Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Contents

Nominations[edit]

List of unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive, useful list that satisfies the Featured List criteria. I hope that it will help guide interested readers in understanding and comparing unsuccessful major party presidential candidates. Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007
  • The column title "Office" could be reworded to "Previously held office", which would make the note somewhat unnecessary.
    • "Previously held office" would make sense for a list of presidential winners, but in many cases these candidates held office before, during, and after the presidential election. The note is also useful in clarifying that it refers to the most recent office the candidate held (e.g. Henry Clay in 1844 could also be referred to as a former Secretary of State, but he's referred to as a former Senator because he had held that office more recently) -Orser67
      • Orser67I still think this needs to be clearer. Footnotes should not present key information to the reader. They should be there to elaborate, clarify, or provide additional info. Previously held office or Office before nomination while still including the note would be better than the current column title. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not 100% convinced of it its necessity, but I changed the column title to "Office at time of election." Orser67 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of a note, "PV%" and "EV%" would be better written using the {{Abbr}} template, ie PV% and EV%
  • NR should also use the {{Abbr}} template, i.e. NR.
  • All of the abbreviations in the table under "State" should either be linked in their first instance, or at the very least use the {{Abbr}} template.
  • The key with the dagger and double-dagger, in my opinion, should come before the table so the reader naturally knows what they mean before they start looking at the table.
  • You don't explain what the bolding means in the PV% and EV% columns.
  • The "Election" cell should span two rows. You can do this by moving the Election field up and adding the rowspan qualifier to the table. I.e. move ! rowspan=2 | Election above the ! colspan=4 | Candidate

I really only focused on the table for now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments, I implemented all of your suggestions except for the first. Orser67 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from TompaDompa
  1. An image or two would be nice. Perhaps a timeline of the major parties?
    Added an image, open to adding more. -Orser67
  2. Avoid using a "this is a list of" phrasing, as this is clunky.
    Rewrote the first sentence; not sure if this comment applies to anything else.
  3. The United States has had a two-party system for much of its history, and the two major parties have nominated presidential candidates in most presidential elections. – seeing as this assertion serves as the basis for justifying the construction of this list in the first place, this definitely needs to attributed to WP:Reliable sources.
    Done
  4. In the presidential election of 1820, incumbent President James Monroe of the Democratic-Republican Party effectively ran unopposed. – this should be explained in a bit more detail.
    Added a note
  5. Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below. – why those two?
    The source emphasized that they were two major candidates of the Whig Party, and I thought it made sense to only include the two main candidates. Harrison was on the ballot in all but one of the Northern states that had a ballot (Webster was on the ballot in MA), while White or Harrison were on the ballots of every state in the South that had a ballot (Mangum received the electoral votes of SC, which didn't hold a presidential popular vote). If we included every major party candidate who received electoral votes, we should include a several other minor candidates who also received electoral votes, and I believe this list is better of those types candidates are not included. -Orser67
  6. "PV%", "EV%", and "NR" should use the {{abbr}} template.
    Done
  7. The state abbreviations should use the {{abbr}} template and link to the states.
    Done
  8. The "EV%" column should use the {{percentage}} template and/or just write out the fraction.
    Done. I'm assuming the PV% column should also have a % for each record.
  9. I think the election years should use rowspans where there are several candidates for the same election year (1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860).
    Done
  10. In the 1792 election, the emerging Democratic-Republican Party did attempt – I'd say "attempted".
    Done
  11. The Whigs did not unite around a single candidate in 1836, and four Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison, Hugh Lawson White, Daniel Webster, and Willie Person Mangum received electoral votes. – the punctuation should be changed, and perhaps also the phrasing. I'd suggest moving "received electoral votes" to right after candidates", and using a colon before the list.
    I rewrote it.
  12. Greeley would have won 66 electoral votes (18.8% of the total number of electoral votes) – I'd write how many electoral votes there were in total.
    Done
  13. The "See also" section should be placed above the "Notes" section.
    Done

TompaDompa (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded to all of your comments, thanks for the various suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well the article title is "List of United States major party' presidential tickets" so that entire "Other significant tickets" section could be removed, though I'm not why sourcing election results would be difficult... The main table in the loser list is just the same as the tickets list but with the winners and VPs removed, so it actually provides even less information.
  • That list also includes ages and years of birth for the presidential candidates, which are difficult to source even for some of the major party candidates. I like how this list cleanly and simply presents the list of presidential losers, and I think it works as a good complement to the list of presidents. Orser67 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Blizzard Entertainment games[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

List of ISO 3166 country codes[edit]

Nominator:  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it consolidates information from multiple articles including ISO 3166, ISO 3166-1, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, ISO 3166-1 numeric, ISO 3166-2, Member states of the United Nations, United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, List of sovereign states, Dependent territory, Country code top-level domain, and List of Internet top-level domains. This list is sortable on all columns and includes information about United Nations and International Organization for Standardization country name preferences. This list includes the common country name and official state name of all 249 countries. This list also includes UN membership of sovereign states and the parent state of each dependent territory.

I would appreciate all constructive criticism of this list. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - unless I am missing something, there are no references at all. The section headed "references" actually consists of footnotes and nothing in the article is actually sourced......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've added nine original source references as you requested.  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I had to revert your removal of information from ISO 3166-1 because your new list did not accurately reflect the names of countries given by the ISO 3166 standard (as opposed to the common names in use elsewhere). Anomie 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've removed the first column entitled "Common country name" and replaced it with a column entitled "ISO 3166 Country name".  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment note I tagged the article as unreferenced. I'll give the nominator a little time to respond here regarding the lack of sources, however I am inclined to oppose this nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I am working to resolve your concerns.  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added nine original source references and replaced "Common country name" with "ISO 3166 Country name". Please let me know if this resolves your concerns. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the unref tag but I have not reviewed the list entirely. Not sure if I will at all at this point though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The list is factually correct.  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't add the other tag. Anomie added it here. I have no opinion regarding the tag. On an unrelated note, Anomie, seeing User:AnomieBOT date your tag here made me chuckle. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for improvements?  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No, not at this time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Black Panther box office achievements[edit]

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther was one of the surprise box office hits of 2018. During the GA nomination of the film article, it was determined that there was enough info on that article to justify separate off all of the box office accomplishments of the film to its own separate list. As such, great care was taken to format and curate the information from the film article (as it existed as prose) into a comprehensive list. Since the film is no longer in theaters, and all info has been provided for each box office achievement, I feel the list is ready to be nominated for a featured list and has meet all nomination criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose This has the same inherent issue of mostly consisting of non-notable WP:TRIVIA that led to List of box office records set by Deadpool not being promoted to WP:Featured list status and later being turned into a redirect to Deadpool (film)#Box office. Things like "Reaching $1 billion: 16th Walt Disney Studios film", "Highest-grossing film in an opening weekend at 150 AMC Theatres", "Eighth-highest opening day ever", and "Fifth-highest Hollywood film opening weekend gross in South Korea" simply have no place on a WP:Featured list, and what little would remain after removing the cruft does not merit a separate article. Suggest WP:BLAR to Black Panther (film)#Box office. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Given the article was created from the GA nom of the film article because that article was too lengthly, definitely don't feel BLAR should occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's any problem or contradiction here. The content was removed from the main article because it was too lengthy – this I think was a good decision, because that section was overly long. The removed content was then added to a new, separate list – this I think was a bad decision, because the content itself was not worth keeping. Merging the contents back would be a bad decision because it would make the section on the main article too long again. Turning the list into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article would in effect be undoing the mistake of creating the list in the first place. The only entry I think might be worth merging back to the main article is the Monday gross record for North America; all other information worth keeping is already there. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • TompaDompa has been a significant contributor to this list, thus they should strike their "Oppose" statement and should refrain from giving an additional Support/Oppose statement given such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
While it is true that I have made a large number of edits to the page, most of those were reverted by other editors (as you well know). This is reflected in the authorship measure of the page – mine is low, as most edits I have made were not retained. I don't think that constitutes being a significant contributor. I'll also note that the Template:FLC-instructions say that editors should indicate that they have been significant contributors if they support, not that they should refrain from supporting, commenting, or opposing if they have been significant contributors. It's a bit odd to argue that the content-related objections I have are not valid in a WP:FLC discussion simply because I've raised them before and (unsuccessfully) tried to implement changes that would address those objections. TompaDompa (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Please read my initial statement carefully. I didn't say your comments should be removed (those are perfectly valid to include if you choose), only your "official" "Oppose", given you have been a significant editor on the article, regardless of if those edits were retained or not. So my thoughts on this is you should adjust your stance from "Oppose" to simply "Comment", and then we should proceed with another, uninvolved editor(s) reviewing the list.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of Template:FLC-instructions with regards to both what counts as being a significant contributor and how being a significant contributor affects what one should and should not do in WP:FLC discussions. However, I suppose it doesn't really matter – the closer will be able to assess the situation for themself when the time comes. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
FLC delegate note- we don't just add up opposes and supports, but read through the actual discussion, so it doesn't much matter whether or not a review has a bolded word at the front. The intention of flc-instructions is that editors who heavily edit a page should not !vote support without indicating that they are involved, so as not to give the impression of independent support. I don't have any issue with an editor formally opposing a nomination for an article that they've worked on, whether or not those edits were undone. What matters are the arguments they make about if the nomination should or should not be passed. --PresN 18:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately this article is full of trivia that is not really encyclopedic. Examples are throughout the page, but "Highest-grossing February opening in Bolivia" would, by anyone's estimate, be trivial. I really think this entire list page can be summarized into 1 well-written paragraph and placed in the main Black Panther article highlighting the significant box office records. Mattximus (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to the 2 users above, I disagree that the article is full of trivia. Also in regards to reducing and merging, please see this version of the film article before the GA review in terms of its size and content, versus the current section. This list was a result of the Good Article review for the film article, to help reduce the overall size of that article, when all of this info was listed there much in a fashion you are suggesting be done now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • See my reply above. In short, the clutter should have been removed outright back then, not moved to a separate list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Next up, Falcao. This one doesn't "Rock Me Amadeus" (that was Falco anyway) but he does score a few goals. The most, in fact, in Colombia's history. It's already been forked off a large main article, I just tidied it up in the usual style. I humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the reviewing community and pledge to do my best to address any and all comments in a timely fashion. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. an injury sustained while playing for AS Monaco FC, his club team, in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals should be rephrased as "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014 ruled him out of the finals" to avoid breaking the sentence up with too many commas.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. His first FIFA World Cup finals appearance came in the 2018 FIFA World Cup finals, four years later, with his 74th cap, against Japan in a group stage match in June 2018. should also be rephrased to avoid having a high number of commas close together.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. I'd add a mention about the number of goals scored from penalty kicks in the WP:LEAD.
    No, I have no definitive source that's the number of penalties he scored, i.e. no one single source to back it up. Where I've found reliable verifiable evidence that a goal was scored by penalty, I've noted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers TompaDompa, done or responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose You may as well take out the 3b part from the criteria if you're not going to follow that. Currently, this whole list doesn't even cover my screen fully. The Lukaku list is borderline now, but he's young and a beast, that list is going to expand more. Falcao, on the other hand, is close to retiring from the international football. Anyway, this is going to be the shortest "List of international goals scored by..." in the WP:FL. By this tendency, we are going to have lists with 10 goals or even less next time. I will not even be surprised to see a page where it states "this player may score a goal one day because he shot on goal 10 times". P.S. We even have a candidate with 1 item for three weeks now and none of the FLC directors/delegates quick-failed it yet. Is that really what Wikipedia is about? Quantity over quality? I understand in general, but in featured content, quality always has to be above quantity. --Cheetah (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input, I don’t see anything actionable there, but cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, you must have missed it. Don't worry, I just did it myself. Cheers!--Cheetah (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think that's what they call "deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". I think 31 items is sufficient to standalone. And by the way, he scored a few days ago. Your rant is noted, but ultimately is ineffectual and will not be considered further. Please don't get blocked for being pointy. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, you made me do it. You said you didn't see it, so I showed it to you. You don't have any rights now to say what will be considered, you're just a nominator here. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here, but I won't be silent about it.--Cheetah (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't "make you do" anything. Your comments have been read and noted. There's nothing more to say. I'm happy to leave it to the community to decide, rather than just you making pointed edits. No-one asked you to be silent, just not to make pointed edits which are deliberately disruptive. I know I am probably the only one worrying about the quality of featured lists here um, nope! Anyway, thanks for raising your concerns. I'm sure other reviewers will chip in too. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I have to say I share Crzycheetah's WP:FLCR 3(b) concerns, even if I strongly disapprove of their actions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, as you did on the other FLC, where a consensus has formed in favour of the standalone list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    TompaDompa You may or may not be aware that the Lukaku list your raised concerns against is now a FL, so clearly the community consensus is that that list, and others of a similar nature, like this one, are acceptable standalone lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "He surpassed the previous record of 25 goals (in 68 appearances), held by Arnoldo Iguarán" - the wording seems ambiguous as to whether Falcao took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, Iguaran took 68 appearances to score 25 goals, or Iguaran had 68 appearances in total
  • "an injury sustained while playing for his club team AS Monaco FC in January 2014, ruled him out of the finals" - no reason for that comma after 2014 as far as I can see
  • In the title of the ref which is currently number 21, the dash isn't rendered properly
Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks, I've addressed those issues I think, hopefully to your satisfaction. Let me know? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man - the problem dash is still there. The ref currently shows as " "Colombia 5&dash;0 Bolivia". Sky Sports. Retrieved 28 August 2018." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude sorry Chris, I missed that, fixed something else instead. But should be fixed now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in South Carolina[edit]

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

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

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. As usual, I think the numerical values are overly precise per MOS:UNCERTAINTY.
  2. I'd try not to place "waste management" and "water management" next to each other. It sort of becomes a stumbling block when reading. I'd suggest "waste and water management".  Done
  3. One instance of "mayor" is written with a capital "M", and the rest are written with a minuscule "m".  Done
  4. providean is a typo and should be two words.  Done
  5. I have to say that the descriptions of the three forms of government are mostly confusing.
  6. There are a couple of references preceded by spaces in the WP:LEAD.  Done
  7. The symbols should be inside the coloured fields in the legend. Use the |text= parameter. Done
  8. There should be no empty cells in the table. They should replaced with {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}} as appropriate. The ones that say "NA" should also use the template.
  9. The town incorporated on 2012 should either give the full date or say "in 2012".  Done
  10. The town incorporated on March 6, 2008 and is thus not represented in the 2010 census. – that should be the 2000 census, right?  Done

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

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

List of international cricket centuries by Joe Root[edit]

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)

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

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Gold Coast Football Club players[edit]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is my second project I have been working on in an attempt to increase the number of FL for Australian rules football-related topics. I was recently successful in getting Norm Smith Medal promoted and have decided to try and get a players list promoted this time to create a standard that can be duplicated across all VFL/AFL club lists. The Gold Coast Football Club is one of the most recent clubs to join the top-level Australian Football League, and this list represents all individuals who have played a game for the club in this competition. Allied45 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The only thing I could pick up on is this sentence in the lead: "The club was formed in March 2009 when it was granted a licence to join the Australian Football League (AFL) as an expansion club" - this makes it sound like the granting of a licence (to whom, if the club hadn't been formed?) immediately triggered the creation of a club which did not exist at all up to that point. I would imagine the club must have already existed in some form before that month, so I would suggest this needs re-wording slightly. Other than that, I didn't pick anything up........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This has been reworded, thanks ChrisTheDude :) – Allied45 (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! (or should I say "bonzer!"?) Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

List of members of the 15th National Assembly of Pakistan[edit]

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. It has resemblance with List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan which became a FA couple of years back. This is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. marked the constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to another for the second time in the history of Pakistan. – It should be mentioned that the first time was after the previous election.
  3. The National Assembly is a democratically elected body consisting of 342 members – The discrepancy between this number and the 329 members in the list should be explained in detail.
  4. There are a few discrepancies between the number of seats in the WP:LEAD and in the table on the right.
  5. Per MOS:DTT, column headers in the middle of the table should be avoidable. I'd suggest simply splitting the table of members in two: one for the constituencies, and one for the reserved seats.

TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thank you for your comments. I made some changes and tried to fix the first two issues. The reason of discrepancy is because some of the seats are vacant and by-election are due to be held in October. Regarding the last point, it was not an issue for List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, the discrepancies should be explained in the WP:LEAD. That the last issue was missed in a previous WP:FLC is no reason not to fix it in this one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: I've made the changes. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
PTI has 149 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 150 according to the table. PML-N has 82 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 81 according to the table. PPP has 53 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 54 according to the table. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
PML-N and PPP numbers are correct. PTI's difference is because one reserved seat for women is vacant. --Saqib (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The differences between the table and the next need to be explained on the page itself. TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed PTI's vacant seat from the table. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Steve Smith[edit]

Nominator(s): ~Binod~(talk) 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list contains a well sourced and informative list of international cricket centuries by Steve Smith. The citations are reliable as ESPNcricinfo is a reliable source for cricket articles. ~Binod~(talk) 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. scoring 138* against – readers not familiar with cricket notation are likely to be confused by this. Try to reword it in a way that doesn't rely on the asterisk.
  2. With 23 centuries, he is equal eighth in the list of Test century-makers for Australia. – I'd use "tied for eighth place", and this should specify as of when this is true (I'd suggest using the {{As of}} template).
  3. "batting rating" should be explained.
  4. Smith's Batting average of 61.37 is the third highest in the list of Test batsmen. – "Batting average" shouldn't have a capital "B", and this should be rephrased to avoid saying "list of".
  5. his match winning 101 runs – I'd add a hyphen.
  6. against Pakistan and South Africa one each – I'd put "one each" first instead of last.
  7. The key should not have its own section.
  8. 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.
  9. "No." should use the {{abbr}} template per MOS:NUMERO.
  10. The "Ref" columns should be "Ref" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref|Reference}}).

TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Lesley Manyathela Golden Boot[edit]

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the page contains a well sourced and informative list of seasonal goal scoring achievements by footballers in the South African Premier Division. South African football is not comprehensively covered and the list thus provides a reliable source of information for viewers. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • Rather than simply referring to "in honour of the late Lesley Manyathela", I would explain who he actually was by saying "in honour of Lesley Manyathela, a South African international striker who died [etc]"
    • I would put the image of Parker below the "winners" heading - it looks odd straddling it
    • Don't think the word "conversely" is needed in the lead, especially since it doesn't immediately follow the info about the highest-ever season total
    • "The 2017–18 season saw" - a season can't "see" something
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Response
    • Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to help with this nomination.
      • I have added more infomation on Manyathela, highlighting that he was a former international and recipient of the award.
      • I have moved the image to below the "winners" heading
      • I agree that the sentences don't flow and removed the word "conversely"
      • I have tweaked the wording of the final para of the lede, let me know what you think.
    • Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • "....after Polokwane City and Mamelodi Sundowns forwards Rodney Ramagalela and Percy Tau both ended the campaign on 11 goals" - this wording is slightly confusing, it could be interpreted as saying that both players played for both clubs. Maybe "....after forwards Rodney Ramagalela of Polokwane City and Percy Tau of Mamelodi Sundowns both ended the campaign on 11 goals".........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Comments from TompaDompa
  1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. If there are photographs of the current holders available, having them in the infobox would be nice.
  3. Since the award was renamed, it should be mentioned what it was called before.
  4. The WP:LEAD is a a bit short. There is plenty of space to expand it.
  5. The "Ref(s)" column should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).
  6. Since the players do not represent the countries they are from but the clubs they play for, including their nationalities is not appropriate.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Response

Hi TompaDompa, thank you for the feedback.

  • I have added ALT text and removed one image due to a factual inaccuracy.
  • There are unfortunately no images of the current winners, or of those mentioned in the lede. Do you think the image of Parker should be used?
  • The award had no previous name. I have reworded the lede to mention the colloquial name and that it was named - rather than renamed - in 2003.
  • I have added some more info to the lede. Let me know if you think more is required.
  • Added wiki code for Ref.
  • I've left the nationalities in, though. I do believe it is relevant has place in equivalent FL's such as Premier League Golden Boot.

Thanks again for your comments, please let me know if you have any other concerns. Also, ChrisTheDude, please see the abovementioned edits and let me know if you are still happy to support the nom or if there are new tweaks which you feel need to be made. Thanks. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's better to keep the image of Parker where it is. I stand by what I said about nationalities; the players don't represent their countries but their clubs, and this use of flags is proscribed by MOS:SPORTFLAGS. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep the Parker image where it is then, thanks. I disagree with the interpretation of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, though. The nationality of club players is commonly used on like football pages: see Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, European Golden Shoe, Capocannoniere, List of Ligue 1 top scorers... Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I would say all of those pages contravene the principle of not emphasizing nationality without good reason. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just checking in to say yes I am still happy to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of orbital launch systems[edit]

Nominator(s): — JFG talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This list has been stable for a couple years, it is well-maintained to the point of having reached completeness. Inclusion criteria are well-defined, and regular contributors ensure timely updates, as well-sourced news develop. It can be an effective first-stop resource for readers wishing to check current and future offerings in the booming space launch market. In short, it's high time this list got a lil' star. — JFG talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll start immediately by noting that we should write a longer and more explanatory introduction. Can the reviewers look at the rest of the page while I gather a few "regulars" to think of what we should add in the intro? — JFG talk 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

  • Green tickY Web citations need an access-date
  • Later I know you try to cover it by defining propellant, but since a solid-fuel rocket could be a rocket with either solid propellant or a traditional hybrid, I prefer to word it differently - " conventional solid-fuel rocket is a rocket"
  • Green tickY I do not see any citations for the footnotes, at a glance.
  • Red XN Development rockets should get their own table.
  • Green tickY Orbital ATK is now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS)
  • Red XN Instead of listing out the manufacturers for all the subsystems (e.g. solid rocket boosters as ATK), can we have that column be the prime contractor? We have a lot of detail for the subsystems on American rockets, but not for rockets of other countries. There are a few solutions to that issue, and using the prime contractor might be the simplest.
  • Green tickY There are some bare URL citations
  • Green tickY I have some neat books I could use to help with the citations, but I might have to recuse myself from supporting/opposing. History of Rocketry and Space Travel being one, and one specifically on Soviet rockets.
  • Green tickY/Red XN Not sure how to bring this up properly, but how do we define things like LEO? In History of Rocketry and Space Travel, when discussing payload capacity to LEO, sometimes it uses a 100 mile orbit, sometimes a 150 mile orbit, and sometimes a 300 mile orbit. I am not sure what specific LEO the tables refer to, as LEO can be a wide range of orbits.
  • Green tickY/Red XN Reforder: some references are not in order, such as: " 2020[97][56]"
  • Not sure As reliability is important, it would be nice if we could somehow include launches/failures/success% (not all of them..) to show general reliability of each system.
  • Green tickY It would be nice to remove suborbital launches completely, since this is comparison of orbital launch systems. A footnote on the column header saying only orbital launches count for this table could alleviate confusion.
  • Not sure I have seen images here and there showing launchers next to each other, to show the general size of them. Maybe NASA or someone has an open source version of that? Would be a great addition to the article.

Will add more later Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick note: it has been decided to keep currently-available rockets with rockets under development, to allow for easier comparison of what is "on the market" today. Decisions to launch are made years ahead, so that studying whether to launch a future spacecraft on a future rocket is a totally reasonable pursuit. Conversely, retired rockets were split off into their own table, because direct comparisons would have no practical value. I think we should leave things that way, but I'm prepared to change my mind if a majority of other editors disagree. — JFG talk 04:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough for now. It may address N2e's accessibility concerns as well. Kees08 (Talk) 05:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestion, I have now removed the parenthetical count of suborbital flights. They are explained in footnotes only, and always with a citation. Checking to-do items off your list above. — JFG talk 08:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    I also excluded on-pad explosions, because the big kabooms didn't even try to go to orbit. They get footnotes for posterity, though. — JFG talk 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Progress on current and upcoming rockets

I made some more progress. First, take note that everything I'm doing is for the table of current and upcoming rockets. Once that's settled, I'll request help to bring the retired rockets up to scratch.

  • All citations should be good now: no more bare URLs, no missing dates, no dead or unverified stuff, some updated data. Please review them.
  • Orbital ATK moved to NG Innovation, however I kept the pointers to archived Orbital documentation for older rockets (Minotaur series, Pegasus), because the NG site has almost nothing of value for those (they basically slapped their logo on the old docs). Antares and OmegA refer to the new Northrop documents.
  • Subsystem manufacturers: most cases have only one "face", irrespective of their suppliers. The cases where we list two companies reflect the reality that labor is strongly divided between them. For example, the Antares 230 first stage is entirely manufactured in Ukraine, and Orbital (ahem, Northrop) just assemble their second stage on top of it. I think such cases deserve to be singled out. There are very few. The big obvious one is the SLS. Now I'm not sure if we can list NASA, Boeing or Northrop as prime contractor. My understanding is that NASA supervises development and launch pad integration, and provides the all-important funding impetus, while Boeing and Northrop each build their part of the launcher rather independently from each other. Do you have more accurate information?
  • Reference order: I fixed most of them. However for the Soyuz citations, there is a logical order to the sources: first the bare rocket, then the same with Fregat upper stage, then the same with Ikar upper stage. Because the way our main source for launch counts is structured, the "Soyuz + Fregat" page is repeated for all Soyuz variants, so that its reference number ends up lower than some base variants that come before it. Given this logic, I'd leave things as they stand; the other solution would be to always place the Fregat config first. What do you think is less confusing?
  • Still about references, you may have noticed that we don't repeat the citation in every column of performance figures for various orbits. By default, the LEO source also provides figures for GTO and other orbits. If we need to use a different source, then we add both. I tried with repeating the source everywhere, but that looked really cluttered; the current formula lets readers see at a glance when several sources are used for the same rocket, I think that's a bonus.
  • I have added reference altitudes for SSO orbits when the information is readily available. Unfortunately, not every LSP documents this publicly. I hope that we have enough of them for readers to understand that the information may simply not be available. For LEO, it's just hopeless. I have added the ISS orbit for vehicles which are specialized to fo there, such as the Japanese H-IIB with its HTV cargo spacecraft. For the generic rockets, I wouldn't bother. LEO theoretical figures are enough of a pissing contest already…
  • When sources give a range of payloads, I generally keep the highest value, unless it's totally unrealistic, i.e. projected for a future version of the vehicle. This means we are biased for mass rather than biased for altitude, but at least we try to be always biased in the same direction, so that's fair for everybody.
  • Adding a column for success rate may be worthwhile, but it would have to be applied by family, and we get into OR pretty quick. It also would not make sense for low-volume rockets that have less than 10 flights under their belt. To be discussed.
  • You said: I have some neat books I could use to help with the citations. That would be much welcome, especially for the retired rockets. Their specs are probably easier to find in books. Apparently a lot of the old rocket entries are sourced to a web site called Encyclopedia Astronautica, which is not well maintained (most links need to be found again, because the site URLs were reshuffled recently), and unclear about its own sources. I'd much rather replace those links by citations to well-known books on the history of rocketry.
  • Images: we have plenty of good-quality illustrations of rocket outlines on wiki already, so I'm sure a volunteer could scrape together enough material to fill the page. The problem would be to choose which rockets to include, because we can't possibly list them all. This page should remain a useful and precise overview, I'm not too keen into turning it into a photo album. Ideas welcome, though.
  • Propellants, and general definitions: I haven't worked on the intro text yet, it's in pretty bad shape. Hopefully some volunteers will show up and bring some drafts for consideration.

Looking forward to your next round of feedback. — JFG talk 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

  1. An image in the WP:LEAD would be nice.
  2. The first paragraph should be a hatnote, rather than a paragraph.
  3. The second paragraph is so broken up with explanatory footnotes that it impedes readability.
  4. The WP:LEAD is very scant for such a long list.
  5. Is there any particular reason to have the table of contents to the right?
  6. All abbreviations used in the tables should use the {{abbr}} template so the reader doesn't have to scroll all the way to the top to find out what an abbreviation means. It would also help those using screen readers quite a bit.
  7. Where color is used to convey information, symbols also need to be used per WP:ACCESS.
  8. Keep the number of empty cells to a minimum. The use of TBA is good, as it tells the reader the nature of the missing information (it will be added at a later date, but right now it is not available – other examples might be that a cell is not applicable for the entry in question, that the value is known but not available to the public if it for instance is kept secret, or that the value is unknown to anyone).
  9. The sourcing is either poor or unclear. There are very many cells that contain values that should be sourced, but no reference.
  10. The LEO payload cell for Simorgh only contains a reference, no value.
  11. Rocket variants are not distinguished; i.e., the Atlas V series is only counted once for all its configurations 401–431, 501–551, 552, and N22. – "i.e." should be "e.g." (unless that's the only example).
  12. The "Launch systems by country" graphic would be better as a table.
  13. The external links listed here need to be fixed.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of World Heritage Sites in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina to a FL, the list in Macedonia is the only remaining of the former Yugoslav republics that is not a FL. Admittedly, it is the shortest one (1 site + 3 tentative sites), but it is comprehensive and factual nonetheless. The style is coherent with the BiH list, addressing all the issues raised there. Tone 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I also have to admit that I have some non-negligible reservations about endorsing so short a list for WP:FL status, even if it is comprehensive in the sense that it is exhaustive. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the comments above, compliments to your sharp eye ;) I could not find any useful images on Commons for the cave, just for the surroundings, which I prefer not to use. The article for the river exists on mk wiki, which I linked. Tatićev Kamen does not have a separate article. I cannot do much regarding the 1+3, though. --Tone 16:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Neutral. TompaDompa (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I believe this page needs to be redirected to the List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Europe. Criterion 3(b) was added specifically to avoid lists similar to this one getting featured. A page with just one item is not a list.--Cheetah (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
    • There are tentative sites that do not appear in the regional listings, and those are relevant. --Tone 12:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
      • They will always be secondary information however relevant you make them to be. Actual World Heritage Sites will always be the primary information in these lists. Now, there is just one World Heritage Site in the Republic of Macedonia. It is impossible to make a list out of just one site.--Cheetah (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy, White Shadows

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

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

  • This list is in great shape. I did a minor c/e, rv if I've changed meaning.
  • perhaps mention the attempted sale to Uruguay under Tegetthoff when it should come up first in this list?
  • Either I'm not following what you're suggesting, or someone has added it in there already because the attempted sale to Uruguay is mentioned in the Tegetthoff section.
  • I'm seeing it in the Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf section, but not under Tegetthoff, which is the first ship from the proposed sale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That should be fixed now.
  • "Foreign Items" and Warship International need locations and publishers.
  • Done
  • toolkit checks are all OK.

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

Source review[edit]

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

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

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1999[edit]

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)

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)
SupportAllied45 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of the ironclad warships built for and by the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s-1880s; these ships had largely uninteresting careers as a result of Ottoman indifference to naval affairs, though some of them saw action during the various wars fought during this period. One, Mesudiye, survived long enough in active service to be sunk during World War I at the ripe old age of 40 (quite ancient for ships of the era). The list also includes ships that were either cancelled before completion or purchased by other countries. The list serves as the capstone for this good topic. Thanks for all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all of this, it's good to have a fresh set of eyes on an obscure topic like this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If it seems like I'm requesting overly much explanatory text, it's because I try to imagine how it would read to someone who sees this featured on the main page and decides to read it with little to no previous knowledge on the subject.TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I went ahead and made a couple of minor edits myself; what remains unresolved is merely stylistic preferences that I do not consider deal-breakers for WP:Featured list status. TompaDompa (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

  • you could tidy up the citation farm in the Osmaniye class table by just using fn 5 in the header for Service, the same goes for the other fields, this comment also applies to other tables
    • Good catch - I had written this list before I had thought of doing that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the inclusion of Fatih, as she never entered Ottoman service
  • I'm not sure about the inclusion of Fettah as she was never built
  • Same for Hamidiye in the Mesudiye class
  • And also the Peyk-i Şeref class

I think there is a scope issue here. To me, vessels that never saw service with the Ottoman Navy shouldn't be listed here. Otherwise, this is looking good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Other reviewer here: I think you raise a valid point on the scope, but I also think that the list would not really be complete without those ships. Do you think it could be solved by reordering the list and adding sections for ships that weren't built and ships that never entered Ottoman service? TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I initially thought the same on including the other ships when I laid out the initial draft, but then I decided that the unfinished/sold off classes ought to be included, since they had at least been ordered by the Ottoman government. They're included in references like Conway's, and it's standard practice to include them in other similar lists (like List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire includes 3 ships that were cancelled and 2 that were seized by Britain and List of battlecruisers of Russia is almost entirely cancelled ships). Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
If they're included under the Ottoman section/chapter in Conway's, then I think we're fine doing it as well. Delete all reference to this query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {t · c} 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been three months since I started working on this since the idea popped up on the talk page of the tropical cyclone wikiproject. I've finally completed all the entries and cleaned it up so I'm bringing it here. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow impressive list! I just have time for one quick comment for now. In the Landfalls section you can delete the word "state" which is repeated a dozen times, as it is not consistent with the rest of the page. Mattximus (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for the comments so far, currently working through those. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa and Mattximus: I've finished working through the issues raised. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Currently, the article states that there were no Category 3 hurricanes recorded prior to 1970. However, this is not true as Hurricane Olivia from 1967 also peaked as a Category 3 hurricane off Baja California. — Iunetalk 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, I have no idea how I missed that out! Thanks Iune for the catch. I've added it in and adjusted the relevant statistics accordingly. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Before 1970, tropical cyclones within the Northeast Pacific were classified into three categories: tropical depression, tropical storm, and hurricane; these were assigned intensities of 30 mph (45 km/h), 50 mph (85 km/h), and 85 mph (140 km/h) respectively. - If I'm not mistaken, this was a retroactive change in the HURDAT database rather than an operational classification which you may wish to note here. For example, reading the seasonal report for the 1967 season indicates that numerous storms such as Tropical Storm Francene and Hurricane Jewel and Lily all had peak intensities operationally estimated at different values from the current values in the HURDAT database. If you're hunting for a reference for this, I remember reading a paper about the East Pacific hurricane reanalysis which I can search for again if you'd like. — Iunetalk 01:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Iune: if you could kindly provide a link to that paper I'd gladly appreciate it! Scouring countless Google searches isn't working for me this time, only Atlantic-related reanalysis seems to be appearing. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick commentIn Landfalls, "in" should be removed from "Only in two years ... saw more than one Category 3 hurricane make landfall". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    •  DoneKN2731 {t · c} 11:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube Awards[edit]

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

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

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

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013[edit]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A list of cardinals who participated in the papal conclave of 2013 that elected Pope Francis. Overhauled over the last five days or so, partly structurally based on List of living cardinals (a previous featured list of mine), I believe that it now looks slick enough to pass the FLC process. Comments and suggestions welcome, as always. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardinals don’t "represent" countries. That’s easily misunderstood. A little rewrite perhaps.
One way of looking at the conclave not addressed is curia vs non-curia. I realize the subject/data needs to be handled with care since some people move in and out, but I think the reader deserves to have it addressed.
I’m puzzled at the attention given the cardinals from the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’d bury the names in a note and then combine this graf and the one following. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Reworded to "originate[d] from".
  2. I suppose that's a viable addition to the article; where exactly would you suggest placing it? The section under "Cardinal electors" is currently purely from a geographical point of view, although a sentence about curial/residential cardinal electors could be placed at the top of the section.
  3. Names in {{efn}} as suggested; paragraphs combined.
@Bmclaughlin9: No. 2. above for your consideration, others responded; thanks for the feedback. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a single sentence in the summary either before or after (probably before) identifying the oldest and youngest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bmclaughlin9: Added as suggested (along with another sentence about creating popes). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support with a note that I would still prefer a secondary source listing all of the cardinals, but I feel this is sufficient for now and is not enough for me to oppose at this time. Everything else looks great, so I'm fine supporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

List of songs written by Harry Styles[edit]

Nominator(s): ElizaOscar (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is complete. well referenced, and useful as it demonstrates that he is a true "songwriter" and no other article exists that compiles his songs that have been recorded by other artists. I have modelled it after this featured list. Also, I know some may take issue with the BMI refs that link to a search bar instead of the specific song but that is because I have not found a way to permanently archive (ASCAP doesn't allow this either) or even directly link to any of the songs on the BMI database. Anyone familiar with this problem and knows how to solve this? Thanks in advance for reviewing the article! ElizaOscar (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the various BMI refs just link to the front page of that organisation's website, so don't source anything. If it isn't possible to link directly to the entry for the song and users need to perform some sort of search on the site, then you need to tell them that in the reference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Question I'm not sure which parameter to use to add this in the citation? ElizaOscar (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The format parameter would work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I've removed the link to the blank BMI page and added BMI Work number. ElizaOscar (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Another comment - the artist column should sort by surname; currently it sorts by first name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet another comment - it may be a dumb question, but if the songwriting credits for one song have not been released, how do we know that Styles wrote it........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It's informed assumption I guess, he actually does say in the video [1] I've cited (which I got from here [2]): "I wrote a couple of songs that didn't end up on the album, I'm going to play one of those now and this is called Medicine". I'm assuming he co-wrote it with other people since he wrote every other song on the album with almost the same group of writers. ElizaOscar (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Update: the song has been registered on ASCAP. ElizaOscar (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Some more comments
    • First sentence: "his debut studio album Harry Styles (2017), five One Direction studio albums (2011–15)" => "his debut studio album Harry Styles (2017) and five One Direction studio albums (2011–15)"
    • The word "sophomore" is not used in British English to mean "second", so that needs to be changed, probably simply to "second"
      • Replaced with "first and second studio albums" instead of "debut and sophomore studio albums". ElizaOscar (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    • ""Oh Anna" and "Medicine" are two unreleased tracks from his debut album" - if they're unreleased then they aren't from his debut album. If there is evidence that they were written for that album but not included then say ""Oh Anna" and "Medicine" are two unreleased tracks written for his debut album" or similar. If there's no evidence of that then this note really isn't needed.
      • Ah, I've just realised you addressed this above. I would still change the wording, as if they weren't released (and possibly not even recorded) then they aren't from his debut album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers[edit]

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)

Support Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 14 August 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)
  • 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)
Nice one - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens[edit]

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for featured list after some extensive cleanup since it was noted in the (ultimately unsuccessful) Featured list nomination for the corresponding Deadpool list that there are currently no featured lists for box office records and I can frankly say that none of the five such lists were in any shape to be featured. I think this is something that should be remedied considering that there are numerous WP:Featured lists for accolades received by films, and going by the WP:Featured list criteria I believe this list is now ready to be nominated. TompaDompa (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment on a section heading: "United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta" - why on earth are these three countries bundled together? It makes about as much sense as having "US, Canada and Portugal"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I agree that it is somewhat odd (though not as odd as your comparison would make it seem – Malta only gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1964). However, for box office purposes these three countries are regarded as a single market in much the same way as the United States and Canada are (see Box Office Mojo). TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I looked through the sources cited in that section and didn't see Malta mentioned, so I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had missed the FLC for the article mentioned (I never watched Deadpool) but agree with them and may even want to nominate these for AFD. "Highest non-opening week Tuesday gross"? This is as trivial as it gets. "Highest December opening day gross": This is pretty granular, not really a record. Sure, boxofficemojo compiles these trivial statistics and Deadline Hollywood reports them but we get it, the movie sold a lot of tickets everywhere. I suppose you could put a bit more in the Box Office section of the main article but I do not believe this is an encyclopedic topic and oppose. Reywas92Talk 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: If the problem is that individual entries are trivial or too granular, that can be fixed by removing those entries – the problem with the Deadpool list was that there would barely be anything left after doing so. If the problem is that the topic is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, you should be able to be more specific than that – does it fail WP:NOT? Is box office performance inherently unencyclopedic? Is a film's box office reception less encyclopedic than its critical reception? TompaDompa (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say a separate article of these statistics is as unencyclopedic as a separate article for its reviews. We can leave details about specific reviews to Rotten Tomatoes and details about specific box office records to Box Office Mojo, and summarize the highlights in the main article. If we get rid of the granular stats, Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Box_office has more than enough details that cover/duplicate the rest and to have a fork of all these records is purely trivia. Reywas92Talk 05:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The proper analogy here is not individual reviews for the film, but accolades received by it (of which there are—as noted above—numerous WP:Featured lists). Reviews would be analogous to markets, or perhaps weekends. TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

  • Support I think this looks much better. I may give it a quick copyedit if I have time, but for now I am comfortable with the list. I believe it meets all the criteria. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! TompaDompa (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Chief Ministers of West Bengal[edit]

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Four years since the previous FLC was archived, I've brought it back here. I've addressed all the comments raised then, and have significantly revamped the article in the process. During my research I've found similar lists of West Bengal's chief ministers across the Internet, but they are all strewn with errors—including those on government websites! So I believe this is the most accurate article on the topic, and worthy of Featured status. I'm happy to address any comments you have. Thank you!—indopug (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • You can provide a reference for the last sentence of second para.
  • You can place the 6th ref at the end of the sentence, it looks better that way.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all, except I can't figure out how to link to http://www.wbassembly.gov.in/origin_growth.aspx properly. I haven't even been able to archive the page successfully. Help from anybody who knows this stuff is appreciated.—indopug (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have archived some of the refs and I'd suggest you to replace that problematic link. The rest looks fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and for adding the archive links. Yes, I'll do something about that link.—indopug (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!—indopug (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Godflesh[edit]

Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the information at hand is comprehensive, cited, and relayed in an easy to understand manner. I want to make Godflesh a good topic, but I don't have a great deal of experience with lists. This page, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, and, if it passes, Godflesh discography, will help make that topic come to life. Thanks in advance, everyone. CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • Footnotes/refs are usually placed after a comma or a period. Place footnote [a] after "168 songs,"
    • Place the ref for Streetcleaner (1989) after this comma "(1992),"
    • Same thing with the ref for "reformed Godflesh in 2010"
    • Remove "(s)" from the "Writer" column, add it to the "Ref" column. There are no songs with multiple writers, but there are with multiple refs.

--Cheetah (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! Thank you, CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ~SMLTP 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No other comments from me. I do think you should reconsider that photograph of the top of Justin Broadrick's head – it doesn't really identify him or anything, and it just doesn't seem all that encyclopaedic to me. It kind of reminds me of when, for four months, the lead image in our article for Charlie Brooker was a photograph of the back of his head. Anyway, this isn't a massive issue, nor is it something that I would oppose over. Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Campeche[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my latest nomination in my quest to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (22 states and provinces so far...). This one is very similar to Colima and Aguascalientes and thus I tried to incorporate any changes to those pages into this one. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

OK TompaDompa, I've went through every list and rounded all areas. That should be the last outstanding comment? Mattximus (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think two decimals is still overly precise, but it is the only objection I have, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – My couple of concerns have been taken care of and I'm confident that this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment glad this is going well at the moment, but it's still marked as being a stub! I'll do a more thorough review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Astronomical symbols[edit]

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

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

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

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

Just looking quickly I noticed that some sentences in the "represents" column start with a capital letter, where others do not. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Fixed. The seven rogue capital letters have been lowercased. I also removed stray punctuation marks and made tiny fixes to the wording of a couple of entries. Thank you! W559 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Support: comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols." I am not clear what you are saying here. Do you mean that the papyrus texts were neither preserved nor copied, and only survive by their incorporation in Byzantine codices?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when?
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced.
  • monogram should be linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've reviewed your comments:
  • "The Byzantine codices in which the Greek papyrus texts were preserved continued and extended the inventory of astronomical symbols."Replaced "the" with "many" to avoid the implication that Greek papyri survived only as copies in Byzantine codices. Is this better?
  • "These symbols were once commonly used by professional astronomers" Until when? – Per MOS:LEAD, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". I believe that specific details about when different symbols fell into disuse among professional astronomers are best left for the article.
  • The last comments in the first two paragraphs are unreferenced. – Source citations in the lead are not strictly necessary; see WP:WHENNOTCITE. I tried to limit sources in the lead while still citing sources for any claims that might reasonably be challenged. The sentence beginning "New symbols were further invented..." is a one-sentence summary of the Symbols for minor planets section, which introduces 34 sources and uses more. The section "with some exceptions..." briefly alludes to sourced material in bits and pieces throughout the body of the article. If you think the lead would work better with more or fewer source citations, let me know.
  • My understanding is that list articles are an exception to the rule that leads do not require referencing because they generally contain information which is not referenced below, but I see that you have repeated and referenced below, so I agree that more referencing is not necessary in this case. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • monogram should be linked.Agreed. The first occurrence of monogram (in the Symbols for the planets section) is now linked.
  • The article only covers Europe and ignores Arabic, Indian, Chinese astronomy - and there were no doubt other systems. It also only covers modern notation in passing. The article title should be something like List of historical European astronomical symbols.Not done. The article is about "astronomical symbols", which is what reliable English-language sources call the symbols described in the article. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:CONCISE. An article about "astronomical notation", a different topic, would properly cover modern notation in more depth, and would reasonably be expected to include more information about Arabic, Indian, and Chinese astronomy, but this isn't that article.
Let me know what you think. W559 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
That is fair enough regarding modern symbols as they are often referred to as notation, although I would like to see a comment or note explaining why they are not covered. I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols. Just because sources are Eurocentric does not justify Wikipedia in following their example. There are for example off-wiki sources about Maya astronomical symbols, and I would expect at least brief coverage in a generic article about the subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I'm not convinced that the characters used in the Maya calendar belong in this article any more than, for example, the written names of the planets and zodiac signs in Hindi and Chinese, both because the article is about "astronomical symbols" as opposed to normal written language (and, come to think of it, numerals and mathematical operators), and, of course, because English-language sources do not generally group them with the symbols that make up the content of this article. However, a link to the Maya characters in the "See also" section would be appropriate. Here's what I've done:
  • "a comment or note explaining why they are not covered": Added some text to the first sentence of the lead further clarifying the scope of the article.
  • coverage about Maya astronomical symbols: Added a link to the relevant page in the "See also" section of the article.
How's this? W559 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • See [4] for a discussion about non-European astronomical symbols. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't read what you linked; Google Books gives me the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." If the source you linked has content that would improve the page, feel free to be bold and incorporate it into the article. Edit: I switched browsers and went incognito, and Google Books is serving up the page for me now. The page you linked doesn't seem relevant at all to this article other than being a search result for the words "Chinese", "astronomical", and "symbols". The section of that book discusses the "Chaco supernova pictograph" (see Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Archaeoastronomy, reviews several theories about the image, and then concludes that the drawing marks a Zuni sun-watching station. The page specifically discusses the star next to the crescent in the petroglyph, compares it with the Islamic star-and-crescent symbol, and mentions the theory that the symbols together originally depicted a conjunction of the moon and Venus.
Regarding your previous comment, "I do not agree that a general title is right for an article about European symbols", we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I note in passing that the equivalent pages on the Chinese and Hindi Wikipediae, zh:天文符號 and hi:खगोलीय चिन्ह respectively, both have "general titles" while also being about the same set of "European symbols" that the astronomical symbols page discusses. W559 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I added a lot of work into the article way back when and have nominated it before, but after a while I added some things that were listed as reasons for not being promoted. Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Akhiljaxxn[edit]

Few thoughts
Reply to Akhiljaxxn: I am not sure what you mean by the first bullet. Are you saying I should add one or two sentences about those two in the lead or are you asking why I only have one or two sentences about then in the article? As for the section on television, I agree that it is quite small, but there is notch content from Michael Jackson on the matter. I would love more input as to what you mean better "compose" as it use to be a table and that was awful for one or two shows. Chase | talk 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
yes you should add one or two sentence about those three films/short movies.amd yeah you are right on section television.except above i mentioned the article definitely meets all of the requirements; I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Akhiljaxxn: Green tickY Done Chase | talk 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Allied45[edit]

Comment: nice work on the list, just wondering though why there are several directors that are red-linked when other have been left unlinked? Also in the filmography table there's no links for directors with multiple appearances, yet they are linked in other tables? — Allied45 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Allied45 how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems a lot more consistent now! – Allied45 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Akhiljaxxn and to Allied45: Thank you for fixing the names, Akhiljaxxn. I did notice that when I first looked at the page from a while back, but just forgot to change it. Anything else you want to comment on, Allied45? Chase | talk 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I had another look over, and although I'm no expert on the topic, here's some things I noticed:

  • "The video was filmed in four geographic regions (Americas, Europe and Africa)" – should this be three, or four within?
Americas including two regions ie, Nrth America And South America. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The video features a cameo appearance by the rap duo Kris Kross and Michael Jordan" – the wording sounds like Kris Kross and Jordan are the rap duo. Perhaps change to: "The video features cameo appearances by the rap duo Kris Kross and basketball player Michael Jordan."
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Link to the albums mentioned in the "Description" column of the "Video albums" table
Reply to Allied45: The only reason that I did not do that because they are linked multiple times throughout the article, per MOS:REPEATLINK, but it does state links can repeating if it is necessary in tables, etc. So do you think this table needs it even though they can scroll up and see the same link? Chase | talk 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY Done. Chase | talk 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is all I really noticed, the list looks good, Allied45 (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the nomination – Allied45 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

  • The WP:LEAD is way too long; the recommendation is no more than four paragraphs, whereas this is twice that. From what I can gather, this is an over-correction from the previous FLC review. The longest lead of the WP:Featured lists for artist videographies (the one for Beyoncé) has a word count of 715; this has a word count of 1,027.
Hey how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The WP:LEAD needs copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1. For example, the last paragraph has a typo ("an" should be "and") and a sentence beginning with a minuscule.
 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

At this time, the list does not meet the criteria for WP:Featured list status. If and when the above issues are resolved, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Replaced few links with new. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

CCamp2013 has not edited Wikipedia for three weeks, if they do not respond here and/or this nomination is not adopted, I will archive it in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by No Doubt[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating 'List of songs recorded by No Doubt' for featured list status because the list is complete, thoroughly sourced, and well written. Thanks in advanced to anyone who takes the time to review this nomination. Grazie! Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would revise the ALT text for the image to be a little more specific about what the picture is showing. Also, the text is not entirely accurate as No Doubt is not performing in the photo.
Done
  • For the lead’s first paragraph, I would link “compilations” to the article for compilation abum to specify what you mean by this.
Done
  • I would split this sentence (In response to the commercial disappointment of their debut and being dropped from Interscope Records, the group produced The Beacon Street Collection (1995) by themselves and took influence from punk music, which differentiated the record from the "synth and new wave influences" of No Doubt.) into two as it contains a lot of information and is rather long.
Done
  • I am a question about this sentence (Four singles were released, including "New", "Ex-Girlfriend", "Simple Kind of Life", and "Bathwater".). You say that four albums were released from the album and then proceed to list all of them. I am not sure the word “including” is correct in this context, as it implies (at least to me) that there are other singles and the following list is a just a few of them.
Done
  • For this sentence (the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex), what do you mean by “complex”?
  • For this part (originally sung by Talk Talk), I would use “recorded” instead of “sung”.
Done
  • Do you think that you should include a sentence about Dreamcar at the end of the lead’s last paragraph?
  • Do you think that you should specify that No Doubt went on a hiatus primarily due to Stefani focusing on her solo career?
  • I would revise this image caption (Joe Escalante wrote the Christmas song "Oi to the World", which No Doubt recorded a cover of.) to (No Doubt recorded a cover of the Christmas song “Oi to the World”, which was written by Joe Escalante.”). I am not a fan of the last portion of the original caption (i.e. how it ends on “of”.).
Done
  • Could you elaborate on this sentence (The group also has writing credits on several other albums.)? Do you mean that they wrote songs that were later recorded and performed by other singers? I am a little confused by this part (apologies if this is really obvious). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • My only major problem with this article is the sourcing. I know that I made this same argument when you nominated List of songs recorded by Oh Land, but, outside of the liner notes, there are only five references, and three are to the same publisher. Three publishers (Allmusic; Billboard; BMG) is fewer than I would expect to see in a featured list. Are there any other sources that you could mine for information? For example, The LA Times discusses how No Doubt's songs revolve around love and heartbreak, and how Gwen Stefani's lyrics channel a female perspective. musicOMH describes the band's songs as "playful". MTV explains how a lot of No Doubt's songs are about Gwen Stefani's on-off relationship with Tony Kanal. There are almost certainly other sources that you may consider more appropriate.
  • I agree that this is important. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.
Done
  • "has recorded material for". Not exactly a dealbreaker for me, but by my count there are 112 songs listed in this article, so we could probably afford to be slightly more precise than just "material" in the opening sentence, e.g. "has recorded over 100 songs for"
Done
  • "on other artists' respective albums"
Done
  • "After forming as a group in 1986"
Done
  • "influences of No Doubt." -> "influences of their debut." Again, not a massive deal here, but, as currently written, this sentence could easily be confusing for anyone who, say, uses a screen reader.
Done
  • Per MOS:NBSP, stick a non-breaking space within million numbers, i.e. 16 million -> 16&nbsp;million
Done
  • "Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide". As of when?
Done
  • "is considered one". Considered by whom? If it's a uncontroversially one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, then you can get rid of "considered".
Done
  • Did they spend three years working on Push and Shove? This confused me.
  • The second paragraph ideally needs a citation at the end of it.
Done
  • "Rock Steady" needs to be below "A Rock Steady Vibe", and "New" needs to be below "New Friend" when the page first loads (because sorting them by name will put them in this order).
    • @A Thousand Doors: I respectfully disagree. Rather, I think a sort key should be added to make "Rock Steady" sort above "A Rock Steady Vibe" and "New" above "New Friend" (the only reason they don't is that the songs are enclosed in quotation marks and quotation marks are sorted after spaces). TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Album titles beginning with "The" need to sort under the first letter of their second word, i.e. B, R and S.
Done

I realise that I've given a lot of criticism here, so, if you'd like to get your own back on me, 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) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Carbrera plenty of comments here to address? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  • American band No Doubt – I'd add a genre modifier.
Maybe this is just me, but it's really hard to list just one genre for No Doubt – almost each album served as a reinvention so it is rather difficult to summarize their style in just one type of music. Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).
  • After forming in 1986, No Doubt released a series of demo tapes at their concerts and live shows – I'd call them "the band" in this instance.
Done
Done
Done
Done
  • Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide as of 2015, and is one of the best-selling albums of all time in the United States. Five years later, No Doubt released their fourth studio album, Return of Saturn (2000). – the first sentence is a bit clunky, and the second sentence initially seems to refer to 2020 (five years after 2015) as a result of coming right after the first one.
Done
  • Lyrically, the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex and have Stefani singing about her personal romances. – I'd include this information in the first sentence about the album.
  • Push and Shove explores more modern sounds and expands on their exploration with dancehall and reggae music. – I like that the musical style of each album is mentioned and compared to the others, but this phrasing sounds a bit too much like something I'd find in a review (rather than an encyclopedia) for my taste.
  • The group also has writing credits on several other albums. They collaborated [...] – I'd use a semicolon instead of a period here.
  • All songs recorded by No Doubt, except where noted. is unnecessary and should be removed.
  • This is not a complete list. Two things:
    • This should use the {{inc-musong}} template.
    • How do you reconcile this with WP:FLCR 3(a)?
  • What does the {{N/A}} template for "Intro" mean (considering the different {{Unknown}} template is used for several other songs)?
  • How is it possible that "My Room Is Still Clean" was released in 1994 as a B-side to "Squeal" which was released in 1995?
  • I'd suggest adding cell shadings (and symbols, as required by WP:ACCESSIBILITY) to add visual variety to the table as this increases the visual appeal significantly and makes it easier to read longer lists such as this one. Covers of other artists' songs would be a possible category for this, as would single releases.

TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa – I hope this isn't too much of a trouble for you, but I converted your usage of the "#" into bulletpoints so I could more easily mark which issues I had completed (or rather, added Done to afterwards) without breaking the numbered list. Sorry if that causes any trouble, Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Carbrera comments have been here nearly ten days unaddressed, do you intend to respond to them, or shall I archive this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man – I am sorry for the long response in addressing comments. Not that this is any excuse, as I did not respond to comments earlier, but recently I have been tending to some health problems, so again I apologizeHowever, this shouldn't be an issue in the future. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).
  • I hope that you are feeling better! Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Capital Bra discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. I hope it meats the FL requirements. Lirim | T 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude | talk
"Capital Bra was awarded for sales of 400,000 records in Germany" - are there some words missing here? What was he awarded?
"of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number seventy-six in Germany" => "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number seventy-six in Germany"
Related to that, it is standard to write chart positions as numbers, not words
In the first sentence of paragraph 3, refs need to go after punctuation, not before
"The album debuted on number three" => "The album debuted at number three"
"all of which debuted at number one of German single charts" => "all of which debuted at number one on the German single chart"
No need for the Austria column in the "other charted songs" table if no songs charted there
Note 1: "Capital Bra started his career under the pseudonym "Capital". His first studio album and a couple of single have been released under the name Capital" - singles should be plural, also is it possible to be more specific than "a couple"?
Notes 2 and 3 - CD should be in capitals
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – I hope I corrected all your concerns. --Lirim | T 08:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You still need to fix "of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" could enter the charts an number 76"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: – Fixed :) --Lirim | T 08:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I made a few minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:: – Thank you --Lirim | T 08:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)
  • As you may have seen, I have done some edits on the tables on my own in accordance with the style of my discography Inna discography, which became a FL some time ago. Check them out and feel free to revert anything you feel like I've done wrong.
  • Capital Bra was awarded with two gold certifications for sales of 400,000 records in Germany. → Please remove this alltogether, because you're mentioning it throughout the rest of the lead
  • Please combine the lead paragraph with the second one
  • In 2016, Capital Bra released his first studio album → To avoid word repetition: "In 2016, he premiered his first studio album"
  • on the German GfK Entertainment Charts and number 61 on the Austrian Album charts → Remove the links and reword to: "...on the German and at number 61 on the Austrian album charts."
  • which debuted at number 1 in Austria, 2 in Germany and 5 in Switzerland. It spawned four singles, of which only "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts, at number 76 in Germany → which peaked within the top five in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, spawning four singles of which "Es geht ums Geschäft" entered the charts at number 76 in Germany.
  • In May of the same year, he released his second EP Ibrakadabra, which peaked at number 77 on the Swiss Album charts → In the May of the same year, he distributed his second EP Ibrakadabra to minor commercial success in Switzerland. (avoiding word repetition by listing chart positions for every release)
  • which was released in September of the same year → which was released three months later
  • The album spawned six singles → change "The album" to "The record" to avoid the repetition of "album"
  • including the gold-certified singles "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" → including "Nur noch Gucci" and "Olé olé" which were certified gold in Germany
  • I copy-edited the lead's last three lines by myself
  • Remove streaming audio as the format for all his albums; I haven't seen this format listed on any discography and don't think it is particularly relevant
  • "AUF!KEINEN!FALL!" needs to be reworded to "Auf!Keinen!Fall!" due to WP:SHOUTING
  • @Lirim.Z: This is first set of comments. More to come eventually. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: First of all, thank you for your time and for the small corrections. I hope I corrected all your concerns.--Lirim

With all my issues solved, I can now proudly support this for promotion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you very much. Lirim | Talk 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

  1. The image should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. More images would be welcome.
  3. There is very little prose providing context.
  4. and at number five Switzerland – missing "in".
  5. Four singles were promoted to aid the record – should this not be "Four singles were released to promote the record"?
  6. of which all should be "all of which".
  7. As of August 2018, "Melodien" holds the record [...] – I feel like it's much more relevant to note "In [month, year], "Melodien" set the record [...]"
  8. "GER", "AUT", and "SWI" should be explained using the {{abbr}} template, or simply expanded to "Germany", "Austria", and "Switzerland", respectively.
  9. feat. should be feat., i.e. {{abbr|feat.|featuring}}.

Right now, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). Specifically, I think this could reasonably be included as part of the main Capital Bra article; it would not make that article prohibitively long, nor does it go into too much depth for that article. Indeed, one might argue that the music produced by a musician is the key point of interest for that musician's article. What is currently lacking is high-quality content that adds to the reader's understanding of this topic (i.e. not Capital Bra, but his discography), see point 3 above. Trends in the contents of the albums would fit this bill. TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:
  1. Done.
  2. Discographys actually never have more than one image.
  3. The context is given in the lead. It seems short, but it's very detailed and gives enough information for the reader.
  4. Done.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. "GER", "AUT", and "SWI" are used in every discography as abbreviations for Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I could add it once to the studio albums, but I think everybody understands these abbreviations already? The first word in the lead is "German" -> GER. Austria and Switzerland are mentioned multiple times in the lead. It's clear for what these abbreviations are.
  9. I could change it to "featuring" without any templates. Doesn't make a big difference.
  10. I personally think, that the article passes 3(b). The discography is there to show the chartperformance and the certifications an artist got. The content of the albums and singles should appear in the main article (i.e. Kanye West#Musical style). The discography is large enough to be split apart from the main article. It gives a better structure to the subject, if it's sorted correctly. The life and career into one article, albums/single in anothe r and if possible even the music videos, but there aren't that many currently. The artist has a big output, four studio albums in two years, nine singles in 2017 and five in 2018. The discography will grow, fast.

Thank you for your comments.--Lirim | Talk 20:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. Neither the length nor the depth of this discography make it inappropriate for merging into the main Capital Bra article (in no small part due to the latter being so short). This is not necessarily to say that it should be merged, only that it right now could. This may change as the discography grows, but that's not a reason to promote it now. TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: Could you then please clarify with "oppose" that you don't want this article to be promoted?--Lirim | Talk 08:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Very well, Oppose subject to change if this or the parent article is expanded. TompaDompa (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Trifonov discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

  • The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
  • The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
    • One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
    • Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
  • I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
  • Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: thank you for your comments; @Francis Schonken: would you mind commenting? --Zingarese talk · contribs 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I really haven't made many edits here lately at all... real life has gotten in the way! I believe I have addressed all of TompaDompa's concerns; when I get the chance, I may add two (or three?) compilations featuring Trifonov back to the article (which I had removed to restore the table to original format).This article is fine with or without them, but I feel it's not too bad of an idea to include them. --Zingarese talk · contribs 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed you have. Support TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]