Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2018

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

Meghan Trainor discography

Nominator(s): NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've made sure that only the most reliable sources are used in this list, and it is modeled after Taylor Swift discography, which is also an important FL about one of Trainor's peers as a singer-songwriter. One of the primary reasons this list's first FL failed was because Trainor was a new artist and I was blocked. Both the problems are clearly fixed now.--NØ 07:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z

Resolved comments from Lirim.Z

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Is there another picture? The picture used in the artist article shouldn't be used in the discography.
• Don't use Musicline for German charts, rather use this
• Australian charts: [2]
• "Dear Future Husband" was released as Trainor's third single, and was certified triple platinum by the RIAA. "Dear Future Husband" reached number 14 on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Trainor's third consecutive top 15 single.[8] Trainor's fourth single, "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which featured John Legend, was certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA. It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Trainor's third top-10 song.[8] It also reached number one in Australia and New Zealand. To support the album, two more singles were released; "Dear Future Husband" and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You" featuring John Legend. Both peaked in the top 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 and are certified multi-platinum in the United States. Latter also reached the pole position in Australia and New Zealand.
• and became one of the best-selling singles of all-time with sales of over 11 million units internationally. Add "(As of 2015)."
• Is there any information about the third studio album, that could be used in the lead?

--Lirim

Support.--Lirim | Talk 01:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

• See MOS:NUM re: cats and dogs for your intro sentence, all numbers or all words, but not a mixture.
• Trainor is mentioned four times in four sentences, mix it up a little, sometimes with "she" or similar.
• " When Trainor signed with...", "After signing with Epic, Trainor's..." repetitive.
• "one of the best-selling singles of all-time ." remove space before full stop.
• "All About That Bass" was certified diamond ... why start a new para when this song and its sales were being discussed in the previous para?
• And link "certified" appropriately.
• ""Dear Future Husband" and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", which featured American singer John Legend." did they both feature Legend, that's how this could be read.
• "reached the pole position " no thanks, just "number one" or something less tabloidy.
• " It was certified double platinum by the RIAA.", " It was certified triple platinum by the RIAA.", "The album was certified platinum by the RIAA. "... repetitive and needless small sentences, could be creatively merged with each preceding sentence.
• Which territory is the release date of each album relevant to?
• According to her MySpace page, all three of her independent releases came out a day before what you have in the table.
• What's referencing all the various singles which didn't chart?
• Notes in the Writing credits section do not need the bullets.
• Avoid spaced hyphens per MOS:DASH, I count 13 in the ref titles etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All addressed. All her albums were released on the same day in every territory so the release dates refer to all of them. As for the independent albums, pardon me if I misunderstood something but the release dates are all correct according to her Myspace? Thank you so much for weighing in, I hope to have your support for this FL in the near future!--NØ 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Check out this link then, from your reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe its the same link. The release dates for Meghan Trainor, I'll Sing with You, and Only 17 are respectively given as December 25, 2009, January 31, 2011, and September 14, 2011 on her MySpace page. These are the ones that are currently listed in the article.--NØ 19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit:The release date for her albums are also confirmed here, here and here if you prefer this website!--NØ 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I apologise, I meant her current MySpace page, not that archive you have. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I wouldn't trust the current page tbh, because it only has Only 17 listed on it with no mention of her first 2 albums. We have the archive as reliable proof of when the albums were actually released. After her major-label debut, her new label tried to cover up all mentions of her independent albums to market Title as her debut, but the new information thats currently being shown on the page is inaccurate (as also proved by discogs). This is one of those rare cases where archived information is more reliable than what it has been changed to by her new management.--NØ 19:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

But if this is gonna be a dealbreaker for the FL then we can just remove the dates and keep the release years (which can be sourced by NRJ as well as Forbes).--NØ 19:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, The Rambling Man Hate to bother you again and again but can you indicate if you would prefer to keep release dates that are currently in the article (aka in the archive of her Myspace page) or remove them to just keep the years (which are sourced by reliable, secondary sources)? Your opinion is very important for me.--NØ 05:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I would acknowledge the issue with a footnote, i.e. a note to say although her official MySpace page gives slightly different date, most sources give the release dates as you have them in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Added hatnote.--NØ 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I would revise this sentence (When the singer-songwriter signed with Epic Records in February 2014, her three self-produced albums were pulled from circulation.) to (These self-produced albums were pulled from circulation after she signed with Epic Records in February 2014) as I believe it would improve the wording.
• For this part (She initially released three independent albums:…), I would revise it to something like (She self-released the albums:…) as saying “three independent albums” is slightly repetitive with the previous sentence and makes the prose less engaging. I also think it is important to emphasize that she self-released them as I was initially uncertain if she did that or did with a small record label when I first read the lead.
• I would revise this sentence (The lead single from Trainor's second major-label studio album, Thank You, called "No" was released on March 4, 2016, and charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification from the RIAA.) to (On March 4, 2016, Trainor released “No” as the lead single from her second major-label studio album, Thank You. The song charted at number three on the Billboard Hot 100, earning a double platinum certification on the RIAA.) as I think the original sentence would benefit from being split in two.

Great work with the list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Implemented all the changes.--NØ 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from BeatlesLedTV

Support – Looks good. Great job! Quick question: The sales from her albums are over 2 years old now; should they be updated? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried looking for newer sales figures but reliable industry sources like Billboard and Forbes never updated Title's numbers since 2015.--NØ 06:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Ian Rose This has been open for over a month, has several supports and no opposes. Do we have enough consensus for closure?--NØ 11:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Giants2008 since Ian seems to be inactive.--NØ 11:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian is active, but doesn't do any work at the featured list process. However, as with FAC, this article will require a source review before it can be promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Deccan Chargers cricketers

Nominator(s): Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this contains entire statistics of players who played for the Deccan Chargers and I would like it to become a featured list. This was already nominated and got rejected twice in 2012. I hope all those issues were answered now. Sagavaj (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Fix this one green link.

Replaced with another link.

• Full stop missing from Gilchrist's alt text.

Corrected

• In ref 9, DNA India --> Daily News and Analysis.

Corrected

Yashthepunisher (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the above issues. Sagavaj (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Image caption needs a full stop. Corrected "Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited " this is a weird one because you link "Deccan Chronicle" which, of course, is a work so should be Deccan Chronicle but yet it's only part of the title of the publisher... Linked entire name to Deccan Chronicle but I have doubt since the article is on paper but not on the parent company. Let me know if that's wrong and I should remove link completely. Link captain first time round, not in the last para of the lead. Done " their first season in 2008" etc linking just the year is something of an easter egg link. Unlinked "to replace Gilchrist with Kumar Sangakkara in 2011 after they lost Gilchrist " not great repetition of Gilchrist, reword to avoid that. rephrased "But, he took charge..." who?? added name Board for Control of Cricket in India-> Board of Control for Cricket in India corrected Link ₹. template is used there. so can't change it in the article. You can add a lk parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Done. Thanks for letting me know. Sa Ga Vaj 14:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "in a bid who also " which, not who. corrected "had the most " ->"made the most" corrected "to his name " unnecessary. removed "an unbeaten knock " a little too casual. rephrased "Rohit Sharma had taken the " -> took corrected "the highest behind the wickets for the team," confusing phrasing. Why not just "the most for a wicket keeper" or something?? rephrased " the team in at least one match, arranged in the " -> initially arranged. corrected Harmeet Singh is piped to a redirect. linked to direct name Should be en-dashes in the empty cells, not hyphens. corrected Cricket Archive link should note it's subscription-only access. added The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: addressed the issues. Sagavaj (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. Sa Ga Vaj 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. Sa Ga Vaj 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [4].

---

Billboard Latin Music Award for Latin Jazz Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So this list differs from my previous works on Wikipedia. Even though most of my contributions have been focused on Latin pop, tropical, and special Latin music awards, I wanted to do something different. As someone who is also fan of jazz, I wanted to contribute to a jazz-related article so I have chose to work on an award that used to be presented by Billboard. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion, but was there ever a reason given for the discontinuation for the category after 2008?
• For this part (a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that shapes Billboard's weekly charts.”), I believe the period is supposed to go on the outside of the quotation marks, unless you are citing full sentences.
• This is another clarification question, but how can an album, like Latin Soul, be nominated two years in a row. I would imagine for award ceremonies, like this one, there is a cut-off period to be considered for a nomination. Has anyone ever talked about this or explained how it was allowed to happened?
• Something about this sentence (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House(1998), are both winners of the category that are also recipients of the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.) reads awkwardly to me. I am not sure if the transition to the Grammy Award is fully working here. Maybe something like (His records, Danzón (Dance On) (1994) and Hot House (1998), are both winners of the category, and also received the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album.)?

Wonderful work with this list. The prose for the lead is well-done, and the two images have appropriate ALT text. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FLC. Either way, I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've looked through pretty every Billboard magazine issue from 2009 and couldn't find their rationale for the removal. Only thing I could find was an article saying they added 13 new categories. According to Leila Cobo in the 2001 awards, it continued to do well on the Jazz Albums chart even though it was released in late 1999. A similar case happened where Lo Mejor de Mí (song) by Cristian Castro won the award for Latin Pop Song of the Year by Billboard in 1998 and was nominated again in 1999 because it continued to do well in the Latin Pop Songs chart. I think the opening paragraph about how Billboard determines the nominees by charts and sales probably helps with this bit. Anyways, I've addressed everything else, thanks for your input! Erick (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Immediately struck by the brevity of the lead. At the very least I think no noms before 1999 should be covered there. Any reasoning for the discontinuation? Did it get merged into something else? " first receipt of the award in 1994" recipient? Ref. should Ref(s) and usually people insist on using {{abbr}} for it too... If this award is so prestigious (or at least so notable that this list can even exist) should all the winning albums be linked? Any reason this table shouldn't be sortable? Ref 4 -> The NYT. Ref 5, forgive my ignorance but what is Tronc? Not all Billboard links include the publisher, any reason for that? That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Magiciandude PING! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry been busy with life. I should have this done Wednesday as I'm off work that day. Erick (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: So I think I've addressed just about everything. As I mentioned above, Billboard overhauled the awards in 2009 where they added 13 new categories, while also removing several of them. The table is sorting fine for me except for nominees and the ref. Erick (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC) The table is not sortable though? And I wonder why? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I now have it so that the only the ref column is unsortable. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Ah, I can't see the arrows, presumably because you've coloured the cells? The col scope should already give it a background shading... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Gotcha. I now have the arrows visible where on columns that are sortable. Erick (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, cheers for the patience! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

Astronomical symbols

Nominator(s): W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets or surpasses the criteria for a Wikipedia featured list, and for inclusion in a print encyclopedia. The article is useful, comprehensive, and extensively researched. I put a lot of effort into editing and organizing the page several years ago (under IP addresses), including writing most of the body text, finding sources, and pruning unsourced and unreliable speculation. (Scouring Google Books for instances of astronomical glyphs in their OCRed scans of nineteenth-century print matter was fun.)

Regarding FL criterion 3b, I note that some of the scope and content of this article overlaps Astrological symbols, an article created in 2006 as a fork of this one. Astronomical symbols, the nominee, meets the criteria of WP:SUBPOV, and therefore I believe it should not be disqualified as a featured list.

Thank you for your consideration. W559 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Just looking quickly I noticed that some sentences in the "represents" column start with a capital letter, where others do not. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Fixed. The seven rogue capital letters have been lowercased. I also removed stray punctuation marks and made tiny fixes to the wording of a couple of entries. Thank you! W559 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments: First paragraph of lead: "in the 18th-20th centuries" → "in the 18th to the 20th centuries". Third paragraph of lead: article "the" before names of Unicode blocks; you could also link to the WP articles of those blocks (e.g. Miscellaneous Symbols) and instead reserve the PDF external links to the code points. German almanac image: straight quotes ("") instead of curly quotes (“”) as per MOS:STRAIGHT. Row and column scopes for accessibility (see MOS:DTT) should be included. The contents of the "Represents" columns could be better off aligned to the left. "the center of our planetary system": I would suggest "centre" to conform with the British English "splendour" further down. Either way, a bit more consistency in the variation of English would be beneficial. Something in the "Represents" column for "new moon" would be apposite. "Solar constants": not sure that these examples are really necessary here, in view of an existing description above. "Symbols for minor planets" and "Other symbols": refs would look better on a separate line below each symbol, as in the other tables. That's all for now; otherwise, it looks to be a generally well-written article overall. (Please {{ping}} when replying.) RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Ravenpuff: Thank you for your feedback. I've incorporated your suggestions in the article. To wit: First paragraph of lead: Fixed. Third paragraph of lead: Fixed.. I added wikilinks to the articles of the two Unicode blocks referenced. The PDF external links are attached to the code point ranges. German almanac image: Straightened the quotes. Row and caption scopes for accessibility: Added. I also added alt-text to images wherever it was missing. Text in the "Represents" columns: Left-aligned the headers and text. "center"/"splendour" inconsistency: Americanized according to the guidance in MOS:RETAIN to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." The edit with "center" (2016-01-05 00:35) preceded the edit with "splendour" (2016-11-14 11:06). "New Moon" representation: Added something. "Solar Constants": Deleted. The explanatory paragraph now includes the specific solar constants that used to be in the table. The source citations for the use of the solar symbol in these constants are preserved. "Symbols for minor planets" and "Other symbols": Added line breaks to put the refs below the symbols. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for reviewing this article. W559 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Revisiting this FLC, I'll just make a few more slight suggestions for improvement here: I see that you've left-aligned the column headers for the "Represents" columns: these should still be centre-aligned, regardless of the alignment of its contents. The captions for each table (e.g. "Sun", "Moon", "Planets") shouldn't be in the form of table rows but as proper table captions, using the |+ markup. Link "cf." in Ceres's symbol (MOS:ABBREV) The succession of relatively short paragraphs in the Symbols for minor planets section could be resolved by combining some of the one-sentence paragraphs together, although I'm more ambivalent about this one. Even with the added comments above, I'm still happy to support the article as is. Good work indeed! RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC) @Ravenpuff: Thank you for your support. I center-aligned the column headers and used table captions instead of table rows. I also wikilinked cf. The paragraphs were all two sentences long or longer, so I left them as is for now because each (short) paragraph addresses a different subject. W559 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Support: comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd replace papyri with "papyrus texts". I don't expect most readers to be familiar with the Latin plural form. just-discovered would be better as "newly-discovered". Per MOS:DTT, there should not be column headers in the middle of a table. I'd like the entries for waxing and waning moon to note that this is how they appear from the northern hemisphere. A diagram in Johannes Kamateros's – assuming this refers to the John Kamateros I think, I'd refer to him as "Byzantine astronomer Johannes Kamateros". Meanwhile, Struve presented – I'd add a few words to explain who Struve was. the letter Zeta (for Zeus) – I'd add a few words explaining the connection between Zeus and Jupiter (the reader shouldn't have to scroll up to the text above the table to find this information). the letter H (for Herschel) – I'd add "who discovered Uranus". the letters "L" and "V", (for Le Verrier) – I'd add "who discovered Neptune". Following Giuseppe Piazzi's discovery of Ceres – I'd add a few words explaining who Piazzi was, and say when Ceres was discovered. Franz Xaver von Zach should be linked, and I'd add a few words explaining who he was. Karl Ludwig Harding created the symbol for 3 Juno. – I'd add a few words explaining who Harding was. Harding, who discovered this asteroid – I'd add the year it was discovered. The next two asteroids, 5 Astraea and 6 Hebe, were both discovered by Karl Ludwig Hencke. – I'd add the years and a few words describing who Hencke was. 26 Proserpina, 28 Bellona, 35 Leukothea, and 37 Fides, all discovered by R. Luther – I'd add between which years. 29 Amphitrite, discovered by Albert Marth – I'd add the year. For consistency with the "Planets" table, the empty Unicode cells in the "Minor planets" table should say "N/A". thus, ♈︎ stands for the vernal equinox, ♋︎ the summer solstice, ♎︎ the autumnal equinox, and ♑︎ the winter solstice. – I believe this should be the "March equinox", the "June solstice", the "September equinox", and the "December solstice", respectively. I'd also add some text identifying the symbols since they may not show up for everyone (they don't for me, except when editing). ☊ formerly stood for the descending node, and ☋ for the ascending node – I'd add that this is the opposite of the modern usage (in case the symbols don't show up for everyone). the five Ptolemaic aspects should be linked to Astrological aspect#Major aspects. I'd add this page to {{Astronomy navbox}} (I'd suggest next to "Glossary"), and then add the navbox to the bottom of the article (see WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). TompaDompa (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC) @TompaDompa: Thank you for helping me improve the page. I've incorporated your feedback: "papyri": Replaced with "papyrus texts". "just-discovered": Replaced with "newly-discovered". Sun and Moon table: Split to avoid the column header in the middle of the table. I also added column scopes to the new table for accessibility. Descriptions for the waxing and waning moon symbols: Added "(as viewed from the northern hemisphere)" to each. Johannes Kamateros: Added "Byzantine astronomer". Struve: Added "German-Russian astronomer". Zeta for Zeus: Added "the Greek equivalent to the Roman god Jupiter". "H (for Herschel)": Added "who discovered Uranus" as suggested. "L and V (for Le Verrier)": Likewise, I added "who discovered Neptune". Ceres, Giuseppe Piazzi: Added "in 1801" and "the astronomer and Catholic priest". Franz Xaver von Zach: Linked, and added words describing him. Karl Ludwig Harding: Added the words "German astronomer". "Harding, who discovered this asteroid": Added "in 1804". Karl Ludwig Hencke, 5 Astraea, 6 Hebe: Added "a German amateur astronomer" and the discovery years. I also rewrote the sentence to use the active voice. 26 Proserpina, 28 Bellona, 35 Leukothea, and 37 Fides: Changed to "all discovered by German astronomer Robert Luther between 1853 and 1855". 29 Amphitrite: Rewrote the sentence. "29 Amphitrite was named and assigned a shell for its symbol by George Bishop, the owner of the observatory where astronomer Albert Marth discovered it in 1854." Empty Unicode cells in the "Minor planets" table: Added "N/A" to all the symbols not encoded in Unicode. "vernal equinox", "summer solstice", etc.: Added words identifying each symbol and changed seasons of equinoxes/solstices to the months. "Thus, ♈︎, the symbol for Aries, represents the March equinox", etc. Medieval vs. modern usage of the symbols for the lunar nodes: Added clarifying text. "Ptolemaic aspects": Linked to Astrological aspect#Major aspects. Astronomy navbox template: Added the navbox to the page and the page to the navbox (between Astronomer and Glossary). Let me know if you have any other suggestions, or if I broke anything. W559 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I changed the remaining instances of "papyri" to "papyrus texts" and added the {{N/A}} template (which I just discovered) to the tables. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." I am not clear what you are saying here. Do you mean that the papyrus texts were neither preserved nor copied, and only survive by their incorporation in Byzantine codices?
• "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when?
• The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced.
• monogram should be linked.
• The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've reviewed your comments:

• "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." – Replaced "the" with "many" to avoid the implication that Greek papyri survived only as copies in Byzantine codices. Is this better?
• "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when? – Per MOS:LEAD, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". I believe that specific details about when different symbols fell into disuse among professional astronomers are best left for the article.
• The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced. – Source citations in the lead are not strictly necessary; see WP:WHENNOTCITE. I tried to limit sources in the lead while still citing sources for any claims that might reasonably be challenged. The sentence beginning "New symbols were further invented..." is a one-sentence summary of the Symbols for minor planets section, which introduces 34 sources and uses more. The section "with some exceptions..." briefly alludes to sourced material in bits and pieces throughout the body of the article. If you think the lead would work better with more or fewer source citations, let me know.

• My understanding is that list articles are an exception to the rule that leads do not require referencing because they generally contain information which is not referenced below, but I see that you have repeated and referenced below, so I agree that more referencing is not necessary in this case. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• monogram should be linked. – Agreed. The first occurrence of monogram (in the Symbols for the planets section) is now linked.
• The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. – Not done. The article is about "astronomical symbols", which is what reliable English-language sources call the symbols described in the article. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:CONCISE. An article about "astronomical notation", a different topic, would properly cover modern notation in more depth, and would reasonably be expected to include more information about Arabic, Indian, and Chinese astronomy, but this isn't that article.

Let me know what you think. W559 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That is fair enough regarding modern symbols as they are often referred to as notation, although I would like to see a comment or note explaining why they are not covered. I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols. Just because sources are Eurocentric does not justify Wikipedia in following their example. There are for example off-wiki sources about Maya astronomical symbols, and I would expect at least brief coverage in a generic article about the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I'm not convinced that the characters used in the Maya calendar belong in this article any more than, for example, the written names of the planets and zodiac signs in Hindi and Chinese, both because the article is about "astronomical symbols" as opposed to normal written language (and, come to think of it, numerals and mathematical operators), and, of course, because English-language sources do not generally group them with the symbols that make up the content of this article. However, a link to the Maya characters in the "See also" section would be appropriate. Here's what I've done:

• "a comment or note explaining why they are not covered": Added some text to the first sentence of the lead further clarifying the scope of the article.
• coverage about Maya astronomical symbols: Added a link to the relevant page in the "See also" section of the article.

How's this? W559 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• See [6] for a discussion about non-European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't read what you linked; Google Books gives me the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." If the source you linked has content that would improve the page, feel free to be bold and incorporate it into the article. Edit: I switched browsers and went incognito, and Google Books is serving up the page for me now. The page you linked doesn't seem relevant at all to this article other than being a search result for the words "Chinese", "astronomical", and "symbols". The section of that book discusses the "Chaco supernova pictograph" (see Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Archaeoastronomy, reviews several theories about the image, and then concludes that the drawing marks a Zuni sun-watching station. The page specifically discusses the star next to the crescent in the petroglyph, compares it with the Islamic star-and-crescent symbol, and mentions the theory that the symbols together originally depicted a conjunction of the moon and Venus.

Regarding your previous comment, "I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols", we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I note in passing that the equivalent pages on the Chinese and Hindi Wikipediae, zh:天文符號 and hi:खगोलीय चिन्ह respectively, both have "general titles" while also being about the same set of "European symbols" that the astronomical symbols page discusses. W559 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Dudley Miles just a quick question, are you complete with your comments here? The nomination has been stalled for about six weeks now, so it would be great if you'd be prepared to offer some guidance on your current view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I do not have a problem with the article text but I do with its title so I prefer to neither support or oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments – The two external links in the third paragraph are a Manual of Style violation. I suggest replacing the bare "The Unicode Consortium" citations here with properly formatted references that include these links. Photo caption: "in a German almanac printed 1850". This needs "in" directly before the year. Symbols for the planets: Minor point, but if other key figures have their full names included later in the article, than Struve probably should be formatted that way here. Symbols for minor planets: "The circle later became a pair of parentheses, and the parentheses sometimes omitted altogether over the next few decades." For this to work grammatically, it needs "were" before "sometimes". Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Are the items in the table referenced anywhere? I don't see inline cites in the table, unlike the others. In addition, the last sentence of the section, on symbols related to solstices and equinoxes, isn't cited either. If the references before are meant to cover this sentence, I'd suggest adding cites there as well. Not doing a full source review right now, but I did see that reference 26 has different formatting for its access date than other refs, which use the YYYY-MM-DD format. This formatting should be made consistent throughout, however you choose to do it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @Giants2008: Thank you for reviewing the article. I've made changes in line with your comments: The two external links in the third paragraph: Fixed. The links are now reflinks formatted with Template:Cite web. Photo caption: Added "in" before the year as suggested. Symbols for the planets: Included Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve's full name. Symbols for minor planets: I could defend the original phrasing as an instance of gapping in a coordinate structure, but I added "were" before "sometimes" as suggested. Symbols for zodiac constellations and signs: Added references for the images of the zodiac symbols, the English translations of the names of the signs, and the modern IAU abbreviations. Different formatting for the access date of reference 26: Reformatted to use the YYYY-MM-DD. I also found and reformatted a small number of differently formatted dates in the references; all publication, archive, and access dates now use the same formatting throughout the article. Let me know if there are any other changes that you would like to see. I will be offline for most of this weekend, but I will definitely be able to follow up by no later than Tuesday. W559 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – My concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; I'm fine with the title, but think that it would be helpful to have something in the lead explicitly discussing that the symbols are part of the European astronomical tradition, and other traditions use(d) words or logograms instead of non-language-based symbols. I'm not going to hold this nomination up for it, though. Promoted. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [7].

---

List of songs recorded by Talking Heads

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After taking a break from editing and FLC's for a while, I'm back. My return to FLC is another song list, this time by the rock band Talking Heads. I will also return to commenting on other FLCs like I used to earlier this year. As always, comments are appreciated and welcomed. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "Talking Heads were an American new wave band" - I am not American but my understanding is that American English would say "Talking Heads was an American new wave band". This applies in a number of other places eg "their debut", so probably worth confirming with someone American :-)
  • That's how it's worded on their main page so I worded it the same here.
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• "12 of which weren't officially released" => "12 of which were not officially released" – Done
• "live recordings of songs from their four albums (at the time)" => "live recordings of songs from their four albums to date" – Done
• "only Top ten hit" - no need for capital T on Top – thought so
• "a song that the English rock band of the same name named themselves after" => "a song from which the English rock band of the same name took its name" – Done
  • You haven't used the wording I suggested, and what you have put in doesn't make grammatical sense - you need to say "song from which", not "song that" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude Sorry about that. All fixed :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The album marked a return the experimentation" - think the word "to" is missing – yes it is
• "After Naked, the band went on a "hiatus"" - can't see why hiatus is in quote marks
  • It's in quotes because that's how it was perceived by the public. They really broke up in 1988 but didn't officially announce it until 1991, so to the public they were on "hiatus"
    • • Then you need to clarify that with actual wording. Simply putting the word in quote marks doesn't convey that at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Removed the quotes. I mainly used them because AllMusic & their main page puts the word in quotes as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• "12 previously unreleased songs have seen official release" => "12 previously unreleased songs have been officially released" (songs don't have eyes and therefore can't see anything) – Done
• "Non-album single, B-side to "Psycho Killer"" - if it was the B-side then it wasn't a single, so change to "non-album song"
  • That's how I've had it for my other featured song lists so I think it's fine
• ""Take Me to the River" - (Al Green) cover" - closing bracket is in the wrong place – yes it is
• They released 22 singles as far as I can see. Was there really only one non-album song on all those B-sides?
  • The song "New Feeling" was originally a B-side but was later released on their debut later the same year. I have that fact in a note on the song. Yeah unlike the Smiths, Talking Heads never really had many non-album B-sides

Hope this helps - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• • ChrisTheDude Thanks for your comments! I'll be sure to check out your FLCs if I haven't already! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan

• The only thing different I noticed about this list compared to other FLs of the same type is single releases being indicated separately. But its helpful to readers so no need to remove them.

The prose is great. This list has my support for FL promotion!--NØ 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments "The group has been described as "one of the most acclaimed bands of the post-punk era" by Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic.[1]" seems a little one-dimensional, i.e. where they described as such luminaries by anyone else? Or is there any counter-claim? Added a statement by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That better? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC) "Beginning as former art school students, Talking Heads released their debut single, "Love → Building on Fire", in early 1977," at that time, did they just self-release independently? Did they have a label? Released on Sire Records. Is that worth mentioning? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC) "The album received acclaim..." again, from one reviewer, is there any balance? Removed the acclaim part BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC) AllMusic reviewers seem to get the free pass here as the de facto commentators, any counter-points? Or even, corroborations? "ways with Brian Eno and" no need for Brian. Avoid repeating the first names throughout. Thought so; had that originally BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Sortable table should have every linkable item linked every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Thanks for the comments! Responses above. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Everything look good? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Beginning as former art school students" This sounds a bit clumsy to me. Maybe "After leaving art school"?

• Fixed

• "but suffered from David Byrne's "lyrical pretensions"" This is editorialising and should be attributed inline.

• Yeah I never liked that because it seems biased and non-encyclopedic. I just removed it.

• Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Dudley Miles! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review –

• Ref 14 has a bit of all caps (TIME) that should be taken out. Otherwise, all of the references are well-formatted and the link-checker tool shows that the links are all in working order.
• Given that Discogs is generally considered an unreliable source because it has user-generated content, we can do without the links in refs 3, 19, and 35. The liner notes themselves are perfectly fine sources, and it's not worth it to include an unreliable source even if they are just convenience links.
• Spot-checks of refs 14 and 17 turned up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Giants2008 All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• With those comments resolved, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Looks good, these are my comments. My main problem is that I think the lead lacks a little focus. This is an article about songs that Talking Heads have recorded, and the lead needs to focus on that. A lot of the prose seems more centred on discussing Talking Head's albums, which feels like it would be better suited in a discography or a biographical article. That sentence about the documentary, for example, seems really out of place. In fact, "album" appears 26 times in the lead, whereas "song" appears less than half that amount (12). I'd suggest rewriting it slightly to make the songs the focal point of the text. For example, rather than "The album is characterized as more polished than its predecessor, featuring songs that emphasized experimentation", you could have "The album's songs are characterized as more polished than their predecessors, emphasizing experimentation". This is all just a suggestion, and not something that I would oppose over. Anyway, have a think about it. Look better? "which managed to chart". At what position did it chart, and in which territory? America, the UK, elsewhere? If you can't find any way to easily work this into the prose, just stick it in a note at the bottom. Just removed it – its a song list not a discography page "pop-song" -> "pop song", surely? – Done "written by David Byrne alone" -> "written by Byrne alone" – Done "took its name" -> "took their name". Just for consistency. You've been describing bands in the plural throughout the article so far (although, like Chris above, I have a sneaking suspicion that American English uses the singular). I originally had it like this but then I changed it even though 'their' makes more sense. The final paragraph seems little overlinked to me. Words like "outtake" and "reissue" are probably common enough that they don't need to be linked. I'd argue that "compilation album" and "box set" might be too, but I'll leave that with you. – Done "List" isn't a great header for a section. How about "Songs" instead? – Done [c][b] -> [b][c] – Knew it. The non-album singles aren't grouping together when sorted (I believe its because "I Wish You Wouldn't Say That" has a misplaced apostrophe before the {{N/A}} template). Yep. Fixed. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC) A Thousand Doors Thanks so much for the comments! Hope everything looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Notes b, c, and d aren't complete sentences, so don't need terminating periods. – Done Note a is a complete sentence, so needs a period. Also, "a unfinished" -> "an unfinished". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) – Done Per WP:OVERLINK, major geographical features such as United States or London don't need to be linked to. Removed them but kept the first instance of 'US' linked "London" is still wikilinked. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) – Done "I'm Not in Love" needs to be above "In Asking Land" and "Moon Rocks" needs to be above "Mr. Jones". – Done Some of the formatting of the liner note references is a little inconsistent. Talking Heads is wikilinked in citations 3, 22, 23 and 34, but not in the any of the others. – Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) A Thousand Doors All done. Thanks again! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• "musical transition". What does Ruhlmann believe the band were transitioning from and to?

Basically Remain in Light built upon Fear of Music in its use of African polyrhythms and things like that. Ruhlmann just talks about how Fear of Music was basically the precursor to Remain in Light and showed what was yet to come. Make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. But, looking now at what the source says, Ruhlmann actually describes it as a "transitional album", rather than a "musical transition". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruhlmann actually used "musical transition" in his review of Remain in Light so I added that ref to that sentence.

I still think it might be worth very briefly expanding on what he meant by "musical transition", though. So Fear of Music was the band's transition from their more straightforward first two albums, to the musical experimentation of Remain in Light? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors Affirmative :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I still believe that this needs to be (briefly) explained in the article, then. "Musical transition" isn't really a common enough phrase that it can be just dropped into the lead without further clarification. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors I decided to remove the "musical transition" part and instead put "The style and sound of Fear of Music was expanded upon on their final Eno collaboration, Remain in Light (1980)". As Remain in Light built upon Fear of Music this is correct and I believe better explains the "transition". BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2018 (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) 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

List of cities and towns in South Carolina

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I am continuing my project of standardizing all lists of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will follow 20 (!) successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama). This one may need some copyediting and rewording in the lead for readability, but nothing that can't be tweaked during the review process. I have modeled this list off of other promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard but there are always improvements. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

1. As usual, I think the numerical values are overly precise per MOS:UNCERTAINTY.

   This is different from the Mexican area figures which had 3 decimal places (all were cut down to 2 decimal places). The US Census publishes accurate area figures to the precision of 2 decimal places, and this is the standard for all US articles and lists as far as I can tell. Also you wouldn't be able to tell which cities are bigger since many will now show the same area if the 2 decimals are reduced to 1 decimal, also screwing up the sorting button since it will default to alphabetical.

2. I'd try not to place "waste management" and "water management" next to each other. It sort of becomes a stumbling block when reading. I'd suggest "waste and water management".  Done
3. One instance of "mayor" is written with a capital "M", and the rest are written with a minuscule "m".  Done
4. providean is a typo and should be two words.  Done
5. I have to say that the descriptions of the three forms of government are mostly confusing.

   Based on the second reviewer below, I've made changes to the descriptions. I think it reads better now, but perhaps more can be done to improve readability? Any suggestions?

   I wish I could help, but since I don't really understand the differences, I can't say how to make the differences clearer. Sorry about that. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

6. There are a couple of references preceded by spaces in the WP:LEAD.  Done
7. The symbols should be inside the coloured fields in the legend. Use the |text= parameter. Done
8. There should be no empty cells in the table. They should replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The ones that say "NA" should also use the template.

   Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot that this was discussed before and the conclusion was to use the Template: ntsh instead of NA since it retains it's sortability. I've made all the changes so it is now consistent.

9. The town incorporated on 2012 should either give the full date or say "in 2012".  Done
10. The town incorporated on March 6, 2008 and is thus not represented in the 2010 census. – that should be the 2000 census, right?  Done

TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Great catches! Thanks for taking the time to review, will finish up with the rest of the comments later. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

All comments addressed, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• " seven or nine members including the mayor all elected " - needs commas round "all elected" Done
• "and the has power to levy taxes to match the budget" - word order is a bit mangled here  Done
• "Under the council-manager form of government the council composed of a mayor and four" - missing word? Done
• "and for a general survey of municipal business" - doesn't seem to make sense - is there a word missing? Done
• Don't need to link Columbia twice in consecutive sentences Done
• Can't spot anything in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I know the prose does not read as smoothly as it could, but I've made all your changes and think it sounds better already. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would include ALT text for the top image.  Done
• Why break up the following phrases (the Southern United States) into two links when it could be done with a single link (i.e. Southern United States)?

• This link was left in since it's the only link the the USA in the entire article.

• For this sentence (According to the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina is the 24th most populous state with 4,625,401 inhabitants but the 40th largest by land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land.), I would put a comma after the word "residents". Done
• Would it be helpful to include a more up-close image of the state along with the image of the state in the context of the country as a whole (i.e. as done in List of municipalities in Florida)?

• Absolutely yes! I've been searching for a map just like this but could not find one anywhere....

Great work with this list. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly any feedback on my current FLC. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I will try to get to yours by next weekend. Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support--Lirim | Talk 23:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The mayor's responsibilities include:" Using commas both within and to separate responsibilities is unclear. I think a semi-colon would be better to separate the different responsibilities.

• I agree, anything that can make these sentences flow better is worth a try. I've made your suggestion.

• "staffing of all municipal employees". This sounds odd to me. Is it USAmer?

• I believe it is so, the language was taken from the source itself.

• "voting as other councilmen" I do not understand this - does it mean that the mayor votes as a councilman as well as presiding and having a casting vote?

• Good point. I think I clarified the first point by removing "as other councilmen" as redundant.

• I am not clear about the differences between the systems. In the first the mayor has executive power but is he or she directly elected or by the councilmen? In the second and third presumably the mayor only presides at meetings and is chosen by the councilmen?

• In the second and third possibility the mayor retains the vote, however this is mentioned I believe. Otherwise the roles differ simply in the responsibilities of the various titles. It's a bit silly to be honest, but this is the best summary I can make from the source material. If there is any more clarification please let me know, I'm *very* happy to make all changes here, I'm not 100% happy about the wording, but it's the best I can do right now.

• Four columns for two notes looks odd. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by four columns. Are you referring to the formatting of the notes section?

• Yes. The 30em spreads the two notes across four columns on my screen. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strange it spreads it out to 2 on mine, but either way you are correct. I've fixed it.

Thanks for your review! I've made changes but a few require some feedback. Mattximus (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review –

• All of the references are reliable.
• The link-checker tool says that ref 1 (the most cited source) is a "crufty url". I clicked on it and it works, but it's showing me data from Alabama. There seems to be a drop-down menu, but I'm not getting it to work. If it works for you, it might be worth noting in the cite what you need to select for the cited info to appear. If it doesn't work for you, we'll need a link that does work.

• I get the same thing, for some reason all the links I try default to Alabama. If you scroll to South Carolina, all the data is there, but I can't seem to have a direct link to South Carolina...

• In that case, I suggest adding a note to the end of the cite saying "Select South Carolina from drop-down menu" or similar, to inform the reader how to access the cited information. You could even put it outside the cite template if necessary, although there is a format= parameter you can try. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Found a postscript field in the citation template.  Done

• The only formatting issue I see is that the date formatting is inconsistent. It should be one style throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Don't know how I missed that one. All fixed. Thanks Giants2008! Mattximus (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Mattximus: Looks like we still have one unaddressed issue above. If you're not going to add a note there, it's not the end of the world, but I don't want to finish this source review without at least getting a yea or nay there. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Change made, all comments addressed. Thanks for the source review! Mattximus (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• With that last comment taken care of, this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• " in the Southern United States" is a SEAOFBLUE, especially in this case when Southern links to Southern United States. I don't think a link to United States is needed.  Done
• "24th most populous state" is piped to a redirect. Done
• "land area spanning 30,060.70 square miles (77,856.9 km2) of land" firstly not sure you need "of land" and secondly, one assumes this would include the area of lakes within the state as well in any case?

• Nice find, but actually there are data for "area", "land area", and "water area". I've chosen to use the land area stat since it doesn't make sense to include a big lake as part of your city.

• I'm the last person to get too PC about everything, but do you still call women "councilmen"?

• This is completely ridiculous, I agree. But that is actually what they call them in this state...

• James Island - don't like blank cells, could we put N/A to mean "not available"? Should probably sort in the middle for "change" (i.e. it's not lower than -36.8%, probably should be 0%)

• I've had a heck of a time trying to get the N/A to sort properly, and just gave up. It's the same as other featured lists like List of municipalities in New Mexico, so I just left those blank too. It still passed, but if you know the code for N/A that still sorts properly I'm happy to change all these lists to that format.

• Any way you can use the {{hs}} template alongside the {{na}} template? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I tried using the {{sdash}}, what do you think?

• "63.3/sq mi (24.5/km2)" vs "63.3/sq mi (24.4/km2)"... (and they sort out of order).

  Very interesting catch! I've already posted a request for this error on the template talk page found here: Template_talk:Pop_density#Strange_rounding_error. I've found that these requests are often answered rather quickly. Mattximus (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• And it's fixed. Done Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Half a dozen of the km2 are down to two decimal places, I wouldn't do that. Done
• Why is government type over-capitalised in the table, e.g. "Council-Manager" when the prose just uses sentence case, i.e. "council-manager". Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Mattximus some comments here for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and your excellent comments. I've addressed half, but I will have to do the other few in a couple of days. Mattximus (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All comments addressed! Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2018 (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) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above is a list of the awards and nominations received by actress Megan Fox, well known for her role in the Transformers film franchise. I used the List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey as a model for this nomination. For those interested, this is what the list looked like prior to my expansion. I had withdrawn a previous FLC for this to take a wikibreak, but I believe that this is ready for the FLC process and should be pretty uncontroversial. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:@MaranoFan:: Pinging the two reviewers involved in the last FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFan

• I'm gonna support this FLC since nothing much has changed since the last one. I just have one question (which doesn't hinder my support vote because I know you'll address it quickly), but there's an award from the Austin Film Critics Association in the infobox but not in the main table, perhaps is this in error? Would also appreciate your comments on my new FL nom [10], have a great day!--NØ 05:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. I have removed the reference to the Austin Film Critics Association. I had used the same model from the McConaughey list, and I must have overlooked that part. I will get to your FLC by the end of tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support - happy to re-support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support – Glad to see you're back! Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I am glad to be back. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Went through the archive bot and only two references were given links in case the site ever goes down so it is well done. I checked all the 26 references and they all seem reliable due to how most of them have links to their own articles. The ones that don't have links are derivative from other publishers like Nick while I'm pretty sure Cinemablend qualifies. Dates and authors are also available when needed so I think this article passes the source review. Good work Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Status update

• @Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: I believe that this should be ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like Aoba47 is taking a Wikibreak. If there are any outstanding issues, I would be happy to take care of them in the mean time. ceranthor 13:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I can still check in periodically, but I would still appreciate any of your help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• The instructions call for FLCs to last at least 10 days, so that we allow enough time for interested reviewers to comment. Given that this has only now been at FLC for 10 days, I think it should be left open for a few more days. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2018 (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) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Blizzard Entertainment games

Nominator(s): PresN 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The latest list in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis), we have a developer/publisher whose history has been a swift rise to the top of the industry. Unlike many of the other companies I've done, Blizzard Entertainment hasn't had a rise and fall, but instead has gone from a small company doing ports of older games to the successful developer of computer RTS games to the creator of some of the biggest games in the world, including the genre-defining World of Warcraft, and some of the games that are the roots of the concept of eSports. Despite all this, it didn't have a standalone games list, so now it does. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

1. The current logo of Blizzard Entertainment – I'd write since when.
2. and in 1996 Condor – I'd add a word or two for clarity, e.g. "and in 1996 the company Condor".
3. As was the case with the nomination for the corresponding Civilization list, I'm not a fan of the table layout. The more information an entry contains, the more the readability suffers.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Done and done, and yes, I'm still using the same layout as at that prior FLC. --PresN 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I only found a couple of things:

• I found this sentence in the lead a bit confusing: "The company originally concentrated on the creation of computer ports of other studios' games, released in 1992 and 1993..." as it goes on to say the company released original games also in 1992 and 1993, indicating they weren't only concentrating on ports.
• In the note "Heliotrope Studios took on the project", I would write "Heliotrope Studios assumed development of the project".

That's all! – Allied45 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Allied45: Adjusted both; the idea with the first one is that Silicon & Synapse was founded in early 1991 and initially made ports of games, but within a year was using the money from those ports to fund original projects; the ports/remakes were all released in 1991 through 1993, and the original games were released starting in 1992- once they started making enough money on original games, they stopped doing ports. Let me know if its still unclear in the text. --PresN 17:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's a lot clearer for me! I am happy to support – Allied45 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments I think you need a few pixels of whitespace around the logo. "concentrated on the creation of computer ports of other studios' games, released in 1992 and 1993, as well RPM Racing " minor issue but perhaps "focused on porting other studios' games, ... , as well as the release of ..." "Soon afterwards in 1992," you've already mentioned 1993 in the preceding sentence... "began ... and beginning..." repetitive. "prior to its rename, " which rename? You've overlinked "port" in the lead. "and Blizzard itself has been an" reads a little odd, why not "while Blizzard itself..."? "All of Blizzard's games released since 2004 still receive expansions and updates, such as..." if they all do, why cherry pick some? "US$9 billion in revenue," etc, as of?? "Blizzard Entertainment has developed 19 games" again, {{as of}} here. "Puzzle platform game" sea of blue, especially compared to "Real-time strategy game" and "Action role-playing game" "In the early years of the company, while it was named Silicon & Synapse, Blizzard worked as a for-hire developer creating ports of already-released games.[78]" is this needed since it's covered in the lead? Linkable items should be linked every time in sortable tables. "Cancellation date" column doesn't sort correctly. Just keeping you on your toes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Thanks, some of these are a bit sloppy of me. Done all but the logo, which I'll get to tomorrow. --PresN 05:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: All done now; I've actually removed the logo after discussion with some other VG editors, who expressed concern that it shouldn't qualify for PD-logo in the first place (meaning it can't be on this list, as per prior precedent). --PresN 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! Quick question, should you add Diablo Immortal to the list? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Yes I should; added. --PresN 02:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Just FYI, since I nominated this and TRM supported up above, you're the only potential closer, whenever you think it's ready. --PresN 03:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1996

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

FLC regulars know the drill by now - 17 of these lists have been promoted by now. So here's #18........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Link chart...
• " but remained in " no need for "but", just "which remained in" or "remaining in"
• "who spent a total of five weeks at number one with "Blue Clear Sky" " I think there's no need to repeat "spent a total of five weeks at number one" so reword to tighten this up substantially.
• Bryan White is overlinked.
• LeAnn Rimes first number one in the US, she'd previously topped in Canada...
• " prove to be the only country chart-topper for Rimes" probably "prove to be her only country chart-topper" to avoid repeating her name so quickly.
• Wild Angels is piped to a redirect (in the table only).

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

All done apart for item 6 - without repeating Rimes' name I can't think how to connect that part of the sentence to the "whose career has fluctuated between country and pop" clause, which I think is relevant. Don't know if you have any suggestions...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't thought that bit through. Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any issues, Support.-Lirim | Talk 19:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good with me. Great job as always! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Source review – The references all appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows that the links all work properly. No issues here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 10 November 2018 (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) 23:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary

Nominator(s): Parsecboy, White Shadows

This is a list of the ironclad warships built by the Austrian, and later Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1860s-1880s. Many of these ships participated in the Battle of Lissa, which was the first engagement between multiple armored warship in history. Others however had largely uninteresting careers as a result of Austrian indifference to naval affairs in the years after Lissa, though some of them remained in service or in possession of the Navy through the end of World War I. After the war ended, the ships were divided up among the Allied powers and mostly scrapped in the years immediately after the war, though one of them survived until the year 1950! The list serves as the capstone for this good topic. Thanks for all who take the time to review the list, as well as Parsec for his amazing work on this project.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

• This list is in great shape. I did a minor c/e, rv if I've changed meaning.
• perhaps mention the attempted sale to Uruguay under Tegetthoff when it should come up first in this list?

• Either I'm not following what you're suggesting, or someone has added it in there already because the attempted sale to Uruguay is mentioned in the Tegetthoff section.

• I'm seeing it in the Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf section, but not under Tegetthoff, which is the first ship from the proposed sale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• That should be fixed now.

• "Foreign Items" and Warship International need locations and publishers.

• Done

• toolkit checks are all OK.

Great work on putting this together! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Peacemaker!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All sources are of high quality and reliable, although a few are quite old. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments barbette ships is a WP:Redlink. I'd suggest linking "barbette ships" or forgoing the link entirely until such an article is created. Done the Austrian fleet that competed against Italy in an ironclad arms race in the 1860s – I don't know that I would use the word "compete" in the context of an arms race. I might phrase it as "the Austrian fleet that was involved in an ironclad arms race with Italy in the 1860s". Done These ships—Lissa, Custoza, Erzherzog Albrecht and the rebuilt ship of the line Kaiser—were central battery ships, which placed an emphasis on end-on fire, a necessity for ramming attacks, since broadside guns could not bear. – This should be rephrased to avoid having so many short clauses separated by commas, and since broadside guns could not bear is a somewhat confusing phrasing (I'd suggest "could not be brought to bear", including the Wiktionary link). Done Is the new phrasing (central battery ships, which placed an emphasis on end-on fire and ramming attacks, since their broadside guns could not be brought to bear against an enemy warship) really correct? Isn't the point that ramming attacks require end-on fire, since broadside guns point in the wrong direction when ramming? This makes it sound like the inability to use broadside guns left end-on fire and ramming attacks the only viable options. I changed the phrasing to reflect what I think is meant (if I'm wrong, just change it again). TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) supposedly using funds appropriated to rebuild Erzherzog Ferdinand Max to build the new ship. – is this use of "supposedly" correct? Did he supposedly use those funds, or did he actually use those funds? The phrasing used on SMS Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie (appropriating funds that had been allocated to modernize the ironclad Erzherzog Ferdinand Max to build an entirely new vessel.) seems to suggest the latter. This is a MOS issue that could go either way in my opinion. The funds were supposed to be for rebuilding the ship, which is what was supposedly done...but in reality, a new ship was constructed instead with only a few things taken from the older vessel and incorporated into the new design. My point was that "supposedly" seemed to modify the wrong thing – what they actually ended up being used for, rather than what they were intended to be used for. I changed the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) the ships still in the navy's inventory had been reduced to secondary duties – I'd add "such as" and an example or two. Done Kaiser Max, were awarded – the comma should be removed. Done Painting of an Austro-Hungarian squadron in Kiel, Germany, led by Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf – I'd add the year. Done The date the ship was commissioned – it should be clarified that this means the date it entered into active service, as opposed to the date its production was ordered (which is a definition of "commission" I suspect many readers will be more familiar with, and which still makes some sense in context). The reader shouldn't have to click the link to avoid misunderstanding this term. I've never seen that phrase (commissioned) be used with respect to naval terminology. Usually the term "ordered" would be used in that case. I've added the words "into the Navy" however to help avoid that problem. Drache's hull was badly rotted by that time – I'd say "wooden hull" to make it clearer to the reader. Done Illustration of Kaiser Max, c. 1866 should use the {{circa}} template. Done They proved to be a flawed design that were very unstable switches between singular and plural. Fixed owing in large part due to is an anacoluthon. Either "owing" or "due" should be removed. Fixed In unusable condition due to neglect by the early 1870s, the Marinekommandant Friedrich von Pöck was able to secure funding to rebuild the vessels has a dangling modifier; von Pöck was not in unusable condition. Fixed Their increased size should have allowed them – I'd say "would have". Done They spent the rest of the war patrolling the Adriatic – since this is the first mention, Adriatic Sea should be linked. Done By the time Lissa entered service – is this meant to refer to Lissa or Custoza? Either way, I'd add the year. It's supposed to be Custoza. Done. Lissa served in that capacity until 1920 should be "Custoza served [...]", right? Good catch. Fixed. Erzherzog Albrecht was ordered in 1869, at the same time as Custoza; but budgetary limitations forced Romako to produce a slightly smaller, and thus cheaper, design for the second vessel. – semicolons should not be placed before conjunctions in this way, and the high number of commas for the sentence length decreases readability. Fixed being activated only in 1881 to assist in the suppression of a rebellion near Cattaro Bay – if there is an article for the rebellion itself it should be linked. Unfortunately there isn't. All right. I added a comment saying that the link should be added if and when the article is created. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) the last ship of her type to be engaged in a naval battle in the world – I'd move "in the world" to right after "type". Done secondary battery redirects to Rechargeable battery rather than Battleship secondary armament. This made me laugh far harder than I probably should have. Fixed! In the image of Tegetthoff, the ship kind of blends in with the background as a result of the small image size (with the full-size image, this is not at all a problem). Might it be possible to crop the image (thereby increasing the relative size of the ship), adjust the contrast (or something), or find a different image? I've replaced the image in Genoa Italy seems to be missing a comma. Fixed Already by 1898, the Austro-Hungarian Navy considered the ship to be obsolete. – I'd remove "already" or move it after "Navy". Done For the ships that were first ceded and then broken up, I don't think the "Fate" should be formatted as "Ceded to [country], broken up, [year]". For instance: for Erzherzog Albrecht, Ceded to Italy, broken up, 1950 would be better as "Ceded to Italy, broken up in 1950" or "Ceded to Italy in [year], broken up in 1950". Done TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the review! Please let me or Parsec know if there's any other outstanding issues.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I went ahead and made a few edits myself, and I now consider this up to WP:Featured list standard. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't spot any problems with this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC) [14].

---

Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "The county is bounded Cambridgeshire" - word "by" seems to be missing
• "These conditions have led to unusual plants communities" - "plants communities" doesn't sound right
• "This is mixture of grassland and wet fen" - word "a" missing?

Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

All fixed. Many thanks for the review ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - excellent work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick Question

• Should the numbers below 10 in the lead be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL?

Support – Because it's a quick question I'll give my support now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks BeatlesLedTV. I am never sure how to deal with numbers but I have changed them all in the first paragraph to spelled out apart from the number of members. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments " forty-seven wildlife trusts covering" our article says there are 46, and it capitalises them to Wildlife Trusts in this context. The Wildlife Trusts sometimes says 46, sometimes 47. When giving 47 it specifies 37 England, 6 Wales, 1 each for Scotand, NI, Isle of Man and Alderney. I have gone with 47 as more reliable, although it is possible that one has disappeared. I think wildlfife trusts should not be capitalised as in this context it is a nounphrase, whereas in The Wildlife Trusts article it is about a society. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Plus that's a pipe to a redirect. Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "It has over 35,500 members" more than. Over sounds better to me in this context. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Is "reedswamp" common to everyone but me? Is there a suitable link? Linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) " red eyed and" that should be hyphenated. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "as 9 feet 1 inch" provide a metric conversion. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "isosceles" doesn't have that middle s! Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) " 450 year old oak." I think this should be hyphenated. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) "as "one of the best examples in Britain of a lowland mixed valley mire"." - I usually directly cite such quotes, immediately after the quote. I do not think this is necessary when there is a single source cite for a short paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Page ranges need en-dash, e.g. ref 86 "Ratcliffe, pp. 213-14" -> "Ratcliffe, pp. 213–14" BeatlesLedTV has kindly dealt with this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Any reason why only a portion of the references have been archived? I ran IABot but it did not archive all the refs. I think we have discussed this before and I raised a query about it. The bot designer explained that it should check whether an archive exists and create a new one if there is not one already, but there is a technical reason why it does not always work. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Many thanks Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [15].

---

YouTube Awards

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube Awards was an annual promotion that was run twice by YouTube. I have been working on this list for the last few months, and I hope that it now meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this would be, as far as I can tell, the first featured list about an awards ceremony recognising online content (the Appy Awards is probably be the nearest so far), so I hope that it sets some sort of a precedent. I have ignored one or two rules while writing the article, and I welcome any feedback about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I wouldn't characterize the awards as "annual" in the first sentence, considering they only occurred twice. Instead, I'd say they occurred twice, in 2007 and 2008.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Fastest-growing" is one of those qualifiers that are always dubious – even when reliably sourced – because it can be defined in a number of ways and doesn't necessarily represent anything special except being new (relevant XKCD comic). I'd remove it entirely.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) A growth by 297 percent is a fourfold increase, not a threefold one. Oops, right you are.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "As a result, in part, of its growth and success, in March 2007 YouTube launched [...]" is clunky. Rewritten slightly. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "a dedicated webpage" – this is enough; don't spell out the weblink (the same goes for the 2008 section).  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "Ben Fritz of Variety felt that this made the process "transparent"." – go with "said" and remove the WP:SCAREQUOTES.  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Per WP:ELLIST, lists should not be composed of external links. I do see the value in having these links, but I'm not sure if this can be considered acceptable use of WP:External links (in general, not just as it pertains to WP:ELLIST). I'll leave that assessment to someone more experienced in these matters, but I do want to raise the issue. I thought this might come up. As you say, there's value to our readers in having the links in the artcle, and making the titles clickable seemed like the most intuitive an simple method to me. Besides, my thinking is that, if we have to choose between providing benefit to our readers and following a particular rule, we should always ignore the rule. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The times of day are unnecessary (and formatted inconsistently).  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Leave Britney Alone! redirects to Chris Crocker. Per WP:REDIRECT, linking to redirects is okay, since they can indicate possible future articles. I've removed it anyway. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The Reception section deals almost exclusively with the 2007 awards. Surely there's more to say about the reception to the 2008 awards than a single sentence? I couldn't find anymore info, but I'll have another look. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I've had another look for commentary about the 2008 awards, but there just doesn't seem to be any outside of Caroline McCarthy's article. If this is a real sticking point for you, one solution might be to remove that sentence completely, then move the entire Reception section to become a subsection of the 2007 Awards section, like so. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC) I think making it a subsection of the 2007 Awards section is an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC) All right, I'll leave the layout like that and see what other reviewers have to say about it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I feel like information about why there were no 2009 awards is dearly missing. Again, I couldn't find anything (I think they were just quietly retired), but I'll do some more research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I have now added a couple of sentences about the retirement of the awards. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC) In general, a lot of the prose is of the "person X said Y" variety. To my eye, it's in WP:QUOTEFARM territory. I'm happy to remove some of the quotations, but I wouldn't mind getting some more opinions about the prose first. To me, this amount of quotes is similar to what you might find in other featured content. For what it's worth, I've removed the quotation marks from some of the quote fragments. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For now, I don't think the list passes WP:FLCR 3(a) for the reasons outlined in points 10 and 11, nor WP:FLCR 1 for the reasons outlined in point 12 (and others, but point 12 is the biggest problem right now). TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I personally think we can make an WP:IAR exception to WP:ELLIST, but I'm not comfortable with making that judgment call on my own, and would therefore like input on this from other reviewers (ideally ones who are experienced when it comes to WP:External links matters). TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from me. I didn't even know these existed, but it's a good list.--Lirim | Talk 01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Can't see any issue here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments "sometimes called the" perhaps "also known as" Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ", almost four times over. " unnecessary, we can work %. Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "was changing culture quickly and completely." probably needs quote marks, because it's blatantly untrue that it changed culture "completely". Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "ten each to just six." -> "ten to six" Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "was occurring so late " -> occurring -> taking place Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Is it Ok Go or OkGo? "OK Go" is the name of the band, but "OkGo" was the YouTube account name under which the video was uploaded. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "by 297 percent, almost fourfold." again, we don't need the same fact twice. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "As a result of this growth and success, Y" don't assume people have read the previous section. Rewritten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Table needs to be compliant with MOS:ACCESS, e.g. row and col scopes, captions etc. Added col scopes and captions, but I'm really not sure where the row scopes would go. There are only two cells in each row, and neither of them is really the row heading or in anyway more significant than the other. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ", calling it a good point" needless. Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "which had occurred six months" taken place. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) " described the awards as a quick, hasty process.[22]" the awards aren't a process. That's the word he used, though ([16]). I've readded quotation marks, but I'll rewrite if necessary. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Don't link "blog" when you haven't already linked "blogger". Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "In some categories, the winning videos had not been the favorites." is this somehow a revelation or a statement of life in general? I guess I just wanted to summarise the main point of the forthcoming paragraph in a short sentence, in the same way that the Reception section in an article about a film might begin with, say, "Reception to the film was mixed". Willing to take it out if it doesn't work, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) " beat out the famous footage " terribly tabloid. Changed to "won against". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the review. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support conditional on the source review passing, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review –

• The formatting of the references looks fine.
• What makes refs 33 and 34 reliable sources? Number 33 looks like a blog, while 34 appears to be somebody's personal website. All of the rest appear to be reliable enough.

• Like Wumbolo mentions below, my thinking was that both Gannes and Dodge seem to be experts within the field, so citing their blog/personal website would be okay. Dodge's post on the awards was specifically referenced by Mashable. I'll remove if this doesn't work, though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• This sounds like an acceptable explanation, especially since the cites are for their own opinions. I still wouldn't use those sites for verifying anything questionable, but for such viewpoints they should just pass muster. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• For the quote citing ref 47, since the punctuation appears inside the quotation mark in the source, it should be presented that way in the article per the Manual of Style. That was all I found worth mentioning in spot-checks of that cite and refs 14 and 19.

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• The link-checker tool shows no dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The Gigaom article's author works at Google, or shares the same first and last name as this woman affiliated with Google. I think that we should accept the article as written by an expert in the field, and it's not promotional because she joined Google much later than she worked at Gigaom. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• With the explanation and the fix, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Promoting! --PresN 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [17].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Meghan Trainor

Nominator(s): NØ 13:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

After a lot of work on this list I can say that all of the entries on it currently are reliably-sourced and the lead section is also good in my opinion. It meets the FL criteria I think. Considering the fact that Trainor's career has also seen a commercial nosedive, it is very likely that the list will stay stable in the near future.--NØ 13:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Comment please see List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey, the format has been transformed from this horrendous 20+ microsection version to a nice integrated table, once we've got that in place, I'll review it. As it stands, I'll have to regretfully oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Note to future closing admin: The only criticism given while casting the above oppose vote was the format, which has now been changed to to the new format now. So I would say that the oppose holds no weight anymore.--NØ 15:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Just FYI, it doesn't need an admin to close it, and it could actually be me who closes it as an FLC delegate, so I don't think telling me my own "oppose" holds "no weight" needs to be stated. It's a little rude really, especially as I haven't reviewed the rest of the content. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry if that came off rude, it really wasn't intended that way. My comment was to address the fact that all the concerns you raised so far have been addressed. In my opinion this list looks exactly like the Matthew McConaughey one you cited as an example. Your comments here so far and any future ones are really appreciated and welcomed!--NØ 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC) The format currently used in this Meghan Trainor article is the same one as List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande and List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry. All of the aforementioned are featured lists and are about Trainor's peers. I also think it is the more convenient format to navigate personally.--NØ 17:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Then my oppose stands. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Your oppose can stand but it doesn't hinder the list from satisfying the FL criteria considering this is the most commonly used format. Cheers.--NØ 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Indeed, and I'm just one voter here. I think it fails FLC criterion 4, as do all the others which you've noted, because the terribly 1990s clunky subsectioned lists could be far better presented to our readers. There is no way on earth that people will be clicking on the TOC to navigate to specific awards. And the result is a terrible jarring clunky collection of minuscule "tables" with one or two entries. Not good enough any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Apologies for jumping into the conversation, but it is a pretty simple change to fulfill the above suggestion. I actually just did this for one of my older FLs (an award list for Sharon Stone) based on this discussion, and it was quicker and easier than I expected. Just wanted to let you know in case other reviewers suggest the same thing. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I'll wait for consensus to form and then decide if we are gonna change the format. I'm a bit hesitant to do so when so many FLs for other musicians have the format that is currently in this list.--NØ 20:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC) The old format you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC) The 'old' format that is still in use on almost every musician's awards and nominations list including the featured ones. I'll gladly change it though once we have a few more people support this change and also support its application on other lists.--NØ 20:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Sure, when something switches from old to new, it takes forever to get the old ones up to the new standard required. As noted above, it's not too hard and provides countless aesthetic and navigation benefits. We'll await this consensus (although right now, it's 2/2 for the new). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Hi there, NØ invited me to participate in this discussion because I am active on awards — although in fact I only edit scientific awards. If there is an established format then I would be reluctant to change it without good reason. But FWIW, I have a strong preference for the integrated sortable table. It is more compact, visually more appealing, and easier to navigate.🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your input! In case no one else comes and objects to the following, I will change the format to the newer one whenever I get time in the next 5 days. Thanks to everyone for your patience and input.--NØ 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man The article has been upgraded to the new format. I would really appreciate your reconsideration to review it!--NØ 18:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• Do you think this image (File:150426 Meghan Trainor.jpg) as it is a little higher quality and is a clearer image of her face (i.e. without the microphone in her face)?
• You will need a reference for this part (Trainor signed a record deal with Epic Records in 2014).
• For this part (which earned her Grammy nominations for both Record of the Year, and Song of the Year.), I do no think that "both" is necessary.
• You use "earned" three times in a close proximity in the first paragraph so I would vary the language to avoid repetition.
• This sentence (Trainor released her major-label debut album Title the following year.) needs a reference. The same comment (Trainor's second major-label studio album Thank You was preceded by its lead single "No".) applies for this sentence.
• Trainer received a few nominations in 2018; should they be mentioned in the lead?
• Each of the individual sections need citations for the descriptions of the awards. The following are a few examples that require citations (ARIA Music Awards, Hollywood Music in Media Awards, Japan Gold Disc Award, Juno Awards, and Latin American Music Awards)

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope you found this review to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe I addressed all of your concerns, please tell me if I do something more.--NØ 10:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this based on the prose. I do not have an issue with the formatting as it is consistent and well-formatted for this particular article. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions for my current FLC. It is a similar type of a list (i.e. awards and nominations) by someone who's career has taken a much larger nosedive than Trainor's lol. Either way, have a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from BeatlesLedTV

• You got scope cols but still need scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
• Made this edit for you (fixed dashes per MOS:DASH)

Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the scope rows here!--NØ 18:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support − All good for me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from The Rambling Man

• Nice work on reformatting the list to the new and improved standard! One standout issue: if Wikipedia doesn't consider ASCAP Pop Music Awards to be notable, why are they included in this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I do think the ASCAP Pop Music Awards are notable tbh. I found coverage in many reliable sources: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. They’re also included in prestigious FLs List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry and List of awards and nominations received by Madonna so I left them in! Edit: I added wikilinks to the ASCAP page like in the FLs I used as examples.—NØ 21:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, don't cap my comments again without my permission, that's bad form.
• Secondly, good work on fixing up the format to be really much better than the previous.
• Thirdly, thank you for addressing the corollary issues I noted.
• Fourthly, SUPPORT this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, added archivelinks to references, promoting. --PresN 21:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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