Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 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, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Joe Root

Nominator(s): Gihan Jayaweera, Vensatry

A part of the "fab four", Joe Root might well end up as England's greatest ever batsman. At just under 28, he already has 26 centuries to his name (he has the most centuries for England in ODIs). Gihan Jayaweera laid the groundwork – happy to include him as a co-nom. This is my first FLC in nine months; a thorough review would be much appreciated. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Test cricket and One Day International should be linked in the first paragraph. Done —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) It looks a bit weird with a very short first paragraph followed by two much longer ones. Expanded a bit —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Ashes links to a disambiguation. Fixed —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Root went on to sore three centuries has a typo ("sore"). Fixed —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Root has scored centuries against all Test-playing nations, with the exception of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland and Zimbabwe. – that's a pretty extensive exception. I'd instead write "against X out of Y Test-playing nations" before listing the exceptions. Done —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) The key should not have its own section. Is there a rule? —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Not as far as I know, but it has a negative impact on the visual appeal. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC) The key is not consistent in its use of periods. Done —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{Abbr}} template instead (and have links where appropriate). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key. Not sure what the problem is. Can you be more specific? —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) The key is a lot longer than it needs to be. For instance: instead of explaining "H/A/N" in the key, that header cell in the table should read H/A/N, i.e. {{abbr|H/A/N|Home, Away, or Neutral venue}} (or something similar). The only things that should be explained in the key are the meaning of the symbols (asterisk for not out, dagger for man of the match, and double dagger for captain). An overly long key impedes readability significantly. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC) "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO. Done —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) The reference column header in the ODI table should be formatted like the one in the Test table, using the {{abbr}} template. Done —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC) @TompaDompa: Thanks for the review. —Vensatry (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sagavaj

• In second para, you mentioned "Root has scored centuries against seven of the twelve Test-playing nations". As of when?
• Some scores were mentioned in the lead. Though references were present in the table, I think you can keep same references even in the lead. e.g., 254 against pakistan
• Though you mentioned 90* as highest score in T20 and is implied that he didn't score a century yet, I think it is still better to mention it somewhere.

I didn't find much and I hope these will help. Sagavaj (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sagavaj: Fixed all. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(talk) 04:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Sagavaj (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "Root has scored centuries against seven of the twelve Test-playing nations" - I would change this to "Root has scored centuries against seven of the other eleven Test-playing nations", as he obviously can't score one against England
• Note a: "The exceptions include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland and Zimbabwe." - change to "The exceptions are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland and Zimbabwe." The use of the word "include" implies that there are other exceptions.
• That's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Good catches, as ever. :) Thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments welcome back! "hundred or more" shouldn't that really be "100 or more" or "one hundred or more" or "a hundred or more"? "Root made his international debut" which format? I presume Test, but it should be stated. "at the Headingley Cricket Ground. " we'd normally just say "at Headingley." "youngest English player" stick with "England" rather than "English" given the vast array of non-English England players we've had... "an Ashes century at Lord's when he made 180 in the second Test of the 2013 Ashes series." try to avoid the repetition of Ashes here. Next two consecutive sentences start "His performance..." which is repetitive. " by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in " once again, I'd drop "the" here. "Root went on to score three centuries .." three more or three in total, so two more? A little unclear. "scored at 12 different venues—have come against six different " twelve (MOS:NUM "cats and dogs"). Might be worth mentioning England don't lose Test matches when Root tons up. "Facts" which are not unlikely to change hardly add any value to the article. Consistent date formats in the refs please. No spaced hyphens (ref 3 title) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Fixed the rest. Thanks —Vensatry (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 26 September 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, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1999

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because thirteen previous such lists have been successfully promoted and the fourteenth is close, with multiple supports. This time I have stepped back into the 20th century (remember that?) ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Why is the word "airplay" linked to Rotation (music) instead of to Airplay? female performers achieved a level of success on the country charts greater than in the first half of the decade or the new century – I would say something like "than they did in the first half of the decade or would in the following two"; we don't know how it will be in the 2040s. the first time a country act had achieved this feat since 1983 – I'd mention who did so in 1983. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment What is the difference between this list and the List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s that's nominated below? Why Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones lists are yearly, while the other one is by decades? Another example is List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1990s that you, Chris, nominated before. My simple question is why can't this list be by decades as well?--Cheetah (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The country number ones lists were created (not by me - I just found them and decided to start improving them) by year way back in 2010 and that's how they've been ever since. There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule on how such lists are organised - there are around 30 existing FLs of number ones organised by year across various genres/charts..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose I understand what you're saying. It's just these yearly lists are too bland to me. I believe lists by decades are more interesting to browse than the yearly ones. List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1990s is a great example of what these lists should look like. It has a lot more information on one page. --Cheetah (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I never responded to this point. I appreciate your views, and I don't think I am likely to be able to sway them, but the fact that 14 of these country number one lists by year are already FLs would seem to suggest that consensus is that it is an acceptable way to present the information.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Only a few comments for this one:

• "Chely Wright achieved the only number one of her career in 1999." – it appears her career is still going, so it seems a bit definitive to say "of her career"
• Include a table caption :)

Another great list, your efforts to get a complete "set" to FL-status is inspiring! – Allied45 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Both the above addressed. Wright hasn't charted at all since 2005 so another number one would seem unlikely at this point but never say never I guess :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Support – Allied45 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments My usual "link "chart" to record chart". "first half of the decade or would in the following two" following two "half decades" or two decades? Mildly confusing... "by "Amazed" by the band" by by... repetitive. " Lonestar's song" why not just "Amazed"? "in the spring" it's probably somewhere like MOS:TIME but I seem to remember being told to avoid seasons as they vary from hemisphere to hemisphere so their timings are not necessarily universal. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. All fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "or would in early part of the new century" not quite right, nor quite what I was hoping for (you've gone from confusing but specific, to vague)... Also "Lonestar's song" is still there... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Tried again :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed (I also archived all references); disregarding oppose- after 11 prior FLs, while I'm not necessarily opposed to converting to decade lists, I'm also not seeing a consensus either here or at WP:MUSIC to no longer having year lists, no matter how "bland". Promoting. --PresN 01:51, 26 September 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, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Saved this article from deletion, took it to WP:DYK, and now I think it is ready for WP:FLC. Please bear with me, this is my first nomination in a long time, so if I missed something simple, I apologize. Thanks for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: I believe in QPQ at FLC. I will review 3 noms for every one I nominate (1, 2, 3). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

*The WP:LEAD is very long – too long for a lead section. The details about the players whose numbers were retired should be moved to the body, and a briefer summary should be added to the lead instead. I trimmed the lead diff. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I still think the lead is too long compared to the length of the entire page. See for instance List of highest-grossing films, which is much longer yet has a shorter WP:LEAD. I'd suggest adding a "History" section (or similar) to the body. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I added a history section per your recommendation. Good idea, I like it better this way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I haven't done a proper source check, but the WP:LEAD contains a fairly large number of sentences that are not followed by an inline citation. Do the references generally verify all the sentences following the last citation, or are there unsourced statements? Yes they do. The only sentences that lack a source are the last few sentences of the first paragraph, explaining that teams retire numbers. The sentences, in my opinion, are backed up by the substance of the list and the sources that show the Packers retire numbers. Let me know what you think. I haven't been able to find a source that generically says teams retire numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) In the alt text that reads "A photo of Reggie White and other unknown Packers players with former president Bill Clinton", I would remove the word "unknown". The players are presumably not unknown even if they haven't been identified in this particular photograph, and their identities aren't relevant in this context anyway. I removed it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I would place the photos of the players to the right of the table, rather than below it. I have no strong feelings about this, but here is what it looks like [4]. Using thumbnails, it creates a ton of white space. I also heard that putting the photos above or below makes for easier readability depending on screen size (i.e. gives more room for the table). Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) That version is obviously less than ideal, but its possible to specify the height to eliminate the problem. Come to think of it, maybe it would be best to make a new column in the table so that the pictures are aligned with the corresponding entry. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I moved them into the table per your suggestion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC) The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) is defunct. The intended link seems to be this one. It worked for me, but I replaced it with your version, which also works for me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) My main issue: as of right now, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). Specifically, I think this could "reasonably be included as part of a related article". Note that this article was nominated for deletion for that very same reason and the ultimate outcome was to keep it. I feel like this discussion comes up a lot with shorter lists. In my opinion, this article provides a lot more information than what would be necessary for a larger, summary article (such as Green Bay Packers or History of the Green Bay Packers). If someone added this much info to those articles, I would cut it down significantly per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Hope that helps, thanks for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I saw the AfD and gave the arguments presented a cursory read-through. After a second, more thorough read-through I stand by my assessment that the list currently does not meet WP:FLCR 3(b). I agree that this level of detail would be excessive for a larger article, but the list reasonably could be included in one (which is not to say that it should, just as the result of the AfD wasn't "keep" but "no consensus"). In other words, trimming and merging would be a reasonable option right now. What I feel is missing is information that could not reasonably be included in a larger article and the loss of which would be clearly detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. The "why" would almost certainly fit that bill, but I fear that it might be difficult to source. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I followed you until your last two sentences. What do you feel is missing from this article? I believe that it is a reasonable stand-alone list that will continue to grow and there is plenty of in-depth info that is appropriate only for this article, and not a larger one if this list were merged. Note that this list is already in the Green Bay Packers article, just with a whole lot less info. The table is not the only part of a list, a list in my opinion includes the entire article. Thus, the entirety of this article could not be reasonably merged into Green Bay Packers per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, thus a separate article is appropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC) The list includes both the table and the text, yes. In this case, however, the text doesn't add much that both (a) isn't in the table already and (b) enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. The main thing in the text that satisfies both of those criteria is the Future additions section, which I will say that I really like. The table also adds only the "honors and awards" column to the condensed one on Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers (well, besides the photos and references). So in essence List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers has one additional paragraph of quality content compared to Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers, and I don't think that's enough for a WP:Featured list. An additional paragraph or two of quality content would do wonders for the list and would resolve this issue entirely in my eyes, as would the reasons why these particular players had their numbers retired (i.e. the motivation/rationale for it, if there is an official one like there is for the Nobel Prizes). TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Interesting. Let me see what I can do. It will probably be a few days, fyi. Thanks for the comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa let me know if I have addressed your comment sufficiently diff. Let me know if you have any other concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC) That will suffice, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC) If and when these issues have been addressed, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Some things needing copyediting: "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO. One of the instances also has a lowercase "n" which should be changed to uppercase. Added to all instances of "No." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Nitschke, who with Bart Starr, was a five-time NFL Champion and two-time Super Bowl winner under coach Vince Lombardi and anchored the Packers defense for 15 seasons." is an anacoluthon. Reworded. Just removed the part about Bart Starr. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "losing the second.His number" – missing space after period. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "retiremenet" – typo. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Use "died" rather than "passed away" per MOS:EUPHEMISM. Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks again TompaDompa for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments, first though, thanks for your QPQ approach, and especially such a generous one. " in 1919, over 1,600 " never liked those easter egg links to seasons (especially when this is the only one I think), and "more than" rather than "over". "Of those 30 Hall of Famers," no need to repeat "Hall of Famers". "30 Hall of Famers, only six " 30/6 or "thirty/six" per MOSNUM. And why "only"? Shouldn't the link used for "retire uniform numbers" be in the previous sentence when the phrase ("uniform numbers officially retired") is first used? "the criteria and necessity of " missing "for" after "criteria". "so is usually left up to each team" usually? "unofficial recognition occurred in 1952" probably "took place", and any details on this? "Over 16 season, " missing an s. Ref should be Refs. Year ranges need whole years now (per MOS). "first-team All-Pro " is mentioned in the lead and the table a few times but not linked nor explained. Chicago Tribune is a work so should be italicised. As is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Most of the works/publishers are linked, but not all, be consistent. The Guardian is a work too. That's all I have on that quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC) P.S. Is it also worth mentioning that Reggie White had his number at the Philadelphia Eagles retired as well as for the Packers? Seems notable enough seeing as he's the only person in NFL history to have such an honor...? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the review The Rambling Man! I believe I have addressed all of your comments here. Let me know if there is anything else. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC) I forgot to mention, regarding Reggie White, I cannot find a definitive source that says "first" or "only" to have his number retired by two teams. I added some text noting that his college and the Eagles retired his number. If you notice a source though that says this, I can add it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I was finally able to find a source for the statement about being retired by multiple NFL teams. See here for my changes to the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support the first of a few of these I hope... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "the criteria for and necessity of doing so is left up to each team" => "the criteria for and necessity of doing so are left up to each team"
  • "His number was retired by coach Gene Ronzani during a brief ceremony in a game against the New York Yanks" - was the ceremony literally during the game?
  • Ice Bowl should be in quotation marks, not italics
  • "Nitschke's number was retired in 1983 in a small ceremony during a game against the Chicago Bears" - as above - was it literally "during" the game?
  • "White, who was known as the Minister of Defense" - nickname should be in quote marks, not italics
• Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks ChrisTheDude. I believe I have addressed all your comments here. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice one - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed (I also archived all references); promoting. --PresN 01:51, 26 September 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, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2011

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone is familiar with these lists by now. Thirteen have been promoted in recent months, so here's the next one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One simple question: Is it really necessary to link Billboard in every single ref? I guess everybody knows what Billboard is.--Lirim | T 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that works/publishers should be linked in every ref because the order of them could change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Having said that, I've noticed that in some/most/all of the other lists that have been promoted to FL, I haven't linked it every time. So I guess I'm not wedded to them all being linked. I am not fussed either way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no hard rule about it beyond consistency- some people link every time because ref order is not fixed (as you state); some link only the "first" time (and generally don't try to keep that up to date...); some don't link publishers at all. --PresN 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Something about this part (which had held the top spot since the chart dated December 18, 2010.) reads strangely to me. I think that something along the lines of (which had held the top spot on the chart since December 18, 2010). Something about the word choice (“dated”) seems a little off to me.
• For this part (This gave McEntire the 25th number-one country single), I would revise it to (It was McEntire’s 25th number-one country single) to avoid starting a sentence with “This”.

You always do such great work with these lists. I only have two relatively minor comments for this list. It definitely inspires me to go back to do a music-related list sometime in the future. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words. I have fixed the issues which you raised, hopefully to your satisfaction. I will try to look at your FAC in the next day or two.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments The "Ref." column should either use the {{abbr}} template or spell out the word. Brantley Gilbert achieved his first number one in 2011 [...] is syntactically ambiguous ("the first of his career was in 2011" vs. "the first of the ones in 2011"). I'd rephrase it as "Brantley Gilbert achieved the first number one of his career in 2011 [...]" Blake Shelton spent the most weeks at number one of any artist in 2011. – I'd mention the number of weeks in the image caption. I'd alphabetize "A Little Bit Stronger" under L, rather than A. I'm not a fan of the "freely floating" footnote placement. I'd either make a footnote section or add a bottom row to the table (as is done for several tables on this page). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – About the only thing I can complain about is that I don't think the bit about "Why Wait" having the top spot since December 18 is fully supported by the source. That page is to the December 18 chart; there's not going to be anything there saying that it was also number one on December 25. That sentence needs another reference to confirm its placing in the second week. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point, now resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Great list, here are some things I picked up on:

• The line in the lead "...Brantley Gilbert, who took "Country Must Be Country Wide" to the top spot in December." - "took" sounds weird to me in this context, perhaps there is a better word?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly add a table caption
  • Not sure what that is, can you elaborate.....?
• "Ref." column should be unsortable
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Could you archive the citations to prevent against potential link rot?
  • Again, not sure what that is/how to do it (never been asked to do it on any of the previous lists)........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, it's a beautifully presented list :) – Allied45 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying those points! Table captions are suggested in the "table dos and don'ts" (I have added this for you on your behalf). With archiving citations, I don't believe it's necessarily a requirement, but I am a big fan of doing this whenever I add a citation. Essentially you can use the Wayback Machine (link found here and it will capture the webpage as it is on that date, to prevent against potential link rot in the future, and it saves having to try to rescue or find a suitable alternative if the links go dead. This has actually been implemented already on List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2010 if you'd like to take a look :) Regardless, I think you have done enough to receive my support – Allied45 (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:34, 19 September 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) 00:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Civilization media

Nominator(s): PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In my last stop in my series of FLs on video game developers/publishers, List of games by Firaxis Games (FLC below), I noted that they've focused pretty exclusively on the Civilization series since 2005. That, combined with the lack of a dedicated "media" list for such a long-running and expansive franchise, meant that I thought I could pull together such a list with rows pulled from the Firaxis list as a base. And so, here we are: 27 years of games, board games, books, and albums, for a franchise that didn't invent the 4X genre but is nevertheless considered the definitive version of it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

Great work on the article. Here are some comments:

• In the opening sentence, would simply saying "Civilization is a franchise composed primarily" suffice? This removes the repetition of "media" later on.
• Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the rest, and the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. This is a bit of a mouthful in my opinion. How about changing it to one of these?
  • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels. Consequently, the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization
  • Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of the sequels, with the formal titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization.
• Additionally, what does "formal titles" mean here? If it means the official titling of the series, then wouldn't this work better? the formal titles of the series, consisting of the core games and spin-offs, including his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. (this does not change the meaning of the next sentences, too)
• Why does the article mention the months things took place in only twice? As a reader, I see no benefit from knowing that they took place in November of 2004 and 2005.

When these issues get resolved or I receive clarification (i.e. your proposal changes the meaning), I'll happily support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Dropped 'media' and the months, and reworked that messy sentence into two: Sid Meier developed the first game in the series and has had creative input for most of its sequels. The official titles of the series, core games, and most spin-offs include his name, as in Sid Meier's Civilization. Thanks for reviewing!--PresN 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have a comment about this sentence (Business changes resulting from the consolidation of the company in 1996 with Spectrum HoloByte, which bought MicroProse in 1993, resulted in Meier leaving the company to found Firaxis Games in 1996.). Is there a way to avoid using the words “resulting” and “resulted” in the same sentence?
• I am confused by this part (Music album CDs). Shouldn’t it be either albums or CDs? I have never heard the phrase album CDs before, and I am not sure if the “music” part is necessary.
• You currently have Linux linked in the “Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri” portion of the table. Shouldn’t Linux be wikilinked on the first instance in the body article (i.e. in the “Sid Meier's Civilization V” portion of the table). If you are wikilinking items that appear in multiple tables, then should they both be linked? I am just confused on the linking for this one.

These are my only comments; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. It makes me want to play some Civilization lol. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Adjusted the sentence, made it "Music CDs", and move the linux link to the first instance. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FAC? Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – About the only thing I can even nit-pick is that I'd put a comma after "as well as a spin-off title" in the second paragraph. Otherwise this article looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Done! --PresN 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

• The WP:ALT text for the logo doesn't match the image file.
• digital albums have been sold for Civilization VI and its expansion, and Civilization: Beyond Earth and its expansion would be clearer if the second "and" were replaced with "as well as for".
• I don't like the table layouts where entries are built more vertically than horizontally. I'd rather see additional pieces of information relating to the same entry presented in additional columns than in additional rows. In the first table, for example, I would split the "Details" column into a "Release years by system" column and a "Notes" column rather than keep it the way it is now (although I might split it into even more columns than that). The current layout looks disorganized, even though it isn't.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Fixed the first two. As to the row format, a few things: 1) it's a template used by 200+ lists, including several FLs, so I'm disinclined to change/replace it on a whim, but more importantly 2) I hacked together a version of it where the notes is a new column instead of a new subrow, and tested it here. I actually find that much more visually confusing than the present version, and on smaller screen resolutions (aka <= 1200 pixels wide) it still stretches vertically in the way you disliked, but with the columns squashed. I'll keep playing with it, but right now I'm not going to change the template for this list. --PresN 01:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about smaller screen resolutions. Would it be possible to structure the recurring information (such as developer and publisher, genre for the second table, number of pages for the books, duration and number of tracks for the music) in a way similar to the way "Release years by system" currently is? I think it would look a lot more structured if there were what might loosely be called "headings" for recurring types of information rather than just identical placement in an otherwise featureless bulleted list. TompaDompa (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's problematic to keep subdividing it into sections, because if you don't split it into columns then each sub-row needs to have their own headings (like "Release years by system:" and "Notes:" here) in order to still meet WP:ACCESS requirements (and just to be easily comprehensible). And since you need a header for each section, you end up with even taller game-rows then you currently have. The solution is obviously columns, but as previously noted that gets messy if you have a lot of words per column (and you also can't split some subrows by columns and not others, again per WP:ACCESS- it's talking about column headers in the middle of tables there, but it's really cells that span multiple columns when the cells above/below that row don't do that). In fact, for lists that have too many games to really use the format of this list that's exactly the tradeoff I make- see List of games by Epic Games for example, where everything gets its own column but I have to drop all language around the bare fact and don't have space to talk about extra details except in footnotes at the bottom.

I guess ultimately I don't see anywhere near the issue with this format that you seem to (with the possible exception of the extra space to the side of games with long platform-releases, like Civ 1). I'm not 100% satisfied with it, but I'm also not so dissatisfied that I want to sink a ton more hours into trying to make it slightly better, especially when I don't think there's a good way to do it without just dropping all non-structured "notes" from the table itself. --PresN 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a way to make the structure of the notes more apparent while changing little else: preface the publisher with "Publisher:" (using bold), and do the same for the other pieces of recurring information. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tested that for the first section: [7]; I don't think it's an improvement. It makes it clear what each sentence is about, but they're not exactly long sentences: "Developer/Publisher: Developed and published by MicroProse" is pretty redundant. I don't think I'll keep this change. --PresN 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking more like this. TompaDompa (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so more converting the prosish text into essentially cells without borders? Well, honestly, I don't really like it- I don't like the way it looks, and I don't like how it drops information even though there's plenty of space for it. --PresN 04:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the increased navigability of the list more than makes up for the loss of information (and I'll admit that I'm not a huge fan of the look from a pure visual appeal perspective either), but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. In summary, I find the presentation of the data lacking inasmuch as recurring categories of information are not labeled with headings or similar, but rather presented in a featureless bullet list which makes it look like a miscellaneous collection of information. The data is well-organized, but that's obfuscated by the presentation. TompaDompa (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Should the Alpha Centauri novels be included, if you're including a books section? SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: Wow, yes, that was a big oversight. Now added (novels and graphic novel and GURPS sourcebook). Thanks! --PresN 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support on content. Not reviewing any weird FL stylistic requirements though, if they exist. SnowFire (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments " Sid Meier developed the first game in the series" it seems odd that you don't link the first game in the series here, instead opting to link it in the second lead para... AmigaOS is one word (avoid the piped redirect). Ref 45 has a spaced hyphen. There are three more examples in the refs and one in the main article ("Beyond Earth - Rising Tide"). Otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: All addressed! --PresN 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support although I must register my dislike of floating logos (per the amendment below), but it's not a deal breaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Driveby comment The CIVILIZATION logo text looks extremely hemmed in by the frame around it. Is it possible to increase the white space around the text in the image?—indopug (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Indopug: You know, I think it's pretty clear that it's the logo without a caption, so I've removed the box altogether. --PresN 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the article's sources look okay, and the link-checker took reveals no problems. This is a pass all the way around. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:10, 13 September 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) 22:02, 16 September 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Kate Winslet performances

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kate Winslet's biography is now a featured article. Here's hoping her list of performances makes the cut too. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

*I'm not a big fan of the title. "Kate Winslet on screen, stage, and record" is more in line with most of the other WP:Featured lists like this. I don't mind changing it to that but certain FLs do have similar names, e.g. List of Emma Stone performances. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I know some do, but most don't (for the better, in my opinion). TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa I normally wouldn't mind, but I am a bit sceptical to change it to "screen, stage, and record" as she has starred in only one professional stage production. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC) All right. It's not a deal-breaker. TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC) The image is not a particularly good photograph of Winslet. It should definitely be possible to find a better one. Yeah, it's not ideal. Do you think this image is better? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) That would be an improvement, yes. A high-resolution headshot would be ideal. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Changed to that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "Also that year," – "The same year," is better. "earned her an Academy Award nomination" – I'd note that it was her second nomination. Try to find a reference for The Dressmaker that doesn't require a subscription. Which reference are you talking about? None of them seem to be asking me for a subscription. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) This one (currently reference 19). TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "Refers to the film's earliest release" seems unnecessary to me – what else would it refer to? Well, there's sometimes a conflict regarding a theatrical release and a film festival release. This footnote prevents warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) There are two identical references (58 and 59, as of my writing this). TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) TompaDompa thanks for taking time out to review this. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Support now that the above issues have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments I have a couple of nitpicks I am not sure now, but back in the day it was a requirement to have inline citations in ascending order: [13][10] should be [10][13] Why is there a note saying "Refers to the film's earliest release"? Did someone require it? To me, it's obvious and no need to note that. When a conflict arises regarding a film's theatrical release and festival release, this footnote prevents edit-warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) When you have two directors for a film, like for the "Manou the Swift", how do you decide who should be the first when sorting? Ordered them alphabetically. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) When there are multiple years, the column should be titled "Year(s)", and for multiple references - "Ref(s)" What was the reason when one of the editors removed the film "Critters" here? Was it because she was uncredited? Yes, and I didn't add it back because no other WP:RS mentions it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Crzycheetah Thank you for the review. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) There are a couple of tables that still need "Ref(s)". One more nitpick, I just noticed this ref titled "For real pride, tune in the aboriginal awards" was retrieved in 2004 even though the article is published in 2018, I am not even stating the fact that this wiki page was created in 2013.--Cheetah (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Crzycheetah Sorry, the date and accessdate parameters were mixed up. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I hope you don't mind my minor edit there.--Cheetah (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for the fixes. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have a question about this part (and the single "What If", which she sang for the 2001 animated film Christmas Carol: The Movie, proved to be a commercial hit). I could not find support for the “commercial hit” claim in the reference provided. Could you point out where it says this in the source as I am most likely just reading over it? Also do you think that this statement requires further context/specification as it was primarily a commercial success in parts of Europe as opposed to everywhere.
• Do you think that you should be consistent with using either Academy Award or Oscar? I was just curious if an unfamiliar reader may not be aware that they reference the same award. I know that it is fairly common knowledge, but I was just curious about this part.

Wonderful work with this list! These are the only comments that I have noticed. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, tweaked accordingly. Thanks for the review. Much appreciated, as always. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's very kind. Thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a good list.

• "The 2004 science fiction romance ..." This whole sentence reads kind of clumsily to me. I'd suggest breaking it into two sentences, and having something more like "The 2004 science fiction romance Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind marked one of Winslet's first roles set in contemporary times.[ref] She followed it by playing etc. etc.". You may then need to rewrite the next sentence, which talks about the "first and last" of these roles.

I somehow believe that if I split the sentences, it will be clunkier as I will have to repeat her Oscar nominations in two consecutive sentences. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't repeat the word "titular" quite so close together.
• "6 episodes" -> "Six episodes"
• Episode: Family Matters -> Episode: "Family Matters"
• Spaced hypens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
• What's the logic behind which publishers are wikilinked in the references? Some of them are, some of them aren't.

Wikilinked the first instance. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 76 has dates in yyyy-mm-dd format.

Incidentally, my current open FLC is YouTube Awards. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors Thanks for the comments. I'll review your nomination soon. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:26, 14 September 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, 15 September 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

List of international goals scored by Romelu Lukaku

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Another football list, Lukaku has rapidly risen to the top, his recent scoring exploits have projected him onto the global stage. He's top scorer for Belgium already, and could go to double his tally if he stays fit enough. As ever, your comments will be addressed as soon as I possibly can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

1. The images should have WP:ALT texts.
2. Cap (sport) should be linked or the term "cap" explained somewhere since the reader may not be familiar with it.
3. The "Ref." column should be "Ref." (i.e. {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}).
4. The "Apps" column should either have it spelled out or use the {{abbr}} template.

I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b) right now; I have checked what the main Romelu Lukaku article looked like before this list was split off from it and have come to the conclusion that this could "reasonably be included as part of a related article". TompaDompa (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I disagree, the main article is easily large enough to sustain a forked off article such as this. Other points addressed. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

PS, for what it's worth, see WP:SIZERULE. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good guideline! Lukaku's page size is 21kb, so based on that rule of thumb "Length alone does not justify division". What justifies division then? --Cheetah (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of him being Belgium's top international scorer. If people prefer to merge it back, sources and all, that's just fine. At least I've improved things, one way or another, with this. Just make sure you get the attribution right when you do it. Plenty more fish in the sea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like there's plenty of support for it to be a standalone list, so I'll continue with this nomination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I can't see any issues with the content and am happy with it being a stand-alone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

Comments from Liam E. Bekker In reference to the above comments, I don't see any issue with this being a stand-alone page and it is common for the top goalscorer of a national team to have a list for their record of goals. My recommendations follow: The key refers to the non-official goals scored against Luxembourg. In this regard, the article is a bit vague on when the record was officially recognized by a) Belgium and (b FIFA. The match against Japan in 2017 saw him break the national record but FIFA only recognized it later. It is sort-of mentioned in reference to the hat-tricks later but I think, for the benefit of readers, it is important to give more attention to the distinction. I don't think it is necessary to mention his act of sportsmanship (more suited for the mother article) or to make mention of his most recent goals and appearances. The context of his most recent goals is obviously important but I would rephrase it to say something along the lines of "On (date), Lukaku scored twice against Tunisia... which took his overall tally..." And maybe just start that same sentence as a new para for ease of reading. That's about it from what I can pick up. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Liam E. Bekker Hi Liam, thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I've tried to add more detail and rejig what was there around the Luxembourg goals. Oddly I can't find anything which directly supports the fact that FIFA changed their mind on the hat-trick being unofficial other than, say, his 2018 World Cup profile which clearly includes the three goals in his post-WC record there... I'm getting a bit "can't see the wood for the trees" on moving stuff around, perhaps you'd be kind enough to take another look and see what you might suggest? The sportsmanship is fine in my opinion and I've clarified it to note that he basically denied himself a chance of a hat-trick in doing so. And the most recent goal (which has changed twice since you reviewed the list!) is also relevant in my mind, and is standard across most lists of this type. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Hi The Rambling Man, my concern with the recent goals was from a maintenance point of view - namely that it would need to be regularly updated - but that's pretty much the norm on all football pages so it's no big issue. Regarding the changes made about the record, the only changes I can suggest are some small word tweaks as follows: ...when Lukaku scored his 31st goal in a match against Japan in November 2017. FIFA, however, did not initially recognise the record... (I say initially not because they have since recognised it but because they have no choice but to recognise it now because he has gone past the record anyhow). (re hat-tricks and as the FIFA dispute with Luxembourg is already mentioned) ...Lukaku has scored two hat-tricks during his international career, including the treble against Luxembourg and another in a 9–0... These are both stylistic suggestions so you're welcome to chop and change as you see fit to try and get it to flow. I have no other concerns. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Liam E. Bekker I've tried to work those suggestions in, so hopefully I'm done? If not, feel free to tweak further yourself, I'm not precious about it! Thanks again for your review comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all of my concerns have been addressed.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support prose is fine and I have nothing to change. I feel it meets the criteria, and am not concerned with the standalone bit. The Rambling Man this isn’t enough to stop me from supporting outright, but the image in the statistics section renders weird on my current screen (iPhone, but desktop view) and causes the tables to weirdly float in the white space. I’m not sure if this is caused by my being on mobile or not, or if there is a way to fix it, but I thought it worth raising if you weren’t aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni Hi Tony, thanks for that. I agree, I get the same rendering on my phone (same configuration as you), I wonder if it's the same in Firefox or Chrome (I only use Safari on iPhone). Good news, though, I've used the same technique as I applied in the Rooney list, adding the image into its own column in that section, and I think it works fine all ways round now. Do let me know what you think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Looks fine now. Also, I use Chrome on mobile, so it doesn’t appear to be a Safari issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Ok, cool, well thanks for noticing and pointing it out, I'll make sure it's fixed on any lists I find with a similar coding issue. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:26, 14 September 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, 15 September 2018 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved a lot compared to its last FLC. A lot of work has been done on the lead and on the tables, solving a user's issues that remained unsolved last time. I believe the list is largely ready for FL status. Thank you in advance for comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Is {{dynamic list}} really the right template? {{complete list}} seems more appropriate to me. It makes sense! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) According to reports, radio and television broadcasting has gained popularity in Romania in recent years, resulting in increasing revenues for the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company (SRR). – the attribution is vague and the text has MOS:RECENT issues. The relevance of this is also not immediately clear to me. I removed this from the lead. Since information on the chart's history/records etc is hard to find on the internet, I thought of expanding the lead with a fact about the overall airplay situation in Romania, but it was indeed a little too vague. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Recent years – again, MOS:RECENT issues. Reworded for the better (I hope). Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) the label repeatedly had one of each year's most radio broadcasts with different songs from their catalogues is a bit confusing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Is it clearer now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) It's better, but not entirely clear. If the point is that they have had at least one song each year, I'd write "the label has had songs reach number one every year." TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I changed the sentence again, but your suggestion would be wrong, since what I want to say is not that their songs reached number one on the year-end charts, but rather that they were ranked (maybe) in the top 10 that year. Hope my correction does it now, otherwise I may get some help from another user. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Would "Every year, the label has released songs that have gone on to be featured on the list." be correct? The current phrasing is a bit trivial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC) For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration. – I'd like you to explain this to me in more detail. Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) {{dagger}} is preferable to "+" because it allows for WP:ALT text. Similarly, the {{hash-tag}} at the bottom of the table should have "current number-one song" as alt text. Done... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) There should not be column headers in the middle of tables, see MOS:DTT. Worked on the table in accordance to the table presented at MOS:DTT. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) What is the purpose of the "No." column? It is useful for knowing how many number ones there have been in a chart's history. Also, it is listed by Wikipedia at MOS:DTT, so I think it should remain. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) "re" in the "No." column is unexplained. I've added Abbr templates to all "re"s existing along with an explanation of the abbreviation. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Should the "Weeks" column not be called "Weeks at number one"? Yes, indeed it should... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The "Weeks" column does not sort two-digit numbers correctly. I do not really understand your point here. To me, they are sorting correctly... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The problem seems to have been with the mid-table column headers. Anyway, it works now. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The 19 February 2017 edition of the Airplay 100 was either not published or not archived. – was it not just preponed to 17 February? I really don't know, but I think it's the safest to say it was not published or archived. I can reword it if you want me to. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Why are some entries in the table followed by a reference and most are not? These are third-party sources from Unsitedemuzica.ro, a reliable source that reports about the chart almost weekly starting with October 2016. These have been encouraged in the past FLC of this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The default sorting of the "By artist" table is odd to me. It seems to be by number of Number ones, and then alphabetically. To me, weeks at number one is a more logical tie-breaker. The "By artist" table should remain a list of the artists with the most number ones (as used by several other record chart lists). The "Weeks at number one" was just some extra information on these five artists with the most number-ones, but it was somehow redundant, since they're not all part of the artists with the most weeks at number one. I would avoid, however, to do such a listing, since that could change weekly and could result into errors. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) There should be some text for the "By song" table which explains that it counts the total number of weeks at number one, unlike the first table which counts consecutive weeks at number one (because otherwise the reader is likely to think the table redundant). I've added a note on the subject matter. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I also think that merging this list and Airplay 100 (Romania) should be considered, considering the latter is a stub. TompaDompa (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I think as a national chart, the Airplay 100 is worth of having its own article, even if a stub, but we can discuss that with other users if you want to. I also think that this list is somehow big and should not be merged into the Airplay 100 article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

I really don't think that that Year column is an improvement. For one thing, it's entirely redundant – the Reached number one column already states the year. We tend not to have rowspans in sortable tables anyway, given how they break up unappealingly whenever the table is sorted, and then can only be remerged by refreshing the page. Adding an extra column bunches up the contents of other five (see how "Ain't Nobody (Loves Me Better)" and "Niciodată să nu spui niciodată" are now split over two lines, for example), and the visual separation between consecutive years is now considerably less clear (it's basically just one thin line in the Year column).

I know that this table is complying with the "good" example given in MOS:DTT, but that example was added by one user following very little discussion (in the fact, the discussion was between just two editors, one of whom was me). I'll bring up the issue on the talk page there, but, if there are no replies after a week or so (and there probably won't be, nobody's edited that page in over three years), then I'm just going to be bold and remove the "good" example, and suggest that we try to come up with an alternative solution for this article here. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Hi! I now removed the year column alltogether, as I realized it is superfluous since we have the dates each item reached number one. It would be a good idea to clarify the Manual of Style entry, since it could be helpful for editors wanting to improve other lists. Best regards! Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: Was a consensus reached in the subject matter? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No, there's hasn't been any response. For this article, it may be best to omit the year-breaking rowspans from the table entirely until a solution has been reached that meets MOS:ACCESS. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

Resolved comments from --Lirim

Comments Reached number one can be easily changed to Issue date. The charts are issued on sunday so e.x. 26 February 2012. Issue sounds more formal than reached. Weeks at number one I'm personally not a big fan of columns that are way too big. The current could easily fit 10 numbers, but the maximum ist two. I would recommend an abbreviation like Wks.. It looks better and the top of the table won't be unnecessary wide. --Lirim

• Support Lirim | Talk 12:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

*Quick comment to kick things off and remind me to come back later: the images down the right hand side are huge and should not be that large. Use the "upright" parameter instead of a fixed image size -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC) I now use the 'upright' parameter for images! Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Consider an image in the lead? DONE! Is it okay like this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) "As of its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 is broadcast each Sunday" => "Since its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 has been broadcast each Sunday" DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) "The chart was preceded by the Romanian Top 100—which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation[4]—and replaced it after its cancellation in 2012" => "The chart replaced the Romanian Top 100, which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation, in 2012" DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100" => "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles have reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100 as of [whenever]" DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artist Andra and Smiley with four each" = > "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artists Andra and Smiley with four each" DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most plays on Romanian radio and television." => ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most played on Romanian radio and television." DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) " For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration" - I don't really get this bit. Where did the data for other years come from if not from such lists? Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I would suggest you clarify this in the article, as otherwise people will be asking (as I did) where the information for 2014, 2015, etc came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I tried to clarify this. Is it understandable? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I have responded to your comments. Many thanks for your time! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:26, 14 September 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) 01:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror

Nominator(s): — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have modelled this list on List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story and the other pages listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards and nominations received by television series, and I believe the list is now complete, consistently formatted and meets the other FL criteria. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. I'm always confused about when the caption alone is sufficient, and what to put as alt text. Should the alt text be describing the physical features of the people, or just say "image of ___"? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC) What the alt text should be depends on the image and why it's used. In these cases when it's a photograph of a person used solely because it's a photograph of that person to go along with the text that mentions that person in a different context than the photograph was taken, I'd just go with "A photograph of [person]". In an article about a film character, where there's a screenshot from the film which shows the character, I'd be more inclined to describe what the character looks like, rather than "[actor] as [character]". TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC) That makes complete sense. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Two of the references in the reference list give error messages. Per WP:FLCR 5(a), there should be a minimal amount of WP:Redlinks. There are a tad too many for my taste. Just remove the links. Sorry, but I don't think four links (five including repetition) is unreasonable under 5(a). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC) "along with the special" would be better as "as did the special". "while the following two series" would be better as "whereas the following two series". "Each episode is standalone; there are 19 episodes in the show's first four series, and a fifth series has been commissioned." The use of a semicolon here is odd as the clauses are completely unrelated, content-wise. See if you can move the standalone part elsewhere in the WP:LEAD "Black Mirror has received positive reception from critics" should not be followed by a comma. I would remove the quote that describes the show and just leave "the show explores the side-effects of technology". "The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]"). The "people" table would be helped by a column that describes who these people are in relation to the show (actor, writer, etc.) and perhaps one for which episode(s) they received the nominations/awards. I think an episodes column would feel redundant with the above section, and be a bit unwieldy. I've added a "Role" column, though. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Something is amiss with the IGN Awards table, where the rightmost column seems to be formatted incorrectly. The link in reference 22 (as of my writing this) should be archived as I have a feeling that it might get dead within a year or so. The link in reference 71 (as of my writing this) is dead. I might go through the list more thoroughly at a later date, but this should at least be a start. TompaDompa (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! I've responded inline to some points, and believe I've addressed the rest (in this edit). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Two more things from the WP:LEAD: It should be clarified that the Award ceremony for "USS Callister" has not yet taken place. The verb tense ("has been nominated" rather than "was nominated") is a bit too subtle to make this clear (I'll admit that at first, I thought the changing tenses were a mistake). The last sentence has three commas which could be reduced to one by rephrasing it to "[...], winning two of each." I haven't looked much at the contents of the list or the sources, but I assume that the facts and sourcing are in order. TompaDompa (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Okay, I think I've fixed those issues in this edit. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to support this now that my issues have been satisfactorily resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• These links should be fixed.

  Other than the redirect one, not sure what the problems were—the links all work for me. I've archived them anyway. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Link science fiction in the opening sentence.
• Link the publishers in their first instance, just like its in ref 1 to 10.

  I've linked work/publisher in all instances (they're an exception to MOS:DUPLINK). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your comments. Let me know if there's anything more you think needs to be done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from CelestialWeevil (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments In the lead, "19 episodes" is a numeral, but in the first body prose (the section 'Episodes' under 'Statistics') it's written out as "nineteen episodes". This might not be a problem, though. I noticed it for whatever reason. Reference 47 has an American-style access date I had to look hard for any inconsistencies; the list is very good. CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Fixed both (nice catches). Per MOS:NUMERAL, integers 10–99 can be words or numerals, but I assume consistency is desirable, so the list uses words throughout now. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Support — Great list. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:12, 31 August 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) 22:05, 9 September 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a former FL which was demoted because of the fact that it was highly outdated. However, that is not the case now and I believe that the list should again be promoted to FL status. Bharatiya29 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment - "The second list includes all those players who were brought by DD but they did not play any match. They are also initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - I can't see any such table...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed Bharatiya29 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Fix these links.

 Done

• Is "CricketArchive" a RS?

It is used as a source in many featured cricket lists and articles. I don't see any reason to not consider it a RS.

• I would suggest you to delink Delhi in the opening sentence, per WP:OLINK.

 Done Bharatiya29 08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

*"Delhi Daredevils (DD) is a franchise" – seems to me like this should start with "The", just like the main Delhi Daredevils article.  Done "against Sunrisers Hyderabad" – the linked article seems to suggest that there should be a definite article here.  Done "has scored two centuries" – century (cricket) should be linked. Assume that the reader is not familiar with cricket terminology, and link all terms in the WP:LEAD.  Done "This does not includes players like Doug Bracewell and Siddharth Kaul, who have being not out in the innings they have played, due to which their batting average cannot be calculated." – this is ungrammatical and (at least to me) confusing.  Done I have changed the phrase and I think that it makes sense now. "among bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs" – over (cricket) should be linked.  Done "The best bowling average is Doug Bracewell's 10.66, though among bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs, Farveez Maharoof has the best average: 19.25." – is it customary to consider bowlers who have bowled more than 20 overs separately? Not really. If the general feeling is that it is redundant, then I have no problem in removing it. I'll leave judging whether it is appropriate to include or not to someone more familiar with cricket than I am (which is not exactly difficult). TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Mishra has the best bowling figures in an innings: he claimed five wickets against Deccan Chargers in a 2008 match, while only conceding 17 runs." – add the bowling average so the reader doesn't have to calculate it for themself. Bowling average has nothing to do with bowling figures in an innings, so I don't think that it is needed. Well, that shows how much I know about cricket, I guess. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) "Dinesh Karthik has taken the most catches as wicket-keeper for DD, with 30, while also making the most stumpings: 15." – link Caught and Stumped.  Done "The first list includes all players who have played in at least one match for DD and is initially listed alphabetically by their last name." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD and add some text above the first table summarizing its contents instead (I'd suggest writing something about the number of players, which should make it clear that the list is exhaustive). There's no need to explain that the table is sorted alphabetically by default (and the footnote further explaining this can also be removed).  Done "The second list comprises all those players who have captained the team in at least one match, arranged in the order of the first match as captain." – Remove this from the WP:LEAD and write some text above the second table summarizing its contents instead.  Done "Many players have also represented other teams of the IPL, but only the records of their games for DD are given." – this is self-explanatory and should be removed.  Done "To sort these tables by any statistic, click on the icon in the column title." – this is unnecessary and should be removed.  Done "These statistics are correct as of 2018 Indian Premier League." – Rephrase as "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." and place the text in italics above each of the tables instead.  Done "These statistics do not cover practice matches or matches abandoned without a toss." – place the text in italics above each of the tables instead.  Done The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead. The reader shouldn't have to scroll up from the second table all the way up to right below the WP:LEAD to check something in the key.  Done Much of the information in the key is unnecessary in that format. All the abbreviations in the table should be explained with the {{abbr}} template instead (while retaining the links). Only the symbols need to be explained in the key.  Done The "Uncapped players" table has been removed, so there shouldn't be a key for it.  Done "This doesn't includes illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides." should be "This does not include illegal deliveries like no-balls and wides."  Done "The BBI has not been provided for those bowlers who have not taken any wicket while playing for DD." – explain BBI and remove "those".  Done I don't see what the flags add to the reader's understanding of the topic and suggest that they be removed. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire "Nationality" column (it seems beside the point of a list concerning a subnational team), but the flags should definitely be removed as they add nothing but visual clutter to the table.  Done "Van der Merwe currently plays for the Netherlands, but he was a South African during his stint with the DD." – replace "currently plays" with "later played" per MOS:CURRENTLY and replace "was a South African" with "played for South Africa".  Done I would suggest replacing the asterisks (*) with {{hash-tag}} so that WP:ALT text can be added. The asterisk sign is used extensively in cricket to denote a not out score. It's better to keep using it. Okay. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) The "No." column for the captains should be removed.  Done The "Total" row for the captains should have its values calculated in the cells, not simply entered. I don't know how to do that, and I could not find anything on H:TABLE. It will be great if you can tell some page which talks about the syntax to do this stuff. I fixed it. It's mostly so it will be easier to update in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC) The Portal link should not be placed in the bullet list.  Done TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your extensive review. Highly appreciated. Bharatiya29 14:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Linking "cricket team" is incorrect, just cricket is fine.  Done "is a franchise" singular then followed by a bunch of plurals, perhaps there's an elegant way to deal with this (our US readers simply can't stand this kind of thing).  Done Made it all singular. "They played their first Twenty20 match" do they play any other kind of cricket?  Done Removed Twenty20. "thrice" archaic, try "three times"  Done "DD have reached the IPL playoffs thrice, and have topped the group stage table twice.' realistically, most of this is meaningless to our readers, what does it really mean in the context of the tournament? DD has never been in the IPL finals, so those two league stage top finishes are the major highlights of their history. I think that it doesn't harm to give some intro about the team's performances. CLT20 is never used as an abbreviation so why abbreviate it?  Done "The leading run-scorer for DD is Sehwag, who has scored 2,382 runs." repeat of runs and score here in such a short sentence.  Done "128 runs not out " we don't normally say "runs" in this phrasing.  Done "batting average" and "wickets" are pipes to redirects.  Done "claiming 90." slightly controversial language for those outside cricket.  Done "best average: 19.25" -> "best average with 19.25"  Done "claimed five wickets against" could link five wicket haul?  Done "Statistics updated as of the 2018 Indian Premier League." could say when that ended as it's 2018 for a while yet. Changed it to the last match DD played. Avg doesn't seem to sort correctly, both times I get a – at the top. Both of those dashes are different. Surely bowlers with a null average should sort worse than those with a real one? If not, you never get to see the best bowling average at the top of the sort.  Done Most of the St column should be dashed because most of the players didn't play as wicket keeper.  Done Morkel has a diacritic missing.  Done Pieterson isn't spelt that way.  Done Enough for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:55, 8 September 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, 9 September 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Azerbaijan international footballers

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked to improve the article and believe it now meets the FL criteria. I have based the page on my recently promoted List of Wales international footballers page. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the only thing I can see is an issue around the use of "all-time". When the words are used in a phrase like "the all-time top goalscorer" then it needs a hyphen, but in something like "the top goalscorer of all time" then it doesn't. Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean, I've made some amendments to the page to hopefully fix the issue. Thanks for your review. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The caption on the lead image doesn't need a hyphen.............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot that one was there. Fixed. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments "Prior to this, Azerbaijani players had represented the Soviet Union national football team. They played their first official international match..." the "They" here could be confused as the last team mentioned is the Soviet national team. - Done Could you add dates when the team formally became members of UEFA and FIFA? - I've included the years, I don't have exact dates though. "233 international matches since their debut, winning 45, drawing 62 and losing 127" I think that adds up to 234? - Done Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop. - Done I had to look this up - earned is far more common than earnt (although the latter is technically also correct, but it reads REALLY odd to me). - Done "UEFA European Football Championship" drop "Football" from this. - Done "Statistics sourced from: [5][13][14]" remove space. - Done Awkward question: how do we verify the players who are still "current"? In the same way with the Wales list, I don't think it's possible to definitively say who is retired so all active players are classed as still eligible. Luckily the RSSSF list helps to denote who is still playing. Don't use hash for No. - Done And why isn't that column sortable? Again similar to the Wales list, the number and cap columns are essentially sorting the same thing so it seemed unnecessary to have them both sortable. You don't need Azerbaijan national football team as an external link, it's already linked in the lead.- Done What makes eu-football.info RS? Not to say it isn't but I've not seen it before. I'm unsure of the publisher of the site but I know it is used in a number of football articles and WikiProject Football includes it in its recommended links "FIFA recognised match" should be FIFA-recognised, or alternatively, "not a match recognised by FIFA".- Done Avoid spaced hyphens, e.g. ref 5 should use a spaced en-dash in the title, not a spaced hyphen.- Done The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks very much for the review, I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

*"ended in a 6–3 defeat" – I would add "for Azerbaijan" for clarity. Explain "caps"/"capped" at first appearance. "Winning" caps seems like an odd phrasing to me. I'd be more inclined to say "reach", "obtain", "acquire", "accumulate", or "achieve". Rather than "achieve double figures", I'd say "score 10 or more goals". "If number of caps are equal" – I would add "the" between the first two words. "Statistics correct as of" – I would say "updated" rather than "correct". Instead of having "Statistics sourced from:", I'd move the references to the section heading (i.e. directly following the words "Azerbaijan national team footballers with at least 25 appearances") I think I'd make a bullet list for the three matches that aren't recognized by FIFA. I'm not sure how it would look, but I'm not entirely happy about the way it looks right now for some reason. RSSSF should be in all capital letters. If you're going to use "=" to denote a tie, this needs to be explained in the key. I'd suggest simply removing it (I don't particularly like the way it looks). "Iran U23's" - I think it should just be "Iran U23". Explain the "XI" in "Cyprus XI". I'm assuming it refers to the First XI. TompaDompa (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @TompaDompa: Thanks very much for your review, it's much appreciated. I've addressed all of the issues above I believe. I've maintained the use of the = sign in the table as I think it's important to show that the player is in equal standing, especially when the table is sorted in other columns and the order is changed. Kosack (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC) That's a fair point. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Source review: All sources are high-quality and reliable. All links are active. I made one small addition because I couldn't find some data in one of the source links. I note that cap counts in the article don't always match those given in the sources because of the three international matches recognized by AFFA and not FIFA, but the article is careful to clarify exactly which matches for which players are not included in the article's statistics. In my judgment, simple subtraction falls under the WP:CALC exception to WP:OR, and I am glad to support this nomination. W559 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:55, 8 September 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.