention needs an en dash. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I've addressed all of them, as well as yours. Toa Nidhiki05 22:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The second table also needs to be in WP:DTAB format. You already done it for the first one.—Chris!_c/t 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think the current arrangement of not including pre-1974 tied games is fine. And it appears that nominator has done all other comments. I will support once mine is done.—Chris!_c/t 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support—Chris!_c/t 20:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, 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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

2013 Women's Cricket World Cup squads

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This list is more closely based on the 2010 and 2011 IIHF World Championship rosters than on the 2007 Cricket World Cup squads or 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads as I feel that the hockey lists are more informative and certainly adhere more closely to the modern FL requirements. As usual, all comments and suggestions are welcome! Harrias ^talk 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There are a bunch of redlinks that would be nice if they were turned to bluelinks at least as stubs with a few sourced references each, but other than that, I'm liking the tabulation and legend as well. — Cirt (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "Each team selected a squad of 15 players which were finalised by 24 January 2013". "were" → "was". Add a comma after Charlotte Edwards, and after Mithali Raj. Images could use alt text. South Africa image still needs it, but the others are now fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Ooops! Missed out the "|alt=". Sorted now. Harrias talk 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) South Africa photo caption: "while they top run-scorer was Marizanne Kapp." "they" → "their". Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Done all, thanks. Harrias talk 19:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Not usually a commenter on candidates, but just pointing out that this page is currently an orphan with no content pages linking to it. I'm not 100% but it would seem to me that this isn't a good thing. --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out; it should now be remedied. Harrias ^talk 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support What a great effort. Well done! (Or should I say: Howzat!) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by B. S. Chandrasekhar

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This will probably be the only list among the spin quartet that could find a place in the FL category (keeping the min. criteria in mind). Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The article on the player, B. S. Chandrasekhar is of a poor quality and tagged at the top as needing additional citations for improvement. It looks like that'd be easy for a minor quality improvement side project to accompany this one. — Cirt (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree will try to improve the main article too —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments London should be linked in the table for consistency. I don't think that the No. column should have the row scope "In Tests, he was most successful against England taking eight fifers." - ref needed. I don't think we need a ref here as the fact is pretty obvious from the table itself. Anyways, I've added a ref. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) The Symbol row in the key table should have row scope. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC) All done —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

'Comments— ..fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at international...... → They are now exactly 40! Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) West Indies → the West Indies More emphasis on the is not needed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) This is grammatically incorrect, there should be the before West Indies! Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) There is no such strict rule that it should always be accompanied by the. Take a look at [17] and [18] for eg., —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC) ... in the English soil... → on the English soil Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) It was noted the "Indian Bowling Performance of the Century" by Wisden in 2002. → Perhaps it should be: It was noted as the Indian "Best Bowling Performance of the Century" by Wisden in 2002. The existing structure is the right one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) I couldn't find "Indian Bowling Performance of the Century" in the text of the citation you provided. Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC) ...against Australia in Melbourne. → "at the Melbourne Cricket Ground", for consistency. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) No need to abbreviate One Day International. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) In the Key "starting date of the match" is sufficient in Date. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Eight-ball overs were bowled in this match. → the instead of this. Zia Khan 01:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Doesn't make any difference. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC) I think this makes difference, anyway no big deal! Zia Khan 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) In what way? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standard! Zia Khan 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – "Chandrasekhar's bowling figures of six wickets for 38 runs in 1971 was instrumental in setting up India's first victory in England." "was" → "were"? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments I've been meaning to look at this for a while but couldn't find the time. Sorry about that. In the sentence ... 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls..., it should be at least 15 five-wicket hauls. If you say more than, it would exclude the four people with 15 hauls. Alternatively, you could leave them out altogether and say something like fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15. You could use this custom query (Test, ODI, T20I combined) instead of/along with references 4 and 5 (individual Test and ODI numbers). Please check the reference titles for consistency. For example, reference 4 uses endashes only while reference 5 uses a colon for page titles with the same format. It'd be good if you could use the same date style in the titles and retrieved dates in the references. Chamal's sock SockMaster•C 05:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Fixed all —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Some more comments The line He was named the Indian Cricket Cricketer of the Year in 1964 and one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1972 at the end of the first paragraph should be moved to the second paragraph I think, preferably to the end of it. Saying he became a cricketer of the year immediately after talking about how he started, and before even mentioning his debut seems a bit off. Normally in these lists, we list all accolades received by the player in the first para while introducing the subject. Anyways I've moved that to second para as suggested by you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) In the first note, when you say the spin quartet refers to Indian bowlers Bishen Singh Bedi, EAS Prasanna and Srinivas Venkataraghavan..., that makes it sound like only those three were in the "spin quartet". It's implied since the fact is mentioned in the prose, but when taken literally that sentence is contradictory. Since this is going to be featured class, I'd say it's best to make things clearer than that. Good catch! Fixed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) It was noted, the Indian "Bowling Performance of the Century" – I think the original wording was better, and I prefer TRM's suggestion more. In any case, the comma is very out of place there. Chamal T•C 13:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC) You're right, the comma is out of place. Done as suggested. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Chamal ^T•C 06:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Could link cricket. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "atleast" space needed. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "in their cricketing careers" no need for "cricketing". They wouldn't be taking fifers in their plumbing or teaching careers. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) " developed an early interest in cricket" expand this, there's no context for what "early interest" is. Is it five years old? 15? 25? Not sure about the age. Rephrased accordingly —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) "It was noted the Indian" I'm not sure, but I'd say "It was noted as the Indian"... I guess both are frequently used. Placed a comma after noted —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Done as suggested —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC) "His career-best figures for an innings were eight wickets for 79 runs, which was " plural/singular problems here. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) In the Key, Result doesn't need a full stop but the dagger does. I guess there is no need for dagger too —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Ref 7, surname, first name per all the other refs. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

India national cricket team record by opponent

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meets the criteria. It is based on South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk)

Comments by Vivvt "first match played by England". Similarly for "last". Shouldn't it be India? Am I getting it wrong here?  Done Ref 1 and 3 should have an en-dash in the title.  Done Either link all, none or first instance of "ESPNcricinfo"  Done Ref 8 is dated April 2, 2011 and not 2012.  Done Add caption to the Key-Symbol-Meaning table  Done Caption for Test cricket, T20 and ODI does not go well with the table. (Take second opinion on this, if you want.). Also, it should be "opponent(s)"  Done As of the "opponent(s)" thing, I think it will be wrong since the opponents have not been grouped. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) No need to have double links for "Tie+L: Number of matches tied and then lost in a tiebreaker such as a bowl-out or Super Over"  Done "W" should be small in "Number of matches Won"  Done I believe it should be "while calculating" or "for calculating" in "in calculating the result percentage".  Done Rest will add later. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC) No need to link "against" in "independent country was against Australia." Only "Australia" should be linked.  Done - Vivvt (Talk) 14:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support All my comments have been resolved. Good job and All the best! - Vivvt (Talk) 11:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Not one but two typos in "six matches wee tied and 35 matches ha no result."  Done Another in "and were the join-champion with Sri Lanka in the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy."  Done "India played their first Twenty20 International match against South Africa, winning the match by six wickets." First, "the match" is a redundancy and can be removed without affecting the meaning. Second, what year was it held?  Done "and won 24 out of them". Remove "out".  Done The table caption has a formatting error, by the looks of it.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments— Too many "England" in the 1st para, try to avoid this.  Done They also won the 1983 Cricket World Cup and 2011 Cricket World Cup, → They also won the 1983 and 2011 Cricket World Cups  Done Many sentences start with "The team" in the 1st para, use India at some places as well.  Done The team has registered more wins against Australia than any other team, with 24 wins. → No need of "wins" at the end.  Done They have placed against Sri Lanka...???? You mean played? and no need of "playing" next to the comma.  Done In T20Is, India have played against 12 teams, and have played 7 matches with Australia and South Africa each. This need to be rephrased.  Done Add a "Total" row to the tables just like Harrias did to South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent.  Done Check the tables for sorting and correct the data there is something missing since I only reviewed the prose.  Done Zia Khan 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Much improved since my last visit! Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the match was won by England by 158 runs" -> "England won the match by 158 runs" as the former structure doesn't sound too good  Done Pipelink "was also against England in 1932–33" to Indian cricket team in England in 1932  Done Add a note stating that "Madras Cricket Club Ground" was later renamed M. A. Chidambaram Stadium  Done "the team have played 472 Test matches" -> "India has/ve played 472 Test matches" since you have also explained about England in the previous sentence  Done "They have placed against Sri Lanka" They have played against Sri Lanka  Done I remember that I fixed this one, but it seems that I forgot to save the edit. playing with a winning percentage of 58.98 in 139 matches  Done "India have also", no need of also  Done "beaten" doesn't sound encyclopedic  Done "India have also beaten Sri Lanka more times than any other country" is a little confusing. Needs rephrasing  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Finally, the image is not a good representation in my view. You could add something like the Indian team posing after winning a trophy or something like that.  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Additional comments was against against Australia  Done Too many "India have played" in the last para  Done later renamed to M. A. Chidambaram Stadium  Done One more "beating" in the last para  Done Image seems to be a copy-vio I have restored the earlier one till I don't get a new pic.  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption shouldn't have a full stop.  Done Opening sentences need some work, both are too simple and repetitive.  Done "Their next officially" => "India's...  Done "They got their first Test win" -> "They secured their first Test win...  Done Link "tie" in the lead.  Done " match with England" against.  Done "whereas they registered" -> "but registered...  Done "six matches were tied and 35 matches" don't mix formats, so "6 matches..." Didn't got you. Use "6" instead of "six". Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)  Done "match by six wickets.[10] The team won" -> "match by six wickets,[10] and won..."  Done "against whom India have" -> "against whom they have"  Done Suggest that a NR sorts as less than 0.00. Didn't got even this one. Make the "NR" sort as, say, -1.00, so when it sorts, it sorts "below" 0.00. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC) But there is no -1.00 in the NR column. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Duh, silly me, I meant, make sure the en-dash in the Win% col sorts as if it was minus 1, so it sorts "below" the 0.00. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)  Done Note should be before references.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

List of accolades received by Atonement (film)

Nominator(s): JuneGloom Talk 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we have a list of accolades recieved by the 2007 film Atonement. I started working on this list back in August 2011 and I'm confident I've managed to find and source all the awards and nominations the film received. I'm also confident that this list passes 3b, since there are 130 nominations and the main article is currently over 32k in size (with User:Ruby2010 planning to expand it further in the future). The only thing I'm not so confident about is the flow of prose in the lead. I look forward to your reviews/comments. - JuneGloom Talk 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments "whose lives are torn apart" sounds like an advert for the movie! Your short plot synopsis doesn't mention which war this "romantic war film" is based in... If it's a British movie, is there a good reason to publish the box office in US$? Pickier than my normal pickiness: " 5th Irish Film and Television Awards " our article has the "and" as an ampersand. The "British Independent Film Awards" is listed in the infobox but not in the list itself. "British Society of Cinematographers" has 1 win, 1 nom in the infobox, but just 1 nom in the list. Avoid using the semi-colon in the references to provide bold, that's not particularly accessible. Ref 3, check for WP:DASH in the title. Check others just in case. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Hopefully all have been fixed/resolved. - JuneGloom Talk 19:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good to me, I just have a couple of comments:

• Is the disambiguator in the title entirely necessary? Similar lists (e.g. for Avatar, Precious, Ratatouille and Up) omit having "(film)" in the title.
• "Best Depiction Of Nudity" -> "Best Depiction of Nudity"

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I added the disambiguator after noticing that the book has a few awards of it own and believing that someone might come along and create a separate list for them. Although I suppose that might have happened by now. I have no problem omitting the disambiguator from the title, but might need to wait until the nomination has closed. I don't want to mess anything up by moving the article to a new name. - JuneGloom Talk 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguator is used only if there is a reason to disambiguate. As long as List of accolades received by Atonement (novel) doesn't exist (and considering they are very few to split the page), the page should be moved to List of accolades received by Atonement, per WP:PRECISION. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem moving the page. I just wanted to know if it was going to mess anything up and whether I should wait until the FLC process was over. - JuneGloom Talk 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Wikilink World War II in opening line. Is the film based on actual events or fictional? The opening line gives impression that its based on actual events of WWII. 1st para writes about characters Cecilia, Robbie and Briony. And 2nd para mentions Knightley, McAvoy and Ronan. But who played what? Same with Redgrave in 3rd para and Garai in the list. Who are "Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Paul Webster"? Producers i guess. Please mention that. Sarah Greenwood, Ivana Primorac, Katie Spencer, Paul Hamblin, Romola Garai should be wikilinked at least once. Why aren't the columns for Category, Recipients and Result sortable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I was wondering whereabouts you think I should mention that Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and Paul Webster are producers? I really wasn't sure, although I added links to them. I don't think I can make the table sortable because of the rowspans. If I remember right it becomes an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue. Please do correct me if I'm wrong though. - JuneGloom Talk 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I was thinking maybe like "Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and Paul Webster (Producers)". Is it an issue because of row spans? I thought that one was fixed long ago. I don't see any problem. Does it cause problems in other browsers/mobiles/etc.? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for sorting the sorting in the table. I used your suggestion of adding (producers) too. - JuneGloom Talk 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Yups! Noticed that. Hence closing this. Good luck! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good and it is well referenced. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 23:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Only one issue I've spotted: File:JOE WRIGHT 07.jpg is focused mainly on the ad and as such is a non-free derivative work. Any other images available? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the image. - JuneGloom Talk 21:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Looks good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 23:04, 5 May 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [21].

---

Dannii Minogue discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this discography for featured list because I believe it qualifies. Furthermore, I have recently completely updated and improved the article by adding reliable references, a new lead and tables. Thanks! - Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose It may be worth noting she is the sister of Kylie in the lead somewhere. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)" though by the release " -> "although by the time of the release..." Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "her second album" studio album? Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "saw Minogue reinvented herself" just "reinvent". Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "one UK Club hit" why is Club capitalised? Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "Minogue further returned to musical success" -> "Minogue returned to further..." Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "hit to date" see WP:ASOF. Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "UK Upfront Club Chart" who runs this chart? I've never heard of it. Is it official? Related to the Official Charts Company? Clarified. It's now called the UK Dance Chart. It is an official chart and is published here. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "Project D.[4][2]" put refs in numerical order. Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Release dates of albums, where are they sourced and which territory are they relevant to? Added — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) "[18][3][19]" numerical order. Fixed — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Where is Coconut referenced? Added a citation — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Where are the albums that didn't chart anywhere in the world referenced? Added citations — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Same to the Featured singles which didn't chart. Added citations — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Video albums section completely unreferenced. Added citations — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Check reference titles comply with WP:DASH. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Idiotchalk (t@lk) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
*Comments Publisher (Rovi Corporation) could be added to reference 1. Shouldn't the UK Albums Chart and UK Dance Chart be capitalised? The image could use alt text. Other than that, everything checks out fine. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) All done :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support

Looks good, seems to meet the criteria, glad to support! Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

I have the following concerns:

• Prose/MoS:

1. and five video albums > and five [[Home video|video albums]] While there add in tally and link for music videos.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
2. number one UK dance hit > number-one UK dance hit
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Clarify: "the release of "Who Do You Love Now?",". This seems to imply a solo hit by Minogue, there's no indication here that its by Riva or that it also peaked at number one on the same chart.
   1. Done. Added a note. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Verify by reliable source(s):
   1. "achieved thirteen consecutive number one dance singles, becoming the best performing artist" The closest the source, which is pretty weak for this claim, gets is "confirming Dannii's title as 'Queen of the Clubs', having reached pole position 13 times since 1997 - a feat no other female artist even comes close to". Nothing about consecutive, leaves possibility of a male artist or a band achieving more 'pole positions'. Furthermore, the Singles table in the FLC contradicts the claim: there are only 12 number-ones by Minogue, a 13th number-one is by Riva featuring Minogue; and the 12 are interrupted by two non-number-one singles, so they are not consecutive.
   2. Done. I removed the word "consecutive" and added a note that one was with Riva. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
      1. Fix number one > number-one. Hint: for adjective e.g. number-one hit, for noun e.g. peaked at number one (the latter also has a hard space).
   3. "her first number one UK dance hit", "As of March 2013, she has sold over seven million albums worldwide". The profiletalent.com.au article is written by Melissa LeGear (not acknowledged), who is Minogue's talent manager and consequently not reliable for these facts.
   4. I have removed the album sales claim because I cannot find another source. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

5. Add |+ List of studio albums, with selected chart positions and certifications to second line of relevant wikitables, but adjust 'studio albums' to suit.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Adjust Hung ref:cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Dannii+Minogue|title=Discography Dannii Minogue|publisher=australian-charts.com. Hung Medien|accessdate=19 March 2013 > cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Dannii+Minogue|title=Discography Dannii Minogue|publisher=Australian Charts Portal. Hung Medien (Steffen Hung)|last=Hung|first=Steffen|accessdate=19 March 2013 Adjust similar refs in this style.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
7. For ref[6]. Add authorlink to David Kent (historian) While there check usage: only up to 1992; e.g. Girl (1997) at No. 69, not verifiable by either source. You'll need his later book at ref[30] for most of her 50+ singles/albums.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
8. For ref[15], and other similar. MoS album title.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
      1. You've missed a few. e.g. ref[17]: title should be Love and Kisses by Dannii Minogue not Love and Kisses by Dannii Minogueshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
9. For ref[20], and similar. MoS program title.
   1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Fix ref[22], url currently ends with .pdfe should be just .pdf Also add: format, archivedate, date, and publisher's acronym i.e. (ARIA).
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

11. UK Dance Chart refs: except ref[32], you need better sources for charting. Ref[3] is a record label, ref[31] is a tabloid, neither is reliable for such claims.
    1. Done. I have used the book written by Minogue and Terry Ronald to verify chart positions. I only own the kindle version (so no page numbers, but it's noted) — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
       1. My Story is an autobiography co-written with a long-term session musician/business associate and can be used for various details of her personal life, however it is hardly unbiased or reliable for charting information. You need a better source for all those number-ones. Does the Music Week source provide further information? (see here) If you use a number of these at Highbeam consider using a ref cluster to group them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
12. Format refs[36],[37], single titles are not italicised. Alternately: the two could be combined into one if citing the album rather than its tracks.
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
13. Wikilink Young Talent Time in Other appearances.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
14. A couple of (ARIA) for refs[33],[35]
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
15. Other appearances section now has a note claiming they're guest appearances, some of them are but some are not, fix this.
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
16. Page no. for ref[40]?
    1. Changed the ref. This was added by another user and I can verify it — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
17. Above the infobox, add templates: {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2013}} {{Use Australian English|date=April 2013}}
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
18. At ref[2], add authorlink for each author; wikilink Kindle edition by pipe to Amazon Kindle and use template's edition= parameter, viz: {{Cite book| last = Minogue | first = Dannii | authorlink = Dannii Minogue | first2 = Terry| last2 = Ronald | authorlink2 = Terry Ronald | title = [[My Story (Dannii Minogue book)|My Story]] | year = 2010 | publisher = [[Simon & Schuster]] | edition=[[Amazon Kindle|Kindle]]| isbn = 978-0-85720-052-5}}
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
19. Ref[41], MoS title, including Of > of
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
20. Ref[55], full last name; add & wikilink publisher.
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

21. Check ref tab order: some are no longer numerically correct.
    1. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stability: handling possible edit wars

1. Consider article history from about 2 to 30 March 2013, here: it shows considerable reversion of edits by anonymous IPs, a single purpose account, and others. Does this constitute edit warring? Consider the FLC criterion: "content does not change significantly from day to day". I support the attitude and activity of the nominator (and some other helpful editors) in ensuring that the content is appropriately verified by reliable sources and MoS standard is maintained. The article was correctly semi-protected on 5 March (to 19 March) but by 22 March another round of deletions/reversions started. All this disruptive activity may well be in response to the FLC process. I believe that greater communication on the article's talkpage – not just adding a comment to the reverting editors' pages or in edit summaries – about the issues would also help. This should have occurred from earliest opportunity, certainly by the time of 4 March when large blocks were being deleted and reverted. It can still be done as a historical reference. It shows your rationale to other editors, provides a record of the activity by disruptor(s) in a more visible place and should provide wider collegiate support for your efforts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
   1. Thank you so much for all your comments. They have definitely made the discography much better and reliable :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are still two outstanding comments: Nos. 8 (check all refs for MoS titles of albums or singles) and 11 (still not happy with My Story as ref for Charting).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the UK Dance Charts because I cannot find reliable sources. They can always be re added at a later date. Also, all done Nos. 8 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stability: possible edit wars?

1. Consider article history, since about 2 March 2013, here: it shows considerable reversion of edits by anonymous IPs, a single purpose account, and others. Does this constitute edit warring? I support the attitude and activity of the nominator in ensuring content is appropriately verified by reliable sources and MoS is maintained. However I believe that greater communication on the article's talkpage (not just any disruptive editors' talkpages or in edit summaries) about the issues would also help.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Keep an eye on those reversions, and I hope you find a reliable source for her UK Dance Charts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio The lead seems too short for someone with a long career as Minogue's. Please extend it. Like how her singles performed, or how she flopped? Or lose her popularity or her iniital success etc etc. Spice it up. Expanded the lead – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) In the singles table, the Gold certifications for ARIA comes down in a new line. Why? WP:DISCOGSTYLE – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Can you point me out where does it say so in the MOS page above? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Samples – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) That's not what it shows lol. That's simply due to the Certification column length being less in width that the Platinum has come in a new line. Not the same thing. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC) How is profiletalent.com.au reliable? Removed and replaced it – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Ref 10, the german reference shold also be formatted for Hung Medien I formatted because it says its published by Media Control, not Hung Medien — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Please do not source anything from iTunes biography, except the cataloguing of an item. iTunes biography has no credibility. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Ref 38, 39 needs catalogue no. Use en-dash for the reference titles, not a normal dash. Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Thesea re all for now, biggest qualm is the lead section. Pretty much everything Shaiyadar has covered. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Good job on bringing the Minogue sister to FLC. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (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 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [22].

---

Leuchtenberg Gallery

Nominator(s): Fram (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive1 was closed at the request of a reviewer because it had taken too long and there had been too many changes between the start and the finish. At the time of closing, the FLC had received one support, no opposes, and many constructive comments, so this restart of the FLC is not a way to dismiss opposes or something similar. Fram (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I'm sure more images of the works can be found and added meanwhile, but I'm not waiting for that to give my thumbs up. The only thing that bugs me (though not impeditive of my general approval) is that extra image of "The Three Graces" at the top, which adds nothing that the one in the list does not... but that could be just me. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support it was and is a featured list. --Tomcat (7) 09:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Parutakupiu comment about the image at the top. I just have one concern: Why is the column "Current location" empty for most works, while it says unknown for some? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Unknown is where I have a source that states it is unknown (similar with "lost"). Empty is "I couldn't find any information on it". Fram (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2013 (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 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [23].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ and  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... well, go check it out, and you'll see why ;) Okay, seriously now. This is my first FLC nomination since I became a delegate and well, things have happened. This list is about the winners and nominees of the Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album. It contains the data from the last thirteen years, which are all the years the award has been given, and well, Venezuela has the most noms without a win >.< — ΛΧΣ²¹ and  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

;Oppose

• Citations should be added to the second paragraph in the lead.
  • Not common practice for content covered on the table. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Citations should also be added to support the captions under the photographs.
  • Same as above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• The references used (citations #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #13, #14) are just a list of nominees or just the winners. You need to find sources that support both.
  • I might want this, but this is a no. We already use this referencing style in the other Latin Gramy FLs recently promoted. No need to change here. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Citation #3 → the article is missing when you click on the link.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the only issue with the article, and that is the dead link. The rest made me chuckle, to be honest. You don't use citations in the lead unless they are quotes or not supported in the body of the article. The photographs need no citation, all citations for them are already present. And finally, you are asking for a reference that doesn't exist. There's no citation that shows both the nominations and winners. This oppose is quite outrageous.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*File:RubenBladesCT2002b.jpg: not sure this is actually free. I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Done. Wouldn't nominees be automatically notable? If so, this needs to have some redlinks. Not necessarily, but I will see if some of 'em may. the biggest winner in this category - "biggest" doesn't seem to be the right term Done. Is there any critical commentary on the award? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Sadly, no. These rare awards do never receive critical commentary. — ΛΧΣ21 03:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images as of this datestamp. Good read. Looks like y'all are on the way to getting a featured topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Crisco! Yeah, we're working on it, but it's gonna take a lil while... Haha.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think nominees should be listed alphabetically by last name (or group/stage name) for each cell
  • Did my best.
• "Son by Son" per capitalization Manual of style preferences
  • "Son by Son"? where is dat? Did you mean Son by Four? If so, fixed.
• I think the "A" in "Le Preguntaba A La Luna" can be lowercase as well
  • Done
• I think the "En" in "Contraste En Salsa" should be lowercase as well
  • Done
• and "A" and "El" in "Salsa: Un Homenaje A El Gran Combo" as well?
  • Done for "A"; "El" is part of their name: El Gran Combo.

If these changes are made, and no other reviewers question my requests, then I would support the promotion of this list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Did my best! and thanks! :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello. I was checking the list and realized that there is a lot of articles in the nominees section without link, I think you should take another look about it. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opening sentence doesn't need to include the title bolded. It might read better if it was something like "The Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences annually awards an artist or artists for the best salsa album." IDK, I've had some FLC's before where that's suggested, and usually lists start with the bolded title, even though it's not always necessary.
  • Yes, it has to be bolded. We have never been asked to unbold it on previous FLCs. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "vocal or instrumental tropical salsa albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material" - could you expand on that a bit? The "tropical" bit is only in the infobox, which, while interesting and sounds festive, isn't mentioned elsewhere. This wording - "containing at least 51 percent playing time" - is slightly awkward.
  • I assume that "tropical" means that the music is from the tropical part of the world. But I don't know. The Academy doesn't specify :/ I refactored the 51% sentence. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • But I'm saying, you mention tropical there but nowhere else. How come? The infobox should have the content that appears elsewhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The infobox does say tropical too, just like the lead. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • No, "tropical" is only mentioned in the infobox, so it should be mentioned at least once in the article (or removed from the Infobox). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, I see. I removed it from the infobox :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• When you mention "Salsa" in the lede, should it be capitalized or not? Also, it could use a definition somewhere.
  • Salsa is a music genre. The deffinition is given on the link :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand. You switch between using "Salsa" and "salsa". I think there should be consistency. And I think it'd help the article if it was a definition in the article itself, such as wording that the Latin Grammy people use to classify it as salsa. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The capitalized version refers to the award, while the rest refers to the genre. I can't write "Best salsa Album" because the awards have to be written like the academy puts it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I got it now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I mentioned "Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences" earlier, but that should be somewhere in the lede. I think it's important that they're the ones actually presenting the awards. Right?
  • I think that this is not necessary. It hasn't been considered so on previous Grammy FLCs. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • But if it's an award, I think it's valuable content of who actually presented the award. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I think that it is a bit obvious, and it's not something we're used to do on Grammy lists. Anyways I won't fight over it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "for her album Celia Cruz and Friends: A Night of Salsa (1999)" - instead of parenthesis, why not - "for her 1999 album 'Celia Cruz'..."?
  • because the whole sentence reads: "in 2000 for her album Celia Cruz and Friends: A Night of Salsa (1999).", and having "in 2000 for her 1999 album" reads awkward. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree, I think it works better than having the parenthesis at the end, IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• The 2nd image on the right says - "Two-time winners El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico" - but there are more than two people. Could you say which ones are those artists?
  • We only specify important records on the lead, such as the artist with more nominations and most wins. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh? I'm talking about the image :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Why shall I mention all the two-time winnes on the image? The image is about one of them, and I should mention only them, no? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • This image has four people. Your image caption doesn't say which person it's referring to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
          • They are all members of the group :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• How come some album titles aren't linked and some are red links?
  • We only link, mandatorily, the winning albums, even if they are redlinks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • But you don't link 2001, 2003, 2006, or 2011's albums. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

All in all looks pretty good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments. Looks good now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! And your support!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support — Well formatted and referenced, no visible problems stick out. FL standard. — DivaKnockouts 18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I was actually going to work on the list one point, but you got it covered already! :) Erick (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the 13th Latin Grammy Awards," not sure if all the audience is aware this is the most recent edition... "Celia Cruz is the most awarded performer in this category, with three wins" needs a full stop. "Marc Anthony has won the award twice, in 2005 and 2007" ditto. "Luis Enrique is the first and so far only Nicaraguan to win the award" ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I've done them all. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 05:31, 4 May 2013 (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 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

Kevin Shields discography

Nominator(s): Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to meet FLCR and is similar to other FL discographies of individual musicians. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. You should choose either mdash or spaced ndash and use it consistently throughout the article. Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

All dashes used in prose are unspaced mdashes. When you say consistently do you mean use them in references aswell? Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mdash should be unspaced. Ruslik_Zero 14:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are. Fixed. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Kevin Patrick Shields (born 21 May 1963) - We've got an article on him, so no need for the middle name or date. Compare Chrisye discography and Rihanna discography The Complex - worth a redlink? Otherwise I've copyedited, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the CE. I edited the article per your comments and linked The Complex, which now has its own article. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose - Looks good. As a side note, I've nominated The Complex for DYK here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

;Comments Support

• Album release dates: where are they sourced and which territory are they relevant to?

The earliest release dates are used and are mostly relevant to Ireland/United Kingdom. There's no source documenting all three MBV release dates together, however About.com, Stereogum and Allmusic are just some of several sources in print media/around the web confirming the dates. The Coral Sea date is sourced from Amazon. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Those sources should be used to verify the release dates (See MGMT discography as an example). – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Add a reference to the singles section.
• Provide a direct link to the "credits" section for the Allmusic references

Done. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments "has released 3..." -> three (per MOS:NUM). Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "with 22 different artists" how did you arrive at that number? I'd suggest you don't be so precise just in case.... It's the total number of artists listed under Collaborations plus his album with Patti Smith (which I just realised is actually 19 and corrected). Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "failed to receive much attention" reads a little weak to me, precisely how weak was it? Little to no attention. Several other sources use a similar comparison. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) No need to wikilink London. Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "and experienced a line-up change " you say this but you don't explain it or expand it, is it relevant? It is relevant, as the line-up change became the most notable incarnation of the band. I added more prose for clarity. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Should explain what a BAFTA and what an IFTA is in the lead before using the abbreviations. Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "began completing its third studio album" horrible prose. They were simply writing the third album. I don't exactly see what's wrong here; part of the album was recorded prior to the band's hiatus and when they reunited, they began completing it. Most of it was already written. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "received "universal acclaim" from " see WP:ATTRIBUTION, you should say that "according to Metacritic" or whatever, since that claim is quite incredible. Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Which territory are the release dates relevant to, Ireland or UK or both or what? The albums were released on the same day in both Ireland and the United Kingdom, and are the earliest release dates. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) What does N/A mean for Sales? Not available, Not applicable...? No album sales figures have been published for either Isn't Anything or m b v, so "Not available." Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) " 2xCD," we normally use a "times" sign rather than an x. Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) In "Collaborations", the ref col is massive in the first two of the three tables.... Perhaps this is a browser issue? It looks identical to every other ref column for me and there seems to be no problems in the markup. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Two books without ISBNs or similar identification, any reason? Neither of the two sources without ISBNs are books, they are magazines/journals. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment there's no need to duplicate the MBV discog at all here. Also listing only the MBV studio albums raises the question—why not list all the MBV EPs, singles and live albums as well? See how John Lennon discography doesn't have any Beatles stuff.—indopug (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Other similiar FLs—musicians who are in bands and have released solo material—list the artist's band's albums (John Frusciante discography and Josh Homme discography, for example) so I don't see why listing MBV's albums would be a problem here. Plus, seeing as Loveless and m b v were practically Shields by himself, it seems practical to list them. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 01:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – About.com (ref 18) isn't considered a reliable source for much of anything, even a release date. Can we find another, better source for this fact? Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Replaced reference with a Sony Music Ireland press release. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 16:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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