Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2015

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 23:07, 29 November 2015 [1].

---

Lionel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lionel Barrymore was an superb actor whose career ran between 1893 and his death in 1954. Part of America's "Royal Family" of actors, Barrymore is perhaps best remembered internationally for his appearance in It's a Wonderful Life, but some in the US also have fond reminiscences of his annual broadcasts in A Christmas Carol. This list has been updated and re-worked, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers comments

I would remove the reference to America's "Royal Family" from the first paragraph. It is not even mentioned in the Lionel Barrymore article. Instead, I suggest you say "Barrymore family of actors." You might consider moving the "Royal Family" nickname and the references to the Lionel Barrymore article.

You mention some biographical information that does not appear in the Lionel Barrymore article. For example, you have a lot more information about Barrymore's feelings about acting and the reasons for his move to and from Paris. It seems very strange to me that the List article should spend considerable ink on this when it is barely mentioned in the main article. I really think you need to move much of the bio information to the main article. Certainly, there should not be anything in your introduction that is *not* in the main ariticle. INSTEAD, the introduction to this article needs a paragraph identifying Barrymore's best-known/most important roles and/or most important directing achievements, and also should state the number of films he acted in. Also, perhaps mention that Grand Hotel and You Can't Take It With You won Oscars for Best Picture.

• Re-worked to include much of this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to identify what roles he played in his stage appearances. His IBDB page identifies some that you are missing: http://ibdb.com/Person/View/31143. Same with the film roles. I see that the Wikipedia articles on the blue-linked films show what roles he played, so you should be able to fill in these at least.

• IDBD isn't classed as a reliable source, as far as I'm aware, and so we can't fill in the blanks on those. Ditto the Wikipedia pages for the films. I've included the roles are they are listed in the film, either at the AFI, BFI, or the filmography sources used in biographies, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat, IBDB is absolutely a reliable source, with an editorial committee. See this and this. It is totally different from IMDB, which is NOT a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Even better. Cheers Ssilvers : I'll make a start on this tomorrow (hopefully) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

All now added (and a very useful resource too!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Lionel Barrymore article and yours disagree about why he was confined to a wheelchair and mentions an addiction to painkillers. If your sources are clearly better than the ones in the Lionel Barrymore article, please fix it. If not, please clarify the filmography article. In general, you need to review the Lionel Barrymore article and make sure that you make any necessary edits in it to at least harmonize with the filmography, making sure that neither article has any information that the best sources consider to be clearly wrong.

• I've stripped out much of the biographical info from this, so it should match up now, but I'll give the main LB article a spring clean soon. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The filmography at the bottom of the Lionel Barrymore article is too long. It should be reduced to the most important items.

• Removed entirely and prople pointed this way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that you are not responsible for the Lionel Barrymore article, which is only about C-class, but if we are going to have a Featured List on him, the two articles should at least be harmonized so that they are not inconsistent; it seems like you are in a good position to do this, since you know the sources. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent comments Ssilvers, many thanks. I'm working through these in conjunction with the comments from Jimknut too, first on this list to get it straight and then I'll update the LB article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You indicated in an edit summary that the intro is limited to 4 paragraphs, but I don't think that's true: this is not a WP:LEAD section; instead it is the intro to a list article. You could add subheadings, though, if the intro gets longer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it still counts as a lede, so we have to limit it to four. We managed it with John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio, so the challenge is to trim out some of the superfluous biography and add the works in seamlessly. I should be able to get this sorted today or tomorrow. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. I am now pretty happy with the intro to this, but I still think you should add a couple more mentions of which film roles were Barrymore's most famous ones. Young Dr. Kildare? The Copperhead? Wildfire? Sadie Thompson? Rasputin and the Empress? Maybe just name 2 or 3 or 4 of his most famous ones. My support does not depend on you adding this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction "... and composed music for others" — What films did Barrymore compose music for? There is nothing listed in the filmography to indicate his musical contributions. Dr. Kildare's Wedding Day (I knew there was one in there, but I'd forgotten to add it earlier). Now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Barrymore had begun a film career in 1911" — "Barrymore began his film career in 1911" Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "appearing in several silent films" — Webster's dictionary describes "several" as meaning "more than two but not that many". Barrymore appeared in over 80 silent shorts and nearly 60 silent features. Considering this, the word "several" is a gross understatement. I suggest reworking the sentence. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "In 1912 he signed a contract with D. W. Griffith" — Did he actually sign a contract with Griffith personally or was it with the Biograph Company? Also, the first film you have listed in the filmography, The Battle, is from 1911 and was directed by Griffith. He appeared in it, but didn't sign up with Biograph until 1912 (according to the sources). I've tweaked slightly to show it was with Biograph. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "... and appeared as a character actor in a string of short films" — What do you mean by "a string"? Wouldn't it be better to say that he appeared in short films, then moved into feature length productions in 1914? Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "and also in a spin off series from the Dr. Kildaire films" — "Dr. Kildare" does not need to be italicized; however it does need to be spelled correctly. Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Filmography Barrymore has an extremely long filmography which you broke into two sections (acting and directing). Possibly it might be better if you break the acting part into three section: shorts, serials (although there are only two films), and features. I'm mulling this one over at the moment, but my instinct at the moment is not to split the acting list down. I may still change my mind when I've slept on it, or if others chip in and suggest the same thing - I'll keep you posted - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Many films are listed as being lost. Where are you getting this information from? I've checked several of your citations (i.e. the AFI catalog online) and I find no indication about whether or not the films survive. You might consider citing the Library of Congress. From the source I am now struggling to find again! (I thought I'd added it as one of the main sources at the top of the table, but didn't). I'm having a hunt round for it at the moment, but if I can't find it again soon I'll follow your suggestion of the LoC, and add the relevant citations. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Hi Jimknut, Do you know if the Silnet Era website is considered reliable? The copyright notice states "Copyright © 1999-2015 by Carl Bennett and the Silent Era Company", which suggests some background that may provide oversight. I'll also ask at the Film project to see if they have any ideas. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC) I still can't find the source I had before, so I've cited those I can and stripped out those I can't. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Judith of Bethulia is incorrectly listed as a lost film. re-classed, as above. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Two films (The Exploits of Elaine and Enemies of Women) are listed as "incomplete". What does this mean? Production of the films was never finished? Or they were finished but do not survive complete? You need to clarify this. One done, need to clarify and better source the other. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Sorted now - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Rasputin and the Empress, Treasure Island, David Copperfield, The Gorgeous Hussy, Tennessee Johnson, Lone Star — Form links to the roles that Barrymore played in these films: respectively, Rasputin, Billy Bones, Dan Peggotty, Andrew Jackson, Thaddeus Stephens, and (again) Andrew Jackson. All now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC) A Family Affair — You could mention that this was the first film in the Andy Hardy series and that Barrymore was replaced by Lewis Stone in the next film. For the Dr. Kildare/Dr. Gillespie films you could mention which which ones were the first and last, plus which one was the last to co-star Lew Ayres. The Mysterious Island, The Rogue Song, Thousands Cheer, and Duel in the Sun — You may add in the notes that these films were shot in Technicolor. Likewise, The Hollywood Revue of 1929 has color sequences and that Barrymore is in one of them. Also, since you list many films as being lost or incomplete why not do the same for The Rogue Song. Radio broadcasts Why does the chart have the heading of "Barrymore's director credits"? The column marked "Broadcast" should be listed as "Title". A Christmas Carol — You list the dates for this as "December 25, 1934 – December 25, 1953". Your notes should state that Barrymore did this once a year at Christmas time. Screen Guild Players: The Old Lady Shows Her Medals — List Screen Guild Players only as the title and in the notes put "Episode: "The Old Lady Shows Her Medals"". Radio all tweaked per your suggestions - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Television broadcast Add this section in and include Barrymore's appearance in Our Mr. Sun. Yep - now added - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC) These are HUGELY helpful Jimknut, and you have my thanks for them. I'm working my way through them bit by bit and hope to have them polished off shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Jimknut - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note - You already have another open nomination (this being the second) with no supports or comments. Do you think it's wise to have two nominations simultaneously? -- Frankie _talk 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be honest I'd largely forgotten the Johns list. It should be OK, given the standard of that one, and tha I haven't got anything running through FAC too at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be open and fair (bearing in mind I'm a delegate who should know better), I'm going to ping Giants2008, Crisco 1492, PresN to make a judgement on whether I should withdraw this one temporarily until the Johns list reaches a suitable level of support. I'd hate for my non-action to be used as justification for others wanting to push a second nom onto the list. Thanks for nudging me on this Frankie. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it has two supports now, I don't think you need to withdraw any of the list. Thanks for taking care of my comments. -- Frankie _talk 12:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Frankie. It was my error to begin with and thanks for letting me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Frankie. Since the other article now has supports, and your lists tend to be in good shape to start with, I think we can let this go. Just make sure to double-check that you don't have any early-stage FLCs when preparing future noms. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Good clear lead, ideal layout and doubtless comprehensive content. I wondered idly why put in all the full stops after Dr and Mr (rather quaint, but still current in AmEng, I know) and yet omit one after Capt. No other quibbles, and the page seems to me to meet the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

• Question - do the images need Alt text, or are the highly descriptive captions enough?--Godot13 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in two minds about these: I'm not sure that ALT text would be hugely useful, given we'll probably just be repeating much of the caption info. I'm still mulling it over tho. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks in excellent shape to me and anything I'd have complained about has been dealt with. This is of considerable value as I've been watching some of Lionel's films of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Doc - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• "Although he took a break from acting in 1906–1909 to train in Paris as a painter". Usually, date ranges like this have two digits for the last year. The MoS seems to back that up, although I admit that this part of the MoS has some details I'm not in love with. Still, the 1909 could probably be two digits, unless this is some form of British English I don't know about.

• Quite right— now done. (Not that there is a difference in year ranges anyway, but BrEng wouldn't apply anyway as Barrymore is American) – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The publisher in reference 14 (The Guardian) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Done - I'd used a web template not a news one.

Cheers Giants, much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One more that I didn't see before: current ref 14 needs a publisher (American Film Institute). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Great - nice catch, now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Upon reading this list I had no clue to who Lionel was but I found the list of his roles on stage, screen and radio to be vastly comprehensive and the lists easily meets the required guidelines. Good work! Z105space (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Z105space - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (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 23:07, 29 November 2015 [2].

---

Natalie Portman filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman is an actress best known for her roles as a child assassin in Léon: The Professional (1994), Queen Padmé Amidala in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and her Oscar-winning turn as a tortured ballerina in Black Swan (2010). Here's a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her career thus far. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella

Comments from GagaNutella Star Wars prequel trilogy, italic Star Wars. <br> refs 17,18; 29,30; 37,38; 34,42. {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}} → {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} Use sortable table on Television section. I don't like the way you compact the year column. You should distinguish them: Sesame Street and The Simpsons. You can wikilink both in this case. The A.V. Club, use work= Where is the publisher of ref 33? Ref 24: MTV → MTV News OVERLINK: The New York Times refs 7, 16, 19, 22, 34, 38, 46; CNN ref 11; Los Angeles Times ref 21; The Daily Telegraph refs 27, 31, 39; Variety refs 29, 32, 40, 41, 42; TV Guide refs 45, 46. That's all. GagaNutellatalk 01:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Ssven2 helped a lot with these. I think these comments have been sorted. Cowlibob (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. This list looks great, congrats! GagaNutella^talk 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Films A Tale of Love and Darkness sorts incorrectly. It should sort under "t", not "a". Changed the year of release for Untitled Terrence Malick film from "TBA" to 2016 (the article about the film states that it will be released next year). Television Since Portman's television work was in the United States, the column titled "Channel" should be changed to "Network", which is more appropriate for American television. (I believe "channel" is more appropriate for British TV.) Jimknut (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC) @Jimknut: Thanks for the review. Have sorted these comments, I hope. The Terrence Mallick film's date is still TBA. The article may say that it's coming next year as briefly a distributor announced a 2016 date back in July but withdrew it in August so currently the release date is unknown. Cowlibob (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"trained by a hitman played by Jean Reno" doesn't really seem like necessary detail Remove the comma from "she appeared in the comedies No Strings Attached, and Your Highness" Add a comma after "made her feature film directorial debut with A Tale of Love and Darkness" For Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I would use Template:N/a in place of the "—". Sesame Street and The Simpsons only need to be linked once This doesn't mention any of her characters' names; you'll have to find something else and be sure each role is supported by references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Here is a link from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that does list a handful of Portman's roles. It should help. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Another one here that lists Portman's role in No Strings Attached as Emma Kurtzman. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) One from Los Angeles Times that lists Emilia Greenleaf role in The Other Woman. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) One from TheWrap about her Jane Got a Gun role. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. Thanks for the help Birdienest81. I think I've sorted most of the above points. Kept the ref as I used it to cite her producer roles but have added additional ones for the character she played etc. I have thought of using the N/A template before but unfortunately it sorts any row with the template under N while the "—" separates them out. Cowlibob (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I posted the AMPAS source, but some roles only listed the first name. So I looked for sources that listed the role's complete name (including surname). Anyways, Happy to give it a support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support looks better now Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [3].

---

AAA Mega Championship

Nominator(s): WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list with @MPJ-DK: because I feel it meets the criteria. MPJ and I worked on it for the last few days, merging the separate list and the main article to nominate it for FL. All issues will be addressed by MPJ and I.--WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "which effectively unified International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship" => "which effectively unified the International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship"
  • "as well as the four number one contenders to each respective championship" - there were not four number one contenders to each championship, and the word "respective" is completely unnecessary. Change to "as well as the number one contender to each championship"
  • "which was called simply Mexican Heavyweight Championship" => "which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship"
  • "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA in Antonio Peña Memorial Show" => "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA at the Antonio Peña Memorial Show"
  • The date format for the general refs is different to that used for the specific refs
  • In the lead you refer to Mesias winning the "finals" but in the bracket this match is shown as the "final". I'm not sure what the correct US usage is, but regardless they should be consistent

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll handle these shortly. They went by without my notice.--WillC 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All concerns addressed.--WillC 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One other quick point.....when you say "it is sometimes referred to in the English press", I presume you mean the English-language press, rather than the press in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed--WillC 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Everything seems to be in order, well done.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I feel bad seeing this list at the bottom of the stack, about to get archived but with two supports. So here's a review- recusing myself as a delegate to be a reviewer instead.

• "compete in direct competition." - repeated word
  • Fixed
• "In 2011, the then-AAA Mega Champion and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) founder Jeff Jarrett appeared with a redesigned version of the title on TNA programming, which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship." - difficult to parse; you seem to mean that a title match was shown on TNA with a different name (MHC), but the sentence starts off talking about stuff you've never mentioned before and then gets confusing as to what "which was" is referring to, the title match or TNA.
  • Reworded
• "The Championship belt was the Mega Championship belt with a silver hexagonal plate covering the AAA faceplate, this was done due to Spike TV not allowing TNA to refer to AAA by name." - run-on sentence
  • Reworded
• That whole section is kind of overweighted- you describe the belt, talk about the channel it was on... but don't do that for the regular match series.
  • Trying to do an overview like most titles about the only significant moments instead of all moments.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• "Title tournament bracket" - this is just the initial 2007 tournament of champions, yes? It's not clear in this section if that's so. Even just renaming the section to "Initial title tournament bracket" would help
  • reworded
• "Title History" - shouldn't this be three rows, with AAA Mega Championship split between the first and third?
  • What?
• The empty "Notes" fields in the big table under "Reigns" are a bit jarring- why are they empty?
  • Nothing special happened during the reigns. Just won and defended the title. No controversial finish or storyline.
• The lead says that the current champion is Alberto, but the table says that he's no longer the champion now that he's signed with WWE- lead should be updated.
  • fixed
• Dates in the references are formatted inconsistantly; standardize on either "yyyy-mm-dd" or "Month dd, yyyy"
  • Fixed
• Is the ref publisher SuperLuchas, SuperLuchas Magazine, or Súper Luchas, because you use all three in the refs
  • I think they are different publishes. I don't deal with Mexican titles much. That is an issue for MPJ to settle since I'm expanding this due to its connection to TNA.
• Ref 15- you don't need to specify the staff as the author; if no specific person is listed just leave it blank
  • Fixed.

I think this is all quite fixable. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC nomination up above. --PresN 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: I'll get this as soon as I can. I'm going on a business trip for the weekend so it will be a few days before I know I'll have free time.--WillC 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: All concerns settled. Thanks for the review.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Remaining: I fixed a couple minor things, but the SuperLuchas bit is still outstanding. Also, now I'm really confused as to what's going on with the "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" thing- I thought, especially with it called out in the "Title History" section, that the name of the AAA Mega Championship was actually changed to "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" from July 14, 2011 – March 18, 2012. But that's not true at all, is it? Nothing changed about the AAA MC; it's just that the guy who was the champion appeared on a series that didn't have licensing rights to use the name, so that (completely separate) series called it the MHC. If that's all true, you're giving that bit of trivia way too much weight in the article's lead, and it certainly shouldn't be called out as an official name change in that table in "Title History". --PresN 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SuperLucas is fixed. The title change thing is rather simple but hard to explain to a non-viewer. Promotions change the name of titles all of the time. When the WWE got the WCW Championship they changed the name several times. TNA changed the name of the IWGP Tag Team Championship. The point is that SpikeTV didn't want to advertise AAA on their programming so TNA was forced to call it another name. Jarrett holding the title and advertising it on national TV under a different name is a pretty big deal. Do believe he defended it in TNA as well.--WillC 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Concerns addressed @PresN:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Don't know a whole lot about professional wrestling, but after reading through the article, I think I've got a good grasp on the AAA Mega Championship at least. Here are just a few comments:

Lead

• The championship is generally contested in professional wrestling matches, in which participants execute scripted finishes rather than in direct competition. While this is a fairly known fact by now, there still needs to be a reference for scripted finishes.
  • Done
• When mentioning the four championships that were unified, there should be a ref.
  • Ref at end of paragraph coves that.
• While Jarrett appeared in TNA with the title it was referred to as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship. I think a comma is missing after title.
  • Done
• Overall, there have been 12 reigns shared among 8 wrestlers, with one vacancy]]. If the ]] at the end was for vacancy, then it should be removed as vacant is already linked in that paragraph.
  • Forgot that when I added vacant earlier.

Inaugural Championship Tournament bracket

• Just out of curiosity, what makes the inaugural championship worthy of having a bracket, while none of the others have one? Hopefully I'm not missing anything here, but it seems kind of odd to have it.
  • Not all championships have tournaments to crown the first champion. When they do a bracket is usually added if notable. This was a bunch of champions fighting to become the main champion. Pretty notable.

Title history

• There should be a ref for AAA Mega Championship under names
  • done
• In the Reigns section, there's some overlinking of some articles, like Zapopan, Jalisco, tape delay, as well as some of the wrestlers themselves.
  • As far as I'm aware these tables are not subject to overlinking. I've never had an overlinking issue in the past.
• I know it's obvious, but to be consistent with naming conventions, it should be Mexico City, Mexico, not just Mexico City
  • Done

References

• Refs 16, 18, 19, and 23 need to say (in Spanish)
  • done

Other stuff

• No disambiguation links, that's nice.
• Both images have alt text, once again, good job.
  • Good

That's all I could see. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't know a whole lot about wrestling in general (much more of a baseball guy myself), but overall, I think a casual reader will understand this article just fine. Clean up some of the comments (or provide a explanation as to why some comments weren't addressed), and you've got yourself a support. BTW, would you mind looking at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

All concerns addressed. Thank you for the review. Once I get a chance I will review your list. @Famous Hobo:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Alright, that's everything. Thanks for giving explanations. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [4].

---

List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) & Robert4565 (talk)

After 3.5 years away from Wikipedia, I'm back at FLC with another UConn-themed list: List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft. I'd like to thank User:Robert4565 for pulling together this list in 2014; I added prose I had left in my userspace from 2012 as well as new prose, and cleaned up the list with high-quality references. I based the list restructure on the existing college team in the NFL Draft featured lists, as well as List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft.

I believe this candidate fully meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree. –Grondemar 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do too. Robert4565 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the key needs to be split into three two-column tables and have column headings added to be accessible. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'll take a look and try to fix it this afternoon. –Grondemar 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  After further consideration I decided to remove the key entirely and to incorporate the full name of the positions and links directly in the main list, more similar to List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft than the previous NFL Draft FLs. This avoids the challenge of making the key table accessible; it also should make it easier for the reader to go to pages describing the positions without having to scroll up to the key. –Grondemar 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, that solves the issue. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks! –Grondemar 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments – After being asked for a review on my talk page, I've come here with some thoughts. And yes, I do remember Will Beatty, although I didn't know he was from Connecticut. Just an interesting aside: I like that we can now cite a note that goes directly to general references. Not sure if that's been done in other FLs that I've seen, but that's a neat trick. Thanks! In case anyone else wants to use the same trick, I moved the code to Template:Genref so it can be used in any article. –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The biggest issue I see is a bunch of ugly red text after the notes. It looks like the formatting needs a tweak or two. Fixed. –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) As a sidenote, I was really confused by this since I swore there were no cite errors when I nominated the list, but when I looked back in the history it appeared the errors had been in the article for some time. The answer, which I finally discovered in the Signpost, is that they updated Cite to produce an error when a citation was defined multiple times on the same page. I usually use list-defined references but can't when I need to put a citation in a note. People shoud go back and check other articles to see if this new cite error is appearing in them. –Grondemar 20:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Spell out NCAA in note 2? Fixed. –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) And BAA in ref 6? Fixed. –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Be careful with the date-related items like "Beginning in 2005 and continuing to the present day" because these can be a pain to keep updated. Changed to "Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2015". –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Overall, the sources look both reliable and numerous, and they are archived to boot. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I actually noticed I missed archiving a couple of references due to Webcitation acting up when I was writing the article, so I went back and finished archiving them. All references should now be archived. Thank you very much for the review! –Grondemar 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I quickly checked in on a commercial break during the game tonight and saw that my few piddling concerns have been resolved, so I'm happy to support now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – An engaging and well written lead section; comprehensive, well referenced, and well formatted lists; nice use and placement of images. Drdpw (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "This led to a massive bidding war..." massive seems a bit POV and sensationalist, perhaps just remove it and have bidding war
• "Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2015... " comma after 2015
• "The most Connecticut players to be selected in a single NFL Draft were five" were should be was

Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@NapHit:, all the above are now fixed. Thanks for your review. –Grondemar 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Great work. NapHit (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [5].

---

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–1959)

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

being one of India's most coveted civilian awards, I think the list should be presented in the proper format and with the encyclopaedic content. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism. With the success or failure of this nomination, I would decide to work on the similar lists for Indian civilian awards in the near future. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Given that it is English Wikipedia, I don't think it's necessary to write the Hindi text? I just followed List of battlecruisers of Japan. Done "The "Padma Bhushan" award recipients are announced" – why is Padma Bhushan in quote? Done "registered in The Gazette of India, a publication released by the Department of Publication" – I would rather suggest to use em-dash (—) instead of the comma as the subsequent one confuses a little bit. Done "When instituted in 1954, the award was classified as" – could we write the award's name in the first sentence of the para instead of "the award"? Done "However a year later on 15 January 1955, the Padma Vibhushan" – "however" indicates the continuation of a previous sentence but this is the start of a new paragraph. Done The states in the tables are pretty well-known geographies so I think linking them would border WP:OVERLINKING. Because all the column entries should be linked for a sortable table. They do not necessarily have to be linked unless it gives some kind of benefit to the readers. Anyway, WP:OVERLINKING quotes "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [generally should not be linked]". -- Frankie talk 18:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I have asked for the clarification here. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I have made the changes per clarification provided by SchroCat and Maile66. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I would wiki-link the first instances of references' publishers. Thats not necessary per Crisco here. The "not necessary per Crisco" implies that "Crisco" is a strict Wikipedia policy. Never mind. Two Calcutta's make reference 12 pretty weird. Done Ref 13 – Time (magazine) → Time. -- Frankie talk 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Done

• Support – good work. -- Frankie _talk 08:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala Well, instead of Hindi text, you can provide a translation of the word Padma Bhushan if any. That would be tough. I said if any. Not mandatory. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Mention when The Gazette of India is released i.e. weekly, monthly, quarterly etc. Done Wikilink Ministry of Urban Development. Done "The recommendations are received from all state and union..." — from all the. Not just for that. Ministries, Institutes of Excellence, Ministers, Chief Ministers and Governors of State, Members of Parliament all require "the" before them. Done However a year later on 15 January 1955 → Since 15 January 1955. Done "sixteen in 1957 and 1958". Do you mean "an aggregate of sixteen in 1957 and 1958"? Done You're yet to clarify this. Was it an aggregate value or sixteen each? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) @Pavanjandhyala: Modified it to "sixteen in 1957 and 1958 respectively". Hope that clarifies. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC) I think you did not get me. I assume that sixteen awards were presented in 1957 and another sixteen awards were presented in 1958. If that is the fact, please mention it clearly. Respectively is giving out some other meaning such as 16, 20, 14 for A, B, and C "respectively". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Hope I have clarified now. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) These awards were instituted in 1954. Then why "From 1954 till 1959, individuals...."? Why not "Till 1959, ..."? Any explanation? Done

@FrB.TG and Pavanjandhyala: I have addressed some of your concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. All my concerns were met by the nominator. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment – Isn't there a consensus for WP:IND articles not to have indic scripts in the lead? —Vensatry _(ping) 15:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thats correct. I missed that. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments – The first issue I found is the most serious, but there are a few writing issues as well. The most important question I have is this: what is meant to source the winners? If it's the external link at the end, that really shouldn't be classified as an external link. I'd recommend placing a cite to that page in the Recipient column of each table, which will provide proper verification for the table. Done As a general comment, I count 28 red links among the 94 recipients. The FL criteria call for a "minimal proportion" of red-linked items, and this is a touch borderline to me. I wouldn't oppose over this issue, but I wouldn't want to see too many more red-linked people either. Our lists are meant to aid in navigation, after all, in addition to being interesting to read on their own terms. And any articles that can be created from this work are of great benefit to the encyclopedia. This is just something to keep in mind for your future plans to work on award lists like this one, which I hope you will do. Since I started working these lists, I realized that @Tachs: is doing this wonderful job of converting these red links into the respective articles. Twice in the lead, I see "circular–shaped", which should have a regular old hyphen instead of a dash. Done "The conferral of the award is not considered official without its publication in the Gazette. Shouldn't Gazette be in italics, since it is a print publication? Done Same goes for the next sentence. Done "and are required to surrender their medals with their names are struck from the register." "with" → "when". Done "The original specifications of the award was a circle...". "specifications" should be singular, I believe. Done A comma would be helpful after "the highest of the three" by the beginning of the third paragraph. Done The last word of "four sports-person" should be made plural. Done Reference 9 is to an article from a fellow encyclopedia, which isn't the strongest possible source. Can something better be found to verify Chand's goal-scoring total, which is really the only fact that source needs to verify? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Done Added two sources including one from BBC. I have addressed the concerns above. Please let me know if anything else is pending or needs to be corrected. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – After going through all of your responses, it looks like you got everything I listed. Nice work on the list, which is unique when compared to much of the fare we normally see at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks you very much for the review comments and support. I really appreciate your motivating words. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

• A few of the later images are missing Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Godot13: Done - Vivvt (Talk) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• And here I thought I was just making a drive-by comment... On reading the list it is a very nice summary and I have certainly learned something new.
  • 
• You write Recipients whose awards have been revoked or restored, both of which require the authority of the President, are also registered in the Gazette and are required to surrender their medals when their names are struck from the register.
  • Could you explain the possible circumstances where this might occur?
    • The official statues does not mention the clauses under which this could be done. It did not happen with any of the civilian awards so far; except for the Bharat Ratna, the highest Indian civilian award, where the award was announced but not conferred so technically was not revoked.
  • Did this happen to any of the recipients in the 1955–59 list?

    • Done

• As opposed to having five separate lists by year, would you consider merging them into a single list with a column on the left for year which would cover each of the rows for that given year?--Godot13 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was curious to see what it would look like. If you think it would be an improvement, I would be happy to add it in. If not, absolutely no hard feelings at all...--Godot13 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I really appreciate your efforts but I personally do not wish to club it together into one big fat list. Apologies for that! Also, when I had started working on this list initially, I came across this FL which follows the same pattern. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Godot13: Let me know if you expect any further changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been traveling. Let me give it another thorough read-through tomorrow night.--Godot13 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Succinct and interesting, nice job.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 13:46, 27 November 2015 [6].

---

The class the stars fell on

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list now that all issues have been resolved from the previous review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Maile — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Review from Maile Comments from Maile Citations - # 30 seems to have an error (probably the date). It doesn't point to anything. Table format - You have scope="col", but no scope="row" Images The 1914 West Point Baseball team - needs alt text Joseph T McNarney is missing Source, Date and Author on Commons Hubertharmonsmall, except for "U.S. Air Force Photo" had no other summary information. I transferred it to Commons for you, but please check the information over there. Otherwise, nice work. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I have resolved all the other issues, but I don't understand the comment on the table format. What should be done? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry if I was unclear on the table format. WP:DTT, to facilitate those with screen readers. You need both the scope="col" as you already had it set, and scope="row" at the beginning of each and every row. I did the first row for you, as an example. Just do the same at the beginning of every row. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - — Maile (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments by Peacemaker67

• there is a typo in the alt text for the baseball team pic "the their"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• otherwise, toolbox checks are all green
• I assume plebe is a shortened version of wikt:plebeian, and that there would be sources to support it? Perhaps a note to that effect?

  Added a link to the Wiktionary

• an explanation that First Captain was the No. 1 cadet would help

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "grandsons as well" is unclear, does this mean they were just grandsons of graduates, or sons of graduates and grandsons of graduates? Perhaps Three members of the class were both a son and a grandson of a graduate

  Somns of graduates and grandsons of graduates. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• the whole "sons" para with the semi-colons doesn't work IMO. Prose-wise, it's impenetrable, and should be a bulleted list.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "pulled some strings" is a bit colloquial

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• both commissary and post exchange should be linked, they are strange terms to everyone but Seppos.

  Probably only the ones who have lived on a base. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the explanation of CGSS to immediately after fn31 for continuity

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• According to the information provided, Bradley was the first to wear "a" star, not "stars". I know, pedantic, but...

  Well, there was one on each shoulder... but done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Van Fleet should be linked at first mention, also worth pointing out that Van Fleet commanded US and UN forces in Korea

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• in the Notes section, the newspapers and websites are in shortened version as a citation and don't appear in the References section, but books are in the References section. I'd be much happier if all references were in the References section, whether books, newspapers or websites.

Otherwise, looking good. I'll allow those who have more of a clue than me about such things to pipe up about the syntax for the table, but it appears from the previous nom that issue has been addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Added my support. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate in order to review this list.

• "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" - numbers (of a type) need to be consistent here, either numerals or words- this should be either "There were also 2 four-star generals, 7 three-star lieutenant generals, 24 two-star major generals and 24 one-star brigadier generals" or "There were also two four-star generals, seven three-star lieutenant generals, twenty-four two-star major generals and twenty-four one-star brigadier generals". I'd recommend the first.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Only 164 graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but they were still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them." -> "Only 164 cadets graduated and were commissioned as second lieutenants on 12 June 1915, but that was still the largest graduating class up to that time,[7] and the US Army had only 105 slots available for them."

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure why an article about an American military group uses European date styling...

  Per MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's slightly confusing to call the head of the cadet battalion "highest ranking" and then talk about someone else being "ranking first" (best grades), though I'm unsure of a good solution

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "the son of Major General George LeRoy Irwin a Medal of Honor winner" - comma before "a"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Harmon was preceded by his two older brothers, Kenneth B. Harmon, of the class of 1910,[25] and Millard F. Harmon, Jr., of the class of 1912.[26] Hubert was ejected" - completely threw me; maybe call him "Hubert Harmon" instead of just Hubert the first time you do that, so that the reader realizes that it's the same person

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Extraordinary times produced some extraordinary individuals." - uh, editorializing much?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "While the Army's training program attracted criticism, both at the time and subsequently, and failed in some key areas" - criticized for what, and failed at what?

  Lots of things. How long do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The first member of the class to wear a star was Omar Bradley, who, skipped" - no comma after who

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "He had been returned to the grade of captain on 22 January 1920, and promoted to major again on 1 July 1920, only to be returned to captain again on 4 November 1922." - tense shift, the rest of this section is "he was"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• "During World War II, there was little time for class sentimentality." - editorializing again, and left completely unexplained; I'm assuming that there was some idea of preferring your classmates over other officers at the time, but that's a complete assumption on my part.

  Re-worded. Added a quote from Eisenhower. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Golden Knights should not be italicized.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Henry Aurand row in the table has the refs split onto two lines; this is the only row that does that

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 42- the publisher is just Time, not Time magazine

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 44- publisher should be italicized and linked to Smithsonian (magazine)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• You link United States Military Academy as the publisher on ref 5, but the first time that publisher is used is ref 2. Link the first use or all uses, please

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• And that's it! Overall it's quite great, gives a good sense of the careers of the generals. Amusing that the eventual ranks of the generals and their class rankings have basically no correlation. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC up above. --PresN 16:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Now Support. A very informative list. --PresN 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:

  There's a run of a few sentences which each begin with a similar clause ("As a result, fourteen more cadets received appointments to the class, which they joined six weeks late, in August 1911. As a consequence, they were known as the "Augustines". They thereby missing out on the infamous period of hazing known as Beast Barracks), this could probably stand to be reworded.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Also, "they thereby missing out" should either be "thereby missing out" or "they thereby missed out".

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  "In 1937, Brigadier General George C. Marshall felt that in merging instruction on command and staff duties, the Command and General Staff School had neglected former had been in favor of the latter". The last clause here seems in need of a re-write ("had neglected the former and had been", I think seems the intention)

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  "Promotion was glacially slow, as promotion was by seniority". You don't need to use "promotion" twice in the same sentence here.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  It seems strange to me that the entire "Careers" section uses no images yet we have plenty of suitable images for the article; a quick browse turned up File:EstevesWP.jpg, File:Leland Hobbs.jpg, File:John W Leonard.jpg, File:Thomas B Larkin.jpg, and File:Omarbradleywestpoint.jpg, all taken at West Point. I think the first and last of these look the best, personally, and one of them could easily break up all that text while also being pretty relevant.

  The 1915 Howitzer? Yes, I have cadet images of all of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow; but the new football team image is pretty nice. Might not be a bad idea to push one of the team pictures into the next section though. GRAPPLE ^X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Overall it seems interesting and well-presented. I'm leaning in its favour. GRAPPLE ^X 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Support based on the changes made. GRAPPLE ^X 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:36, 27 November 2015 (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 18:12, 17 November 2015 [7].

---

List of international goals scored by David Healy

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Another country's top scorer, this time Northern Ireland's. A significant name on the international football scene, if only for the record number of goals he scored for NI duing European qualification. As always, thanks for time and energy expended on commenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment

I haven't looked at this in much detail, but it looks pretty good. One issue that I did spot: the lead doesn't actually mention how many international goals he has scored. Harrias ^talk 09:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• "..the only Northern Ireland player ever to have done so." The word "ever" seems redundant to me, he's either the only NI player to have done so, or he isn't, ever doesn't come into it.
• The 24 March 2007 Liechtenstein match has two of the results the wrong way around (4–1 rather than 1–4). None of the other scores look obviously wrong, but I haven't checked in depth.
• References all look sound, the image looks awful, but is appropriately licensed and captioned, which is the main thing! Harrias ^talk 15:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, thanks for the quick response, nice work. Harrias ^talk 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Great, well-presented list '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu After "... in June 2004", I would replace the colon with a semicolon. Typo in "Liechenstein" (second paragraph). Also, this is the first instance, so it should be linked here instead of only in the third paragraph. Suggestion: "Healy scored two hat-tricks during his career, the only Northern Ireland player to have done so." → "Healy is the only Northern Ireland player to have scored two international hat-tricks." "Overall, Healy scored 13 goals during that qualification campaign..." – This sentence is too long. Suggestion: "Healy held the record alone until October 2015 when Germany's Robert Lewandowski equalled the total when he scored against the Republic of Ireland during qualification for UEFA Euro 2016." → "Healy held the record alone until October 2015, when Germany's Robert Lewandowski scored against the Republic of Ireland during qualification for UEFA Euro 2016 and matched Healy's feat." What do you mean by "The majority of his goals came in competitive internationals"? Did you mean to say that his international goals were mostly scored in FIFA World Cup/European Championship qualifiers? If this is the case, then I understand the purpose of the previous sentence ("During Healy's career, Northern Ireland failed to qualify for either the FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euro finals."); if not, then I don't see what is its contribution to the lead. It is not immediately clear which are NI's goals in both the "Score" and "Result" columns. Add this explanation to the hatnote before the table. Healy's 35th and 36th (and last) goals are separated by 25 caps and over 4 years! It would be interesting to highlight this in the lead. Wikilink the first instance of "UEFA" in the reference list. Hope this helps to improve this list. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Parutakupiu thanks, I've addressed your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Indeed The Rambling Man, but meanwhile I was making another run-through and spotted other things: One of your changes introduced an additional "matches" in "The majority of his goals came in qualification matches matches (as opposed to friendlies)." Don't know how this passed us by unnoticed but... Robert Lewandowski plays for Poland, not Germany. Moreover, you removed the wikilinks for his name and his national team unnecessarily. What is the default order in the by-competition table? Finally, I'd like to ask your permission to copyedit the lead prose, after which I would ask you to submit your approval of my edits or revert them if you don't concur with them. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Hello again Parutakupiu and thanks for your quick responses to my responses! I've addressed the specific concerns you have raised in your second set of comments, the order of the table is now most-to-least, and I would be more than happy for you to copyedit the prose, you don't need my permission to do so and I'm sure you'll be able to improve it substantially! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Great. Well, that's always my intention – to improve prose quality – but some editors might prefer their way of writing, so I don't want to impose mine. Will see to that later this day. Thank you! Parutakupiu (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) No worries, I'm a bit hit-and-miss online today (as I have been and will be a few days) having moved house, but I'll keep an eye out, please feel free to ping me when you're done. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Copyediting done, The Rambling Man. Please take a look, whenever you can. I also added some wikilinks to reference publishers (only first instance) and used tooltips on some table column headers. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Parutakupiu thanks again, looks splendid to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support happily. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13 - Image may need Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:33, 17 November 2015 (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 18:12, 17 November 2015 [8].

---

List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue Is the Warmest Colour is a 2013 French romantic coming-of-age drama directed by Abdellatif Kechiche. It stars Adèle Exarchopoulos, and Léa Seydoux. This is a hopefully comprehensive run down of its accolades. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutellatalk 19:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

;Comments by GagaNutella Stars as a teenager -> stars a teenager. The film premiered at the 66th Cannes Film Festival on 23 May 2013 where it received the Palme d'Or. -> The film premiered at the 66th Cannes Film Festival on May 23, 2013, where it received the Palme d'Or. I don't think those "red links" are necessary. Fix all the dates (mm dd yyyy), for example 17 December 2013 to December 17, 2013. Add a "See also" section with 2013 in film. Sources: use only work or publisher, not both a the same source. You don't need to say work=Variety publisher=Penske Media Corporation, simply work=Variety is enough. There are more cases. Oh, and remember, just use publisher when it doesn't need to be in italic. Awards for Blue Is the Warmest Colour -> Accolades for Blue Is the Warmest Colour (External links). GagaNutellatalk 03:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: Thanks for the review. Have added see also, removed redlinks, changed to accolades. In regard to the other comments, the first comment is not grammatically correct. The sentence is about who she plays in the film, which is a teenager who falls in love with an older woman. The dates are day/month/year as this is a French not an American film so doesn't follow American convention of month/day/year in its dates. Having more information about references which include who publishes the work is encouraged on Wikipedia, having just the work or publisher is acceptable but not the only way that references should be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support I understood the date format, I just said that because this is an English Wikipedia, but you are right. About the references, even I'm supporting your FLC, I think you should give a chance and use only one of them (work or publisher). Anyway, this list looks amazing. Great job!!! GagaNutella^talk 15:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: Thanks. I have made the format uniform for all refs. It is the English Wikipedia but not the American English Wikipedia so date formats can vary per WP:ENGVAR.Cowlibob (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding and honest. That's amazing! GagaNutella^talk 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

;Quick Comment Shouldn't "Critics' Choice Awards" be referred to as Critics' Choice Movie Award since that's they name of the award as it appears on its article page. I understand that the Critics' Choice Television Award and the aforementioned film awards are planning to merge again for the 2016 ceremony as denoted here, but this award was referred to as "Critics' Choice Movie Awards" during 2014. Just curious. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC) @Birdienest81: Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected name of the awards ceremony. Cowlibob (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Nice list. When you have the time, could you kindly proofread 60th Academy Awards for my latest FLC, please?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maile

• Image - Freely licensed on Commons and has an OTRS tag. Its use in the list is captioned and has W:ALT alternative text.
• Sourcing - Those listed appear to be credible sources. Earwig's tool shows no issues of concern on copyvio or close paraphrasing.
• List format - WP:DTT Table is well formatted with scope=row and scope=column, references centered within the column.

Support - — Maile (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt For the first time, the jury at Cannes also presented the award to Kechiche, Exarchopoulos, and Seydoux. I know what you are trying to convey here but it doesnt come out well that actors are also awarded with the best film. Consider rephrasing. Should you not be using {{sortname}} for names and {{sort}} for other entries? - Vivvt (Talk) 06:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC) @Vivvt: Thanks for the review. Have rephrased the above sentence. I think you can use the sort template for anything. The sortname template is just easier to use for names. Cowlibob (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC) You may want to add a note for three recipients because the official source here does not mention the actresses and also there is a rule defined here@Article 8 which mentions that "The Palme d'Or can never be awarded jointly". Still, jury superseded the rules. I would prefer but not force you to use the templates wherever applicable for two reasons. Firstly, I had the similar doubts and got it cleared through the discussion held here. I think its cleaner way of representation for the editors as well. Secondly, I see the way you work on FLCs is being followed by a few other editors. I would really like if this practice gets followed to other lists through you. Again, just my thought. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) @Vivvt: Have converted all name entries into sortname. For the first point, normally the award is given to a film and the director normally collects it on behalf of the film as the recipient but that year the director and the two lead actresses were invited by the jury to collect the award on behalf of the film. The rule about joint awarding stops multiple films from winning the award not multiple people as two co-directors in the past have received the award for directing the same film together.Cowlibob (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support All of my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:40, 17 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [9].

---

List of accolades received by Silver Linings Playbook

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of accolades received by the film Silver Linings Playbook. It is a romantic comedy about a man with bipolar disorder and a "crazy slut with a dead husband". I am looking forward to comments from reviewers and would like to thank anyone who takes time to check the article against the featured list criteria. -- Frankie _talk 20:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher The alt image needs a fullstop at the end. Indiewire needs to be wikilinked at ref 6 and delinked at 12. Title of ref 8 should be Silver Linings Playbook, not Rotten Tomatoes. " ...with particular praise for its direction, screenplay and the acting of its cast." Offcourse acting is performed by its cast, so there is no need to mention that. Also you might wanna replace the word "acting" with "performances". Author name at ref no. 2 should be written with his last and first name, and the work should be Chicago Sun-Times. Just like its written in other articles. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your suggestions which I have taken care of in its entirety. -- Frankie _talk 08:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GagaNutella
Don't use italic (work) for HitFix, TheWrap and Indiewire. Add a see also section: 2012 in film.

That's all. It's a really great article. Congrats! GagaNutella^talk 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like another user has addressed your comments before me. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Frankie _talk 12:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Good work. GagaNutella^talk 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Maile — Maile (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

;Comments by Maile I ran Earwig's tool, and there is really nothing in the way of copyvio or close paraphrasing to be concerned about. There's numerous blank spaces next to vertical bars that could be eliminated to reduce bytes. — Maile (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC) @Maile66: Thanks for the review. I believe I have removed the extra white spaces. Guess who taught me this one. Hint...it was you. I've been searching my memory banks trying to remember why I started removing rowspans from filmographies in August. Here's why. Does that apply to only filmographies, or is it awards also? You see...you are a very good teacher. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Haha, well, I suggested that 'cause rowspans have had raw deals in the filmographies and WP:FILMOGRAPHY itself discourages it. I am not sure about this one. It is not something new done here. Everything in the table is based on the existing FLs of its kind. So not quite sure if rowspan is discouraged here. -- Frankie talk 08:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - — Maile (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

*AACTA Award wins need reference. Wins in the Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress categories are not supported by a reference. The film didn't really win Best Screenplay but I guess that might be a mistake. Anyway, added a source which lists both the winners and nominees. For Austin Film Festival, this is better ref than Indiewire blog [[10]]. For BAFTAs this ref covers both noms and wins. [[11]] Ref needed for Broadcast Film Critic Association wins. Could also do better in terms of ref for the nominations than Vulture.com Ref needed for Golden Globe Award win for Lawrence. New York Film Critics Circle ref doesn't mention Lawrence being the runner-up Well, NYFCC does not really cite the runner-ups. If there is no ref for it then we can't include it in the list. Alright, removed. -- Frankie talk 17:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Ref needed for Satellite Award wins Ref needed for SAG win for Lawrence Ref for St. Louis just says Lawrence was nominated, not that she was the runner-up. Cowlibob (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Thank you for the source review. I have fixed everything. -- Frankie talk 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Replied in line above. Cowlibob (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt "romantic comedy-drama film written and directed by David O. Russell" and the next sentence says its an adaptation of a book by Matthew Quick. So technically Russell did not write the film. He is the screenplay writer. "the novel of same name by Matthew Quick," comma should be replaced with semi-colon. "The film tells the story of a man, Patrizio "Pat" Solitano, Jr., .... love with a young widow, Tiffany Maxwell." --> "The film tells the story of a man, Patrizio "Pat" Solitano, Jr. (Bradley Cooper), .... love with a young widow, Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence)." "particular praise for its direction, screenplay and the performances". place an Oxford comma after screenplay. Also after Jennifer Lawrence in the same sentence. "At the 66th ceremony of the British Academy Film Awards". Simply "66th British Academy Film Awards" "Film Independent Spirit Awards and Satellite Awards." place an Oxford comma after Spirit Awards. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC) @Vivvt: Thanks for the review. I believe I've taken care of your comments. -- Frankie talk 12:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support All my comments have been resolved. Good luck. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [12].

---

List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art

Nominator(s): ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as I have put a lot of work into it and believe it now meets FL criteria. A peer review has been carried out about a month ago and all issues raised in that discussion have been resolved. This is my first Featured content nomination, so I hope it will go well ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 10:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from User:Tintor2 Article looks pretty solid to me but there are two things that bother me: *The intro "this is a list of video games...." seems unnecessary. I would change it to "There are video games that have been selected by the Museum of Modern Art"

• Also, the lead has some references which seems to contradict WP:Lead.

Other than that I think this list could quickly become FL so more opinions are needed.

• • It looks pretty good so I would Support it.

Thank you for the comment. Firstly, per WP:LEAD, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads," though I've moved three of the sources down to the table to counter clutter. "This is a list of..." versus "There are..." has always been an odd thing to me - I'm going to check on previous Featured Lists to see what the common solution is to this, but I seem to remember "This is a list..." being preferred. ~Mable (chat) 07:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Lists starting with "this is a list" haven't really been the preferred format, or deemed acceptable at FLC, for quite a few years now. I would start the lead with something like "A number of video games have been selected by the Museum of Modern Art...." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I really like that wording. Fixed! ~Mable (chat) 10:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be "A number of video games have been" not "A number of video games that have been"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My bad - should have paid more attention. ~Mable (chat) 12:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from User:ProtoDrake There are a couple of things that jumped out at me.

• "which according to Paola Antonelli is the desired effect of the exhibition." - While Antonelli is linked and mentioned in the lead as the museum's curator, she is not in the instance, despite this being the first time she is mentioned outside the lead. I think this should be addressed.
• "MoMA has listed a few video games which they hope to acquire at some point in the future. These include an assortment of games for the Magnavox Odyssey console, as well as the following titles, in chronological order:[16]" - This could be alright as it stands, I suppose. But I've got the feeling that dates should be mentioned.

That was all I saw really. I'll go over it again once these two have been addressed or commented on. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For the first point, I changed the sentence to "..which, according to the exhibit's curator Paola Antonelli, is the desired effect.." I think this is better, but if anyone has any other ideas for clarity and flow, feel free to share :) As for the wishlist: MoMA has never been specific about when they would go about acquiring these games, so neither have the reliable sources. The seven games that were introduced in wave two were on the wishlist, though. I could mention this, but didn't feel it noteworthy at the time. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this seems fine now. I'll give this my Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from PresN

I said that I would review this list when I replied to the PR, so here it is! (Obviously, recusing myself as a FLC delegate).

• Link "classic era" in "classic era of arcade machines" to Golden age of arcade video games
• The "W." created complications unnecessarily in order to save 2 characters- rename it to "Wave", and adjust the header accordingly.
• Why are the dates in the table header in European format, when the museum is in America?
• 'as a "cinematic trailer."' - period should be outside the quote mark.
• "Massively multiplayer online video game is installed" -> "The massively multiplayer online video game is installed".
• "Furthermore, MoMA offers data of the virtual economy" -> "Additionally, MoMA offers data on the virtual economy"
• Is it worth also mentioning that Katamari Damacy was previously displayed in the MoMA in the "Background" section? (I remember seeing it when I was there a few months before this display opened)
• "First generation home video game console" and "Available only as a video demonstration" should not have periods after them, as they are not full sentences
• Atari is listed as the developer for 4 games under 3 different names- it appears that all 4 should be using Atari, Inc., though I would personally pipe it as Atari.
• Developers that are people rather than companies should be using the sortname template, a la {{sortname|firstname|lastname|optionalLinkIfDifferent}}, so that they sort by last name rather than first name
• I see that the source you're using doesn't define what the Odyssey games are that are on the wishlist; I assume nowhere else lists them out?
• You have colscopes for the table but are missing rowscopes- that is, where you have | ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]'', it should be !scope="row"| ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]''. You'll note that this changes the formatting of the first column; it's revertable if you really don't like it by instead doing !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal; background:transparent; text-align:left;"| ''[[Another World (video game)|Another World]]'' instead.
• The Legend of Zelda (video game) is redirecting to the series article, and so should be The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game) instead
• Other redirects, if you care to fix them, are 8-bit consoles, Massively multiplayer online, Ralph Baer, Taito, Apple computer (redirecting to Apple), and Soviet-era.
• --PresN 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the changes suggested I quickly carried out, as they are definitely improvements! Thank you~

• About the period in "cinematic trailer.", I always understood that punctuation goes inside quotation marks? I changed it, but I don't want to make the same mistake again, so why is this situation different?
• I happened to find out that Katamari Damacy has been exhibited before, but no reliable source that discusses the current collection has ever mentioned it. I'm not sure what to write about it more than I already have either, except perhaps that the "Century of the Child" exhibit was also curated by Antonelli.
• It doesn't seem like MoMA has ever specified this, no, which puts us in a bit of an awkward situation...
• I'll look into your suggested changes of the table scopes when I have more time - probably tonight.

~Mable (chat) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:MOSLQ - turns out wikipedia uses the non-american style, which is likely why you were confused. The shorthand is: Only put the period inside of the quotation if you're quoting a full sentence (and the end of the quote is also the end of your whole sentence). 'Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."' - period inside; 'Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".' - period outside. Since "cinematic trailer" isn't a full sentence, period goes outside.
• My point about KD was that you say in background that showing video games as artworks was controversial, and mention that they've done industrial design galleries before (which inspired this one), and thought that it would make sense to point out there (as the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph) that 'at least one video game, Katamary Damacy, had been displayed in some form in the MoMA as a part of a larger gallery'. Or something like that- I wouldn't expect yo to be able to find any more information than what you already have in the notes by KD.
• Well, if the information isn't there, it isn't there.
• Ping me when you're done, and I'll take another look! --PresN 00:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: I really do like the way these rowscopes look - thanks for the suggestion! I'm not particularly experienced yet with table lay-outs, so this is very much appreciated ^_^ I've also included a line on Katamari Damacy's earlier exhibition in the background section. I feel like it breaks the flow a little bit, but I suppose it's fine. ~Mable (chat) 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Support --PresN 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think the table should contain some kind of description of why the entries are on display. I remember in the museum being a small plaque with more just the name for each game. Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This information is actually online available. Take, for instance, this page on Vib Ribbon. However, no secondary sources really talk about why the specific games are there. Even when they talk in detail about specific games (such as Dwarf Fortress or Eve Online), they mostly discuss how the game is displayed and how MoMA deals with this new kind of medium.

I think this information could do great in a "Reception" or "Legacy" section of their respective articles, but would be somewhat out of place here. Of course, the list links to the respective articles in case people are interested in what the high and low points of the works are. ~Mable (chat) 18:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For Nobel Awards, primary sources are ok. I don't see why primary sources would not be ok here either. Is MOMA not a RS? Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They are definitely a reliable source, which is why I suggest using them as such in articles of specific games, or the article on video games as an art form, etc. Their opinions are important. However, in the case of this article, they are also a primary source. Seeing as MoMA is the thing being discussed in this article, we cannot assume everything MoMA says is interesting for readers. Instead, we repeat what other people have said about MoMA. This is also the reason why I sourced the wishlist to a secondary source (the only one to repeat the entire wishlist, and not simply parts of it): to show that this is a topic of interest to people outside of MoMA.

Relatedly, I suppose I should note that the gallery labels as they are published online aren't particularly interesting. They explain what the game is and may give some interesting quotes from the developer, but it isn't so that it says anything about the work's place in the exhibition. For instance, I do think the article for flOw could be greatly improved with the information on the game's label (if the information isn't on the article already, that is), but I don't think it gives the reader any extra context to the game's role or purpose in the exhibition. It could potentially bloat up the article giving important facts about each and every game, while the reader should get this information by reading about the game in specific in its article.

Oh, and lastly, we don't know who wrote the labels, which makes it hard to decipher who's opinion we are reading, even if it is supposed to represents MoMA's opinion as a whole.

This all being said, if anyone else agrees or disagrees, I would like to hear more opinions on this. Should we give more information about the specific games in this list, even if this information isn't really related to MoMA's exhibition other than that they point this information out as well? ~Mable (chat) 09:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the labels add anything to this list- like you said, they just describe the game and say nice things about it, they don't say why MoMA included Flow versus, say, Flower, which is what you would actually want. I'd like to see information on why MoMA included these specific games, but I don't think they've released anything of the sort. (And yes, Flow already has the information from that label). --PresN 22:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Godot13

• Image may need Alt text.--Godot13 (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't even know alt text was a thing you could do! I've added it here and will also apply this knowledge on other articles I have worked on :3 ~Mable (chat) 08:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [13].

---

List of works by W. E. Johns

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

W.E. Johns was a prolific English writer. He wrote over 150 books and was one of the most popular children's writer of his time. Most of Johns's work—102 books—consists of the stories of Biggles, a First World War pilot and, later, adventurer, detective and Second World War squadron leader. He also wrote science fiction stories, and two further series of war stories, featuring the characters Worrals of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) and Gimlet, a British Commando. This is a new list as we did not have a complete picture of Johns' works before this page. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a few comments:

• Intro:
  • "Johns also co-wrote two radio plays, which were broadcast on BBC Radio": you could conveniently avoid the repetition of "radio" by changing "on BBC Radio" to "by the BBC" (though retaining the blue link to BBC Radio).
• Blue-links to publishers:
  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't see why the OUP isn't linked like Hamilton, Newnes et al.
  • I have my doubts whether "J. Hamilton" ought to link to Hamish Hamilton: according to WorldCat this J Hamilton is John and not Jamie/Hamish, and this site seems to confirm that the two Hamilton publishing firms were separate concerns.
• Publications in periodicals:
  • The left-hand border of the table goes wonky for the cell containing "The Oriental Touch" if viewed in Google Chrone; all is well when using Firepox and Internet Exploder. I merely mention this: I don't think any action is required, or indeed possible.

That's all from me. I wondered briefly whether the caveat at the top of "Publications in periodicals" affected the comprehensiveness of the page, but looking at the criteria, I see that 3(a) covers the present case, and all is well. Very happy to support promotion to FL. – Tim riley talk 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim for your kind attention and I've tweaked the links as suggested. No idea about the cell border, but I'll keep an eye out and see if anyone mentions it later. It may be I have to post something to the technical support people to get their input. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Certainly meets the criteria and a commendable effort considering the scope of his output. Where you say "and two children's books (on pirates and treasure hunting) were also published." I'd probably just state the book titles seems as it's only two, though it might be more difficult then to state they're about pirates or treasure hunting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers Doc. I've swapped out the description and just added the titles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – It's very rare that I declare my support in a nomination without making some critical comments. Top work; engaging prose and very well-sourced. I do have some comments, which are quite trivial and won't help the list in any way, I think. Great job! -- Frankie _talk 10:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Frankie - much appreciated! I always enjoy your reviews, and it's nice to know I've beaten your eye this time! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [14].

---

65th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1993 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Please note that the winners are both indicated with boldface text AND double daggers. This was agreed upon based on a resolution regarding accessbility taken up at the FL nomination for the 2015 Oscars. Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from jimknut

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

* The last line of the intro: "The telecast garnered almost 46 million viewers in the United States." Is there a citation for this? Jimknut (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC) @Jimknut: Done: Added citation which indicates the viewership figuers It reads "1993 31.2 51 45.7 Unforgiven" with the 45.7 representing the total average viewership. As per convention in intros, the figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – I am not sure when was the last time I supported a nomination without comments. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references and plenty of content. However, I do have a minor comment: can you rephrase the first sentence of the ceremony information section as it reads a bit odd, especially "riding on the success". Also, it would be pretty good if you change "last year's ceremony" to something like "preceding ceremony" or previous. -- Frankie _talk 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: Done: Changed "Riding of the" to simply "After", and changed "last" to "previous". Thanks for the support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Only two things from me: "Ratings and reception" seems rather short for its own subsection, I'd probably move the reviews to here so it has a more reasonably large amount of text In "see also", only List of submissions to the 65th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film has any relevance to this article; remove all the others Outstanding work overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Done: Merged the ratings section with the reviews. Removed other awards in the "See Also" section. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can now gladly support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Thank you so much!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Vivvt "Three weeks earlier, in a ceremony held..." Consider rephrasing the sentence. "Unforgiven won four Oscars"...reorder best picture and director. "Bram Stoker's Dracula and Howards End with three awards" --> with three awards each. ditto for "...and Scent of a Woman with one." "The telecast garnered almost 46 million viewers in the United States". why "almost"? consider providing accurate info. "Federico Fellini — To Federico Fellini"...remove duplication - Vivvt (Talk) 07:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Done: Addressed all your comments. Dropped three weeks earlier since there is a date mentioned for the Sci-Tech Awards ceremony and replaced it with "In related events" as a transition to link the ceremony as related to the main event. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support All my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Why do you keep not mentioning the big 5 in the intro? Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Nergaal: Done: Mentioned all acting winners.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – The list looks to be neatly written and covers the major aspects appropriately. Only one minor comment: with regards to the announcer, you list her as Randi Thomas in the presenters sub-section where in the ceremony information section, she is listed as Randy Thomas. Please correct this. Z105space (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Z105space: Done: Changed Randi to Randy per these books covering the Oscars: The Big Show by Steve Pond and Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona. Thanks for the support.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [15].

---

List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A comprehensive list of Arsenal records and notable statistics, modelled on other football lists which already been promoted. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite "based in North London": perhaps mention the exact part of London, i.e. Holloway? "Wembley Stadium, their temporary home for UEFA Champions League games": I'd state the time period. I think there's an issue with the use of plural and singular. In Honours, we have "Their first national senior...", followed two sentences later by "Arsenal won its first league" (my bold). The rule I go by is club = singular and team = plural. Honours: are there any free-use images of Arsenal players with a trophy that could be used here? Per WP:MOSFLAG, "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag". The flags in the "Most appearances" and "Top goalscorers" tables are accompanied only by the players. You should either add a "Nationality" column or remove the flags. I'd personally go with the latter (along with the "Transfers" tables), as I don't think it's especially pertinent information. Goalscorers: for league records, I would name the division. I think readers would be interested to know what division Ted Drake scored forty-two goals in. "38–game": not sure we need an en dash here. "Most league goals in a calendar year": unreferenced. "Most goals in a single match": "single" is redundant. International: is there a suitable image to go here? Transfers: The text in the "Notes" columns doesn't need to be small. Alternatively, they could be turned into footnotes. Matches: could you include the rounds for cup competitions? And how about the first match at Wembley? Record consecutive results: "This section applies to all competitions" isn't strictly true, when this section includes league records. Attendances: does the 73,707 attendance need to be stated twice? European statistics: could you write a few sentences giving an overview of Arsenal's record in European competitions? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Cheers for taking a look, I believe I've addressed all your points. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC) The "Most appearances" and "Top goalscorers" tables need footnotes to detail the competitions they include, like at this list. "Henry was Arsenal's leading goalscorer for seven consecutive seasons, from 1999–2000 to 2005–06": unreferenced. Footnotes A and C are unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Have made corrections, thanks again. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Hopefully we will one day see an Arsenal F.C. featured topic! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu "The club was renamed a third time..." — Shouldn't it be 'second time', since it was the second time the name was changed? Whoops, good spot. Typo: "friendles". "The club have won..." — Can we use the plural for "club" in the same way as for "team"? I've replaced it with 'Arsenal', the shortened form of the club's full name should refer to the team, or team(s) of the day. Hope that's clear. "... something once achieved before, by Preston North End..." — Drop the comma. Arsenal never won the UEFA Cup, so the competition name should not be alongside 'Inter-Cities Fairs Cup' in the Honours section. In the Player records\Appearances\International section, there's no need to repeat "while an Arsenal player" in the 3rd and 4th items, after stating that restriction right before the list. Only the first image has alt text. Ref #69 is dead since 5 October 2015. — Parutakupiu (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much, believe all your comments have been addressed and I've responded to certain points. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support as my comments have been addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• This list is in great shape, but for two points I have. The appearances records section is a bit sparse, you could add who has the most most appearances in Europe, the FA Cup, who has made the consecutive appearances etc. Likewise the managerial records sections is a bit small. You could add most games as manager, who has won the most games, lost the most, best winning percentage, shortest managerial regign etc. That is assuming the information is available, which i think it will be more for the majority of the above. NapHit (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look at this NapHit, I've beefed up the appearances section and added some more managerial records. The manager who has won and lost the most games is Wenger; without context it's pointless hence why I've excluded it. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Happy to support now that my niggles have been dealt with! NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 November 2015 (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 03:14, 16 November 2015 [16].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia

Nominator(s): Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

When preparing this list, I have followed the example of the Spanish article which is already a FL. Checking the criteria:

• 1 and 2 - I suppose this is fine. May require some language tweaks, I'll be happy if you point them out.
• 3 - it is complete and cannot be presented as a part of another article, at least not in this shape.
• 4 - tables work and are sortable.
• 5 - all images except for one are on Commons, the one with Plečnik is free under the US law.
• 6 - it is stable. Changes are expected when status of nominations change or more sites are added but that is about it.

Tone 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This list is only 3+5 items long. Not sure it should be a FL, since the +5 might not happen anytime soon. I suggest get this at GAN after reformatting to have a minisection on each of the currently listed 3 sites. I also suggest to remove "list of" from the title. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, however, FLs List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar and List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba are not much longer themselves. And Madagascar also has only 3 sites on the main list. Still, if this fails, GAN is an option, I agree. --Tone 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Those were promoted in 2010 and 2011. I am pretty sure that if they would have been nominated more recently they would have gotten more scrutiny about it. It is difficult to name something "list of 3 items" and be taken seriously. From my memory, shorts lists are delayed FL until they become somewhat longer, but in this case this "list" might never be longer than 3 entries. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I would add a slightly bigger location map to the list (similar to the one for WH in Cuba) --Smihael (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

400 -> 500 px. What do you think? I wouldn't go bigger than that. --Tone 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, 400px is better, so I've restored the original size and hope that we won't go bickering about that. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: well-written, meets all the criteria. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Taking off my delegate hat to review this, with one caveat- this list is 8 items long in 2 tables, and as Nergaal mentioned that is a bit short; that said, I'm fine with it due to its status as one of a set (e.g. the "List of World Heritage sites in [country]" set). If this was a branched-off list such as a "list of accolades" list I wouldn't be okay with the length, but in this case it's cool, assuming the promoting delegate doesn't disagree. Anyways, review:

• I'd change "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992." to "Slovenia, following the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, succeeded the convention on 5 November 1992.", just to give a little more context.
• "The first site [...] were the Škocjan Caves" -> was
• "inscribed at the 10th session in 1986" -> "inscribed at the 10th UNESCO session in 1986"
• "both of them being transnational entries" -> "both of them transnational entries"
• "pile dwellings at Ig, within the Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps in 2011, and Idrija, as Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija in 2012." -> "pile dwellings at Ig, part of the "Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps" transnational site, in 2011; and Idrija, as part of the "Heritage of Mercury. Almadén and Idrija" transnational site, in 2012."
• "Of these three sites, Škocjan Caves are a natural site" -> either "the Škocjan Caves are" or "Škocjan Caves is"
• The table key is mostly unnecessary; the name and location and description is entirely self-evident from the name. I'd change the header to "In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number, the year the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." I'd also personally put that as a note on the UNESCO column, but either way is fine.
• Comments is a bad column name, because that's not really what's in there; I'd change it to "Shared with", drop "shared with" from cells that have that, and put {{n/a}} in the empty cells
• Ig is missing a space in "iv,v"
• "Two sites in Slovenia are listed, the pile dwellings in Ig, the northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)." -> "Two sites in Slovenia are listed: the pile dwellings in Ig, northern group (kolišča na Igu, severna skupina), and the pile dwellings in Ig, southern group (kolišča na Igu, južna skupina)."
• "The area that developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising" -> "The area that was developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", or "The area developed for the particular needs of alpine pasture cattle-raising", depending on what you meant.
• That entire description needs to be rewritten; it's two sentences jammed together and it's confusing as to subject-verb matching. I'd go with "Ždrocle Virgin Forests in the forest reserves Krokar and Snežnik represent an outstanding example of undisturbed, complex temperate forests. They demonstrate the postglacial expansion process of such forests and exhibit the most complete and comprehensive ecological patterns and processes of pure and mixed stands of European Beech across a variety of environmental conditions."
• Architectural heritage of Jože Plečnik description starts with a sentence fragment; revise into a full sentence.
• The "Shared with" bit above applies to this table too
• References are malformed; you're misusing the templates. You have UNESCO World Heritage Centre as the author of the refs, but they should be listed as the publisher, with author blank. The refs also need an accessdate. I think we can safely assume that archiving the refs is very optional for these citations, though.
• Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps is redirecting to lowercase p pile, no other redirects
• If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC above. --PresN 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will try to go through the comments this weekend. --Tone 10:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • How are we doing with this batch of comments? At a glance, it looks like at least some work has been done, but it would be nice to have the progress updated here. Although we can leave this FLC active for a little while longer, it is close enough to ending in a promotion that it would be a shame if things were to bog down now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was kind of busy ... I addressed all the above comments, just the references are left to be fixed. I used the script to format them, I guess I'll have to go manually through after all. Give me a couple of days, ok? ;) --Tone 08:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done with the comments (fixing the refs was easier than I thought ;) ) Please have a look and let me know if there's anything else to be improved. --Tone 20:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Support. --PresN 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I wanted to review your nomination but by the time I got there, it has already been promoted ... --Tone 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, like I said, completely optional! Though, I do now have another one if you want to... --PresN 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

---

List of UK Album Downloads Chart number ones of the 2000s

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been improving this article over the past couple of weeks, and feel that it is now ready for FLC. It's inspired heavily by the equivalent singles list, which was promoted to FL back in November 2013. I welcome any ways in which it might be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

"During the 2000s, the chart was compiled by The Official UK Charts Company (OCC) on" – isn't its current name Official Charts Company? Yes, but, during the 2000s, the organisation was known as The Official UK Charts Company. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "As single downloads grew in popularity, so too did album downloads". Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) I see that there are places where you use The Official UK Charts Company, while Official Charts Company is used at some places. Maintain consistency. My thinking was that I used The Official UK Charts Company whenever I cited one of their sources from before their name change, and the Official Charts Company for any source from after then. Would you disagree with that? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) You don't need the domain in ref 5. Also, it's a magazine, so it needs to be in italics. Done. 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) According to WP:OVERLINKING, do not link well-known geographies, so de-link New York City in ref 7. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) A dead link and a redirect link according to this. Fix em. Done. The navbox template does not link the article anywhere. Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Mind leaving some comments here? -- Frankie talk 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Sure. That'll be my next port of call. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – all of my queries have been answered. -- Frankie _talk 15:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Frankie! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johanna

Hello! This looks like a very great list. Just a few comments (feel free to discuss these with me)

• "The most successful artist of the decade was…22 weeks at number one with nine different albums." If possible, could this be sourced? Unless you think it's unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE, I would cite them.
  • I can't find any source that states this explicitly, but each individual week can be cited from the Official Charts Company. My thinking was based on WP:CALC, which says that routine calculations (such as adding up all the weeks that an album was at number one) don't count as original research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• "As of February 2015, the UK Album Download Chart continues to be published each week by the OCC." Why is this relevant to this article?
  • I dunno, it just seemed that, since I've devoted so much of the lead to discuss how and why the chart was founded, it might be relevant to discuss whether it's still being compiled today. If you think it's out of place, I'll remove it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Should the "by artist" and "by record label" sections be cited?
  • Same kind of argument as above (i.e. WP:CALC). They just felt like the sorts of things that a person could reasonably expect to want to know from reading this article. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: This is a nicely compiled list. Once again, you can discuss any of these with me that you want. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, Johanna! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support No issues I can spot. A good and very solidly constructed article. Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • How embarrassing... I'd completely forgotten that I'd even nominated this. Thank you for the support, Miyagawa! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – About the only thing I see that is worth commenting upon is the presence of a few "noun + -ing" sentence structures in the lead. I see "with a further 825,000 being downloaded during the first three months of 2006" in the second paragraph and a couple more in the third. Try to fix a couple of these if possible. Otherwise, it looks to be in fine shape. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Think I've got them all. Thanks a lot for the review, Giants2008! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Support – You did get them all. As I said earlier, I thought the list was just about ready for FL, and I think it's there now. Nice job on the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the support, Giants2008! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing this nomination as passed. Remember that the best way to ensure that future nominations move through the pipeline as fast as possible is to review other editor's nominations! --PresN 21:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

---

England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I recently came across List of England Test matches, which was a huge list of every England Test match, but was so big that it became pretty useless. I have condensed that page into the summary that it is now, and split the results lists down by era to hopefully make them more accessible. This is the first of them. The list is loosely based upon the similar Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results, which is a FL. As always, all comments, criticisms and nattering welcome! Harrias ^talk 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:This looks good. A few comments, however: "It is the joint-oldest Test playing nation, along with Australia, England's opposition in the first Test match, which took place at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 1877." This seems a clumsy way of phrasing it. All you need to say is "England played Australia in the first ever Test match, which took place at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 1877." We learn that they were the only two Test nations until 1888 later in the paragraph. Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "the Australian team had not been considered strong enough to play on equal terms previously." This needs to be "the Australian team had not previously been considered strong enough to play on equal terms." Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "against whom they had a 2.714 win/loss ratio" I've never seen win/loss ratio in following cricket before! I think it would be more instructive to say "against whom they won 19 matches and lost just 7". Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "In 19 matches, England won by an innings," This would be better phrased as "England won 19 matches by an innings". Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "they scored their lowest ever innings score in Test cricket, 45 runs." Is it still their lowest score? Clarification and a reference either way would be good. Added a reference to support it being their lowest ever score. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) The table looks fine, but could the two footnotes not be combined into one? Yup, combined. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relentlessly (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Thanks for your valuable input on the prose; I've updated the article now to reflect the suggested changes. Harrias ^talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to support this now. Relentlessly (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)

Comments - looks good "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales in Test cricket." - It's worth adding until when Scotland was a part of the team. Given that Scotland was part of England team throughout this period I'm not sure it's warranted. I guess I could add a footnote? Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, I too, was insisting on adding a FN. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "In 19 matches" - In total (until then)? I'm not sure what this refers to; I think it's something I've changed slightly due to Relentlessly's comments. Could you clarify? Looks like the text has changed, no issues. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC) In these kinda lists, it's enough if we mention the names in alt texts. I don't think it does any harm to give a slight bit more information. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) It does matter only when his appearance/style has got something to do with this list. Anyways, that's not a big issue. —Vensatry (ping) 12:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: Thanks for your comments, I've asked for clarification on a couple. Harrias talk 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry:Added note about Scotland. Harrias talk 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 13:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are all entries for Adelaide Oval, the same apart from the 1908 one? I think just having Adelaide Oval, as you do for the majority is fine.
• Same for Sydney Cricket Ground, there is one rogue entry as well.

Other than that, it looks good. NapHit (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Colonies Chris was doing some tidying, and I assume they just missed those couple. Cleaned both up now. Harrias ^talk 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, happy to support now. Great work! NapHit (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales" odd start, I know it no longer represents Scotland, but perhaps you need to put a timeframe here, rather than just hide it in the note... I avoided putting a specific time-frame because it represented all three countries throughout the period in question here, and so the time-frame is a technicality for this article. I could add it in if you insist, but I'm not convinced it's that significant for this article. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "The England cricket team represented England, Scotland and Wales in Test cricket.[a] England played ..." England England England... bit clunky for me. "of English players" (et seq) should that be "England players" if they could have been Welsh or Scottish? Hmmm... that is an interesting point. Given that they weren't formally playing as England, I don't think it would be appropriate. I wonder if I could get away with skipping it; "Although four touring parties had visited Australia prior to 1877..." What do you think? Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "the only nations to compete" again, not sure about "nations" since England's team represented three nations... Changed. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "were all against" no need for "all". Removed. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "against both opponents, but were particularly strong against South Africa, against " against against against... Changed the middle one to versus. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "their 10 runs win" shouldn't that just be "their 10-run win"? Yes, changed. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Last sentence of lead could use rewording for me, as it comes as somewhat a surprise that despite scoring their lowest Test score ever, they still won the match. Reworded, how is that? Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Any reason why "English cricket team in Australia in 1882–83" has no (result)? It wasn't a series, but an add on match, so it didn't seem appropriate. I could easily add one in. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) I've now added this, as it did seem oddly inconsistent to not have it. Harrias talk 11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Mildly confused by how they played South Africa in South Africa on 19 March 1892 then Australia in Adelaide five days later... I guess a note would be helpful that two "England" teams co-existed... Meant to do this, but forgot. Will find a decent reference for such a note and add it in. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) In the summary table, Mat and W/L aren't noted in the key, and I'm not sure how useful W/L is, why not W%? The source (ESPNcricinfo) uses W/L, hence I used it. I could change it, though it would be synthesis rather than sourced. Harrias talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC) That's it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

I like the idea and like much of the execution. The time period is justifiable, which is important.

• I think the lead should be a bit chunkier and I wonder if it's worth expanding slightly on the fact that in 1877 there were only two Test nations, and that SA then joined the fold?

• Standalone lists aren't necessarily supposed to have a great deal of text, though I don't mind adding more in if relevant. I'm unsure what expansion can be made on these lines, which is mentioned in the last sentence of the first paragraph, without adding redundancy. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Some comment about the Triangular Tournament, please. I wonder if the fantastic cartoon from Punch is out of copyright?

• The Triangular Tournament is definitely worth mentioning; I'll need to dig out a couple of additional sources for it. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

--Dweller (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead as per your message on my talk page, adding a couple of references to support the information, what do you think now? Harrias ^talk 11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking good. Should "their 10-run win over Australia during the 1894–95 Ashes series was their third narrowest win by runs" read "...is their third narrowest win by runs" ? --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, altered. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing this nomination as passed. Remember that the best way to ensure that future nominations move through the pipeline as fast as possible is to review other editor's nominations! --PresN 21:29, 6 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [17].

---

List of accolades received by Lagaan

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lagaan is one of the most influential film ever produced by Indian cinema. It won several awards and nomination. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of it's award list. All kind of comments are welcomed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala "and grossed over ₹1.3 billion (US$20 million) worldwide, making it a box office success" can be rephrased as and was commercially successful grossing over ₹1.3 billion (US$20 million) globally/worldwide. "becoming the third Hindi-language film to be nominated in the category after" — here you can use third Indian Hindi film. Wikilink Bosnian Is there a reliable source stating that No Man's Land won the Academy Award? If yes, add it. "At the 49th National Film Awards, the film won a total of eight awards, including Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment." — including the "It also won eight awards at the 47th Filmfare Awards, including Best Film, Best Director and..." — including the ones for. Ditto for Screen Awards. Break the third paragraph into two, the fourth should start from Channel 4. Thank you for your comments Pavan, I have resolved all of them; except for the fourth one. Since the source in the table already mentions the winners and nominees of the academy awards, it feels unnecessary to add another one in the lead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Well, if that is the case, do you require to name the winner too? Wouldn't it divert the focus Yash? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Removed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. Nice job. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Relentlessly (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly Looks like a decent list, but there are significant problems with prose. Yashpal Sharma, Raghubir Yadav, British actors Rachel Shelley and Paul Blackthorne play supporting roles This doesn't make sense. The words "British actors" make the sentence ungrammatical and, to my mind, add little useful meaning. Set in the Victorian period of India's colonial British Raj, Lagaan revolves around a small village whose inhabitants, oppressed by high taxes, find themselves challenged by an arrogant officer in a Cricket match, as a wager to avoid the taxes. This is not an elegant sentence. I suggest Lagaan is set in India in 1893, during the British Raj. The film tells the story of a small village whose inhabitants are oppressed by high taxes. They are challenged to a cricket match by an arrogant officer as a wager to avoid the taxes. Made on a budget of ₹250 million (US$3.0 million), Lagaan was released on 15 June 2001, and was commercially successful grossing over ₹1.3 billion (US$16 million) globally. Again this is inelegant phrasing; it's two related facts with an unrelated fact in the middle. Try Lagaan was released on 15 June 2001. It was made on a budget of ₹250 million (US$3.0 million) and was commercially successful: it grossed over ₹1.3 billion (US$16 million) globally. Can you explain why we need a semicolon after successful? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) It's a colon, needed because there are two separate independent clauses. You could make the second one a subordinate clause ("was commercially successful, grossing over..."). This is common and you do it a lot. I think, however, it makes the sentence harder to understand. To make your writing as clear as possible, I suggest you minimise your use of subordinate clauses. Relentlessly (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks. That was helpful. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, in both India and international; with particular praise for its direction, performances and landscapes. This is another poor bit of phrasing. First "garner" is journalese (particularly prominent in Indian film articles, for some reason). Second, "in international" doesn't make sense. Finally, the subclause needs a comma not a semicolon. The film received nominations and awards in several categories both in India and internationally. There was particular praise for its direction, performances and landscapes. You may also consider "acting" rather than "performances". But it lost to the Bosnian film No Man's Land. Don't start sentences with "but" in encyclopaedia articles. At the 49th National Film Awards Can you clarify that these are Indian national awards? including the ones for Best Film, Best Director and Best Story for Gowariker and Best Actor for Khan This could be better phrased. including the Best Film, Best Director and Best Story awards for Gowariker and the Best Actor award for Khan I feel that mentioning "the ones for" would make the sentence more clear. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not going to argue this with you, but I don't think "the ones for" is attractive English. YMMV, of course: feel free to disregard if you like. Relentlessly (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Nothing like that. I wanted to clarify as it would help both me (in my future endeavours) as well as this FLC's nominator. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Finally, a list comment. There is no bottom border on the date column. I think this is because you have mis-matched rowspan numbers. Relentlessly (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly, I think all of your comments has been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Support. Relentlessly (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Could you write the translation of the film's title just like here. "Lagaan is set in India in 1893, during the British Raj." – did we forget to italicize the title of the film? "and was commercially successful:" is simply redundant as the worldwide gross and budget are already written. And since the amount of the gross is greater than budget, it automatically indicates that the film was a commercial success. The two last sentences of the second para can be merged. "Lagaan was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the 74th Academy Awards" The third sentence of third paragraph has too many "awards". The third paragraph has used the word "including" four times. Link CNN-IBN in reference 14. De-italicize Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in source 15. Reference 28 does not list all of the recipients and nominees added in the list. Quite a few WP:DASH violations in the titles of references. -- Frankie talk 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for you comments FrB.TG, all your comments has been resolved. But, i can't find a single reliable source that lists all the winners and nominees for the Screen awards. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The format of this reference might help you. -- Frankie talk 11:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – my craps are above. -- Frankie _talk 08:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 08:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt land tax --> Land Tax Done For singers and lyricist, mention the song(s) Done For National Film Awards, Udit Narayan won the award for two songs. That needs a mention in the note but not in the award list. You can use footnotes/explanatory notes. Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC) For NatFilm Festival, the source mentions the closing ceremony was held on 14th April 2002. Corrected 5 April is not needed. Removed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Sorting seems off: Use {{dts}} for dates and {{sortname}} for names. I have based this list on other indian film FL's , and they don't have such sorts. I havent followed any of the indian film FLs but if they are doing this way, then they are doing it wrong way. But you can take a look at Hollywood FLs. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Vivvt, i have added the infobox but the dts and name sort don't seem really important to me. For instance this and this list have the same kind of sorts as Lagaan's list. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Quoting Rambling man from the discussion here..."To sort names, use the {{sortname}} template, not the {{sort}} template." - Vivvt (Talk) 04:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Vivvt, I have added the sortname templates, should i also add the dts ones as well?. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) That would be good. Also, sortname is only needed for the first name in the column. Other entries can stay as normal wikilinks. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Added dts sort for dates. Can you please elaborate the sortname issue? The names should be wikilinked everytime they are mentioned in the list. With out sorts, they won't be wikilinked. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC) You need to use sortname only for the first name in the given column. e.g. if its A, B, and C, You need to use sortname only for A. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Then how B and C will get wikilinked? Sorry i can't understand, but if you can please perform the edit yourself. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) "becoming the third Indian Hindi film" --> Hindi not required Removed "At the Screen Awards," --> mention ceremony plus consider rephrasing for the sentence. Done. Screen Awards --> 8th Screen Awards You can use "the film" and "Lagaan" interchangeably than only using "it". - Vivvt (Talk) 09:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Removed and replaced on two instances, but the rest looks fine to me coz the word "it" goes with the flow of the sentence. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [18].

---

Rudolph Valentino filmography

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino was one of the huge stars of the era of silent films, and still a iconic figure a hundred years later. Hisreputation rests on his roles in fourteen films, including The Sheik (1921), The Young Rajah (1922), The Eagle (1925), The Son of the Sheik (1926). This list has been split off from the main Valentino article, overhauled, re-written and is now in line with MoS strictures. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

The lead seems somewhat incomplete when none of his "lost" films are even mentioned by name. It would help to include at least ones with their own articles. Also, it would help to include something on the levels of critical and commercial success his films had. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I'll add some details on the critical and commercial success shortly, but I'm not sure we need to add details of the lost films, especially as he was an uncredited extra in most of them. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I've added more detail for the background covering the repute and box office info, as well as some info on the LoC National Film Registry entries, which give a modern measure of their repute. Many thanks for your thoughts on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks SNUGGUMS; good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

Need alt text on all of them. They are otherwise appropriately licensed on Commons and of good, clear quality. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'll add alt text, but it doesn't need to be added, although it is good practice. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• According to This, they do need to be added.— Maile (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's one opinion: others may differ and it's not a point that is insisted upon at either FAC or FLC. Having said that. I'll repeat that I do intend to do this shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Now added - many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Jimknut, much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
;Quick comment Why is My Official Wife's year indicated as 1941 when he died fifteen years earlier? And if it was released that year, then why is it listed first rather than last on the table with an indication of a posthumous release? --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Cheers Birdienest81: it was a typo for 1914. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I think the list is perfect. Great job.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Birdienest81, much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 2 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [19].

---

List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Vuelta a España

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Vuelta a España was the third of the three-week cycling Grand Tours in 2015 and was a fantastic race, decided in the final kilometres of the final climb. This list is closely modelled after List of teams and cyclists in the 2015 Tour de France, which was recently promoted to featured list status, and I think this is very close too. Relentlessly (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments "The 2015 Vuelta a España was the 70th edition of the race, which is one of cycling's three Grand Tours." there is something troubling about the lead sentence, reads as though two different statements have been mushed together to make one. The second clause has nothing to do with the first. Perhaps "The 2015 Vuelta a España was the 70th edition of the race, which is one of cycling's three Grand Tours."? "The race included three days in Andorra, including the whole of stage 11," repetitive verb "The riders came from 32 countries. France, Spain and Italy all had 20 or more riders in the race", link both sentences with a semicolon. Under 'teams', "Two French teams, Cofidis and Team Europcar, were also invited. MTN-Qhubeka were invited for the second consecutive year...," repetitive. MOS:DTT could be applied to No. row for table 'By starting number' Publishers for Ref 1, 2 seeing as the other refs have publishers included. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Lemonade51. I've addressed all of your points except the DTT one. Which specific section are you referring to? One thing I realise is slightly different from 2015 Tour list, which is already featured, is that that list uses th cells for the riders' names. Is that what you mean? It already uses {{{1}}}. Relentlessly (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC) | scope="row" data-sort-value="Froome, Chris" should be ! scope="row" data-sort-value="Froome, Chris"; replace with exclamation mark before each scope="row". Lemonade51 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Lemonade51. That page could do with rewriting at some point: I find even the basic guide hard to follow! The page is fixed now, in any case. Relentlessly (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support on style and structure. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "The race was won by Fabio Aru (Astana). Aru first took..." would change the second use of Aru to he, to avoid repeating his name in close proximity.
• "One prominent team to miss out on an entry was UnitedHealthcare." -> One prominent team not invited was United Healthcare.
• In the lead it says 32 different countries were represented, yet in the by country table it says 37...which one is it?
• This is more personal preference, but there isn't much use to including qoutes in the references.

NapHit (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, NapHit. The first three are done. I haven't removed the quotes from the citations. I agree they aren't necessary; in many cases, however, the page only slightly mentions the withdrawal, so it's useful to highlight it, in my view. Relentlessly (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support with a comment: It would be nice to have information on the youngest and oldest riders taking part, especially since there is no young rider classification. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Parutakupiu, thanks for your review. I have added the information you asked for. I'm afraid I reverted most of your changes, however. They introduced inaccuracies into the text (several required very deliberate phrasing). I also disagree with several of the edits you made to phrasing. I'm very willing to discuss these changes further if you wish. Relentlessly (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my edits disrupted the sense of some phrases, because I did not notice nor believe I was doing that at the time. My attempt was to promote a better flow of the prose and remove some redundancies. I'm OK with your reversal of my changes, but I see that by doing it you reintroduced some issues, such as beginning sentences with numbers ("158 riders finished...") or – less problematic – having very short sentences that could be linked with adjacent ones. I noticed another problem: the riders' ages do not sort correctly in the table. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Good catch on the table: it was a problem I noticed on the equivalent Giro list but forgot to fix here. Done now. WRT the other points, I am very careful with how I write my prose: I almost never use absolute constructions (stylish in Latin, fine in spoken English, odd in written English) and I deliberately do not join sentences together unless they are closely linked. I also prefer short sentences to long ones if the shorter sentence conveys the information more clearly. And I see no reason not to start sentences with numerals if it's the most direct way of making the point, but I have edited the relevant sentence in this case; it's certainly no worse. I'm curious about the rule though: I've never heard it before and I write English for a living! Relentlessly (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Different ways of writing. :) As for the numerals rule, see WP:NUMNOTES. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 2 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [20].

---

Kerala State Film Award for Best Actress

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A state government award list based on National Film Award for Best Actress, an existing FL. I've not included the roles played by the actresses in the table as most of them aren't notable enough outside the film. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(ping) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

"The awardees, decided" – awardees seems a little bit odd to me. How about recipients? "Awardees" is very much an encyclopedic word. —Vensatry (ping) 12:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Since then, there have been many instances where an actress was awarded based on her performance in more than one film during a year." – I think this can rephrased as something like "Since then, several actresses have been awarded for more than one performance during a single year." Why are the first letters of the words in description capitalized? Please add {{Abbr}} for Refs. I think references in the center look much better as opposed to be on the left side. You have added that Jayabharathi has been awarded for various films in the year 1972. Could you add the names of those films in a footnote? Unfortunately the official catalog doesn't specify those films. Given it was a time when the Malayalam film industry churned out numerous films, and the actress being a leading heroine in the industry then, it's certainly impossible to find out them. —Vensatry (ping) 12:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Quite a few MOS:DASH violations to fix. -- Frankie talk 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (ping) 12:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Good work. -- Frankie _talk 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala "In 1998", "took the control over the awards" — change them to "Since 1998", "has been exercising control over the awards" respectively. Because till date, the control is in the hands of the academy only. Done as suggested —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "Cultural Affairs Department" or "Department of Cultural Affairs". Only one of them please. Done as suggested —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Did Sheela receive the award for her role or performance in the film? Because the next sentence itself says something else. "Performance" obviously, but no harm if we say "roles". After all, it's the role that helps actors win awards. —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I accept that. But, i have found that two instances use "roles" and the other two use "performances". i want to make sure that uniformity (say consistency) is practiced in the lead. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Not really, using the same term in successive sentences would make the prose a bit monotonous. —Vensatry (ping) 15:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "have won the award two times in their careers" — twice in their careers. "twice" is a bit archaic. —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "winning the accolade" — The whole paragraph says award, and this sentence says accolade. Why so? Done —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Why Kerala State Chalachitra Academy is Wikilinked more than once in the references? Any specific reason? To maintain uniformity. —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) But isn't it a general practice to link a person/newspaper/website/organisations in references only at the "first mention"? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) According to the "general practice", we should either link all or the first occurrence alone. —Vensatry (ping) 15:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Optional, but is there any logo available? Unfortunately, we don't have a free image. —Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG and Pavanjandhyala: Thanks for the review and timely responses. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Looks a worthy candidate!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 2 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [21].

---

List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2012 Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10 and 2012 Tour de France, Stage 11 to Stage 20 articles are currently up for GA. When I saw the 2015 equivalent to this get nominated for FL, I thought that by getting the 2012 list to FL the race could become a good topic. I have followed the comments on 2015, and both are almost identical in terms of the structure and tables. BaldBoris 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I nominated the 2015 list linked above, promoted to FL with BaldBoris' help. I've had a good look through this, trying to find something to quibble over, and I can't. I'm very happy to support it. One "nice to have" would be an additional image in the lead, perhaps this one. It's a really nice list. Relentlessly (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Other than this: "Riders of thirty-one different nationalities participated...", which should be 31 not thirty-one, I don't much wrong this list. Great work. NapHit (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. After some copyediting, this is pretty much in good shape. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything I'd change, good stuff here. Disc Wheel (T + C) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:42, 2 November 2015 (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 02:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [22]

List of Alamo defenders

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This list is part of the Battle of the Alamo series of articles. Karanacs helped with cross-checking of sources, an intrinsic factor in making this list as accurate as possible without original research. For some in Texas where a family tree might claim an ancestor on either side of the battle, knowing who was inside the fortress is personal. For academics and other "Alamoheads" (as they call themselves), it has been more of an obsessive quest for 179 years. Each generation brings new methodologies to archival research, to reaffirm or debunk existing names on the list, and hoping to discover yet another defender.— Maile (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment

• I haven't looked at this in great depth, but one query. A casualty is defined as "a person killed or injured". But given that this list is split into casualties and survivors, are we to assume all those listed as casualty died? If so, shouldn't they be listed instead as fatalities? Harrias ^talk 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Done - Good catch. I changed all of them. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support this article is looking is great shape, particularly after the changes suggested by PresN below. Harrias ^talk 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Review by PresN

• Wikilink Texian the first time you use it in the lead, since you don't explain the term and then link it later in "Identifying the combatants"
• You introduce Lindley simply as Thomas Ricks Lindley; at least mention that they're a historian or whatever, even if you leave the mention of their book until the second mention
• "Determining exactly who was inside the Alamo has been an ongoing historical quest. It is likely there will never be a definitive list." - the phrasing here is a bit editorializing
• There's a lot of inconsistencies in the Notes column between whether you're using full sentences or sentence fragments; not only should this be consistent (I recommend fragments unless you have a multi-sentence note) but fragments should not end in a period. The "He" you occasionally use is especially off-putting, since most times you refer to the person in that row by their last name instead

Will work on this tomorrow when I have more time. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Done — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• For sortable lists, you can't just link the "first" instance of something, because if you sort on a column which one is first changes. You'll need to link either everything or nothing in the Birthplace column
• Denmark, Randers is backwards and redirects
• Backwards city/states seems to be a thing you have; you should replace them with {{sort|state, city|[[city, state]]}} to get the sorting you want without having to flip the order
• I find the split between this list and List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo, which is a subset of this list, kin of odd- shouldn't that one be merged into this one?

Well, no, they were never meant to be merged. The defenders list was created in January 2008, and is just that...only the ones who were armed and actively involved in the fighting. The survivors which Karanacs created in March 2008 and took to FL, was meant to be only the survivors and contains children and other civilian non-combatants. While I can't answer for Karanacs, it's clear she never meant the survivor list to be part of the defender list.— Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I was in a hurry on a small screen and didn't realize that the survivor list included non-combatants. As such it's not a subset of this list, so never mind. --PresN 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are some errors in footnotes- missing space in 3, odd period after the page number in 6, missing space in 15, mucked up dash in 23, period again in 38 and 56, 67, 70, 72, etc (ctrl-f for ".;" for the rest), missing space in 83, 93, 113, 115, 122, etc, and you're really inconsistent on if a reference ends with a period after the page number or not

I'll deal with this tomorrow when I have more time. I need to have a good look at all of them.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I believe I've caught all this, and am never likely to forget this as a learning curve. You have a very fine eye. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• ISBNs are all inconsistent in your references- ISBNs should be (978-)1-4444-4444-1.

PresN - I need clarification on what you are saying. Are you saying they should all be 13-number ISBNs? Because not all ISBNs are 13 numbers - they just aren't. Even with the 13-number ISBNs, how the numbers are separated depends on where the book was published. In many, if not most, of the cases the ISBN numbers were taken directly from the book cover and is exactly like the publisher had them. I don't know about the parenthesis (978) you are using. It isn't inconsistency, unless I misunderstand you. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

They don't have to be ISBN13s; what I meant was that for, for example, in ref 2 you have the isbn as "978-1-55622-255-9": this should be "978-1-5562-2255-9". For ISBN10s, like ref 3, it should not be "0-938349-68-6", it should be "0-9383-4968-6". I'm looking it up now, and it seems like that's not actually a universal rule; that said, they should be consistent, and 1-4-4-1 was the way I was told was the correct pattern. I suppose you can pick whatever pattern you like best; it's a really, really minor thing that I would never consider opposing over, I just noticed they weren't consistent. --PresN 00:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the style on iSBNs, it's one of those things at Wikipedia that triggers different opinions on different articles/reviews. Just for the heck of it, I know @Mr Stephen: uses AWB to clean up ISBN numbers. If he would like to run that on this article, I would have no objection. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. PresN:, the length of the fields varies, there isn't a simple 1-4-4-1 rule. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, guess I was wrong, then. --PresN 13:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC up above. --PresN 21:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• @PresN:, I believe I have addressed all the issues you mentioned. Thank you in particular for your insight on the notes section and the citations. That helped me reduce the overall size of the article, and helped make me a better editor in the future. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. --PresN 01:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Remember the Alamo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 2 November 2015 (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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [23].

---

List of ant subfamilies

Nominator(s): jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The ants are back. This list was previously nominated in July last year. It failed mostly because there was not enough of a consensus after more than two months, and it must be mentioned that a delegate and another editor were not comfortable with having a FLC based to such a large extent on open content (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; please see the first nom for details). The list looks very much the same, but has been updated. jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I still retain my support from the previous nomination and everything is up to date, especially with the genera. I do have one question though - If ants that lack a metapleural gland are excluded from Formicidae, wouldn't ants such as Camponotus and Polyrhachis be excluded as well, or is this statement only discussing Armaniinae ants? In regards to the issue of using open content, I do not find it really concerning if it's from a free source that allows its redistribution. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is only required to have evolved in a common ancestor (snakes and whales are both "four-footed", heh). I've tweaked the sentence slightly.

Makes sense, your changes look good. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments - supported last time, just a few small comments before I support again:

• "but overturn others — and suggest" - this shoudl either be an unspaced mdash or a spaced ndash, but not the current spaced mdash.

Done

• " the most recently discovered subfamily.[4][1]" - reverse the order of the refs

Done

• "All were placed in the single genus Formica..." - this sentence runs on and on with commas- rework or (better yet) split into two sentences.

Reworded slightly

• A little out of bounds for this nomination, but it's odd that this list says that Armaniinae is a subfamily that's sometimes the family Armaniidae but there's evidence that contradicts that, but when you click through to Armaniinae it redirects to Armaniidae and says that the consensus is that interpretation. (Then the Genera and species section reverses that again.) Seems like the two should match. --PresN 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I had a discussion regarding this issue with another editor last year. It boils down to: 1) This list is based on AntCat's classification, which still treats the taxa as a subfamily. 2) As per LaPolla et al.‍ (2013), this taxa should probably not be classified as a true ant as long as fossils show no evidence of a metapleural gland.

However, listing the taxa as a subfamily in this list (along with the note explaining the situation) is imo better than excluding it, because a) AntCat is an authoritative source for ant taxonomy; cherry picking could constitute original research, and b) classifications change all the time, when AntCat updates their catalog, I'll update this article.

Support - happy to support again! --PresN 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! jonkerz ♠talk 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The first paragraph is largely quotation of the source. I see you mention its licensing terms at the end of the references, but does this allow quotation without inline attribution NIkkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. But I'd also like to confirm the licensing - the given source has a copyright symbol but no information on CC status. Is there another link to verify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• The publisher site says the journal is open access (see here). Open access journals are indeed licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, the publisher site says the journal is hybrid, meaning that some articles are published as open access and others are not. But since this particular article is listed there as open access, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thank you for taking a look at this; Zootaxa does not make it very easy to discover which articles are open access and which are not. Can I mark this issue as resolved? For anyone who wants to confirm that the Ward article is OA, please see the third paragraph from the first nom.

• Yeah, that is what I was trying to say for that specific article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts." I had to read this sentence several times and I am still not sure I understand it. Does it mean that the Leptanillinae are one clade which is sister to another unnamed clade of the poneroids and the formicoids? What are data artifacts? Presumably the relationships of the Martialinae are unknown?

Sentence rewritten with a more recent source

• I would prefer a bit less on the history of classification and some information on the history of ant's evolution. When did they first appear? When did they radiate to their current large number of species? How were they affected by the end-Cretaceous extinction?

I have added some info in. Dudley Miles, could you do some double checks? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info but I have some concerns about it.

"Prior to assuming ecological dominance, only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent (located in the Northern Hemisphere)." I would delete "Prior to assuming ecological dominance". It is not needed and has not been explained at that point. I am not clear what the second part of the sentence means. "a few primitive species were widely known" - known to whom? Does it mean that ants were then confined to the Laurasia and there were only a few widespread species?

Tweaked.

"Following the rise of flowering plants, ants assumed dominance by the Eocene period." This is not quite right. The rise of flowering plants was in the mid-Cretaceous and was at the same time as the emergence of the ants, not their rise to dominance, as explained in your ref 6, which links their dominance to the flowering plants' advance into tropical forests. This ref also explains what is meant by dominance in this context.

Tweaked.

"Some subfamilies, such as Leptanillinae and Martialinae may have diversified from early primitive ants." Did not all subfamilies evolve from early primitive ants?

Removed.

I think this paragraph should be in a separate section, called say "The evolution of ants" rather than in the history of classification section.

Done.

How about something like: "Ants first arose during the mid-Cretaceous, more than 100 million years ago, associated with the rise of flowering plants and an increase in forest ground litter.[6] The earliest known ants evolved from a lineage within the aculeate wasps, and a recent study suggests that they are a sister group of Apoidea.[7] During the Cretaceous ants were confined to the northern Laurasian supercontinent, with only a few widespread primitive species.[8] By the middle Eocene, around 50 million years ago, ants had diversified and become ecologically dominant as predators and scavengers. Ant species are less than 2% of total insect species but have one third of the biomass." This is based only on ref 6, apart from the second and third sentences. You would no doubt wish to amend/add but I hope it is some help. The Laurasia sentence needs checking to see whether my revision is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll use your suggestion, but the changes about the Laurasia part are still correct, that is what I was trying to imply as a matter of fact.

• What does dorylomorph mean? Can it be linked?

There's no page for the dorylomorph clade (army ants and their relatives), but I've reworked the sentence.

• I think it would be helpful to have the explanation of the dagger in the infobox as well as at the start of the list.

Done

• You mention that Brownimeciinae was Cretaceous. You might do the same for Armaniinae. -

Done

• "now only found in the Australian region" I think Australasian would be more accurate.

Done

• "predominantly aboreal ants" Do you mean arboreal? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done

• Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. I've addressed some of the concerns, more to come.
• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on images: While I support the list to be promoted, I'll initiate an image review so we can confirm the images are fine to use. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Almost all images provided are from AntWeb, which allows the redistribution of the photos. All are appropriately licensed and linked.
• File:A_Formica_rufa_sideview.jpg and File:Titanomyrma gigantea 01.jpg are not from AntWeb, but the original uploaders provided appropriate licensing for their distribution. The Formica rufa image is also captioned properly.
• File:Sphecomyrma_freyi_worker_no_1_holotype_(Wilson,_Carpenter_and_Brown_1967).jpg Needs confirmation if this image can actually be redistributed, although the image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review, Burklemore1. I'll ask the people on Commons.

Link: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate

Okay, I have looked at the link and saw the image is in public domain instead? If so, then this image review is in order with no problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the recent changes, all images have been checked and can be used in the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this!

No worries, best of luck on promoting the list! This time it seems to be going much smoother. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to any reviewer: I have noticed that the nominator has not been on Wikipedia for a bit, but I will email him to see if he can solve the single comment that hasn't been addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Sorry for not being more responsive. Burklemore1 has graciously offered to address the final comment (which I've had some issues completing). While this is the oldest open FL nom, I'd be very grateful if the delegates could keep it open and gave Burklemore a chance to save it. jonkerz ♠talk 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I will send a message to some editors to see if they are willing to have a look at this and leave any comments. If they decide to support, at least we could reach consensus to promote. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

Looks good, and I see no reason why reusing free text should be a problem, but why is there a separate clade list at the top of the article? Couldn't this info be incorporated in the main list? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this? Given that the list is nested and that some subfamilies are sisters to all ants, it makes it hard to incorporate it into the main list while still making it easy to read. I think keeping it close to the 'Clades' section makes the text easier to follow. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your example there would actually be less confusing for layman readers. Now it is kind of hard to understand it in context if you don't already know about the subfamilies. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the clade list should be retained if it is going to cause further confusion by adding it into the the actual list itself. However, I will gladly join discussing other alternatives. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "which has generated intense scientific and public interest" Intense is too hyperbolic.

Removed word. I'll let Jonkerz work on your other issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• "only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent" Are widely known? I doubt anyone knew anything back then.

Rewritten, per suggestion given above.

• "As of August 2015, 12 genera are listed as incertae sedis within Formicidae" By who? And is there even agreement on this?

I'm not sure how to handle this, suggestions are welcome. Unless there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community, I tend to not mention it in articles (two of the incerae sedis genera are mentioned in the note section). Some options:

1. Adding something like "according to AntCat", to make it explicit
2. Make it less specific: "About ten genera are incertae sedis (of uncertain placement), and are not assigned to any subfamily."
3. Leave it as is and let the reader follow the ref, because there's no such thing as The One True Taxonomy
4. Removing the sentence (but leaving the preceding in place)

I think #2 is the best option. Let me know what you think. jonkerz ♠talk 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

2 seems ok, and the exact dater seems irrelevant, as long as the text is up to date. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Changed. jonkerz ♠talk 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• The info in the table seems inconsistent. In for example Formiciinae, we get: "Contains the Eocene-aged fossil genus Titanomyrma, with three described species. With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird, T. giganteum and T. simillimum are the largest ants known.[25]" Yet this is not the only genus, so why so much info?

Rewritten. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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