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 Olympic men's ice hockey players for Ukraine[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

My first featured list candidate in a long time, so if anything is off, I apologize. This is based off similar featured lists of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, though Ukraine has only played in one Olympics (so far), so the list is significantly smaller, as is the lead. However I do believe it follows the criteria, and if so I plan to eventually get all Olympic ice hockey teams through here under a similar template. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
  1. The images should have WP:ALT text.
    Done
  2. The list of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Ukraine consists of 20 skaters and 3 goaltenders. should be rephrased per MOS:LEADSENTENCE.
    Modified. Again, I followed the basic idea of the above-mentioned articles, so if it needs further refining let me know.
  3. Chybirev, Oletsky, and Salnikov had the most points (3). should explain what "points" means or at least link to point (ice hockey).
    Linked, as well as goal, and assist.
  4. The numbers in parentheses in the WP:LEAD should be replaced with plain text without parentheses.
    Done
  5. The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead.
    Done
  6. The abbreviated headers should use the {{abbr}} template.
    Done
  7. Both the "Olympics" and "Tournaments" columns are wholly unnecessary for a country who have so far only appeared in one, and should be removed to conserve horizontal space. The "Medals" column and the "Notes" column in the second of table should also be removed for the same reason, as they are completely empty.
    Done
  8. The "Ref(s)" columns should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).
    Done
  9. "GP" for Oleksandr Fedorov should be "0", and the rest of the cells that currently read "–" should use the {{N/A}} template.
    Done
  10. The table of contents should be removed as it is not necessary for so short a list.
    Done
  11. I'm not sure it's necessary to have two separate tables.
    I would agree, however due to skaters and goaltenders utilizing different stats, it makes it difficult to merge them without either leaving multiple empty columns for each player, or leaving out important information.
  12. Andrew Podnieks is linked two put of three times in the "References" section. Either link all three or only the first one.
    Done
  13. The statistics for the goaltenders don't seem to add up (the number of games played should equal the sum of the wins, losses and ties, no?) and also contradict Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics, according to which Ukraine didn't tie any matches, and Simchuk only played two (against France and Latvia).
    Not sure about the Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics article, but the official IIHF report of the tournament has both Karpenko and Simchuk playing in 3 games, with 65 and 174 minutes played, respectively (see this and this). I am in the middle of transiting my reference material, but will go through it once available to correct the above article, as something isn't adding up here. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Due to the short length, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). I would consider merging the list into Ukraine men's national ice hockey team. TompaDompa (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Addressed everything here. Regarding the short length, I will again admit I'm not terribly familiar with the state of FLC these days, but is length of the list a legitimate argument against promotion? I know that at FAC, while contentious at times, there is no consensus on the matter, and feel that it shouldn't be considered an issue here, as it is a fully self-contained list that should be distinct from the national team article. However if consensus here is against that then I'll not argue the case, I am just unsure is all. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit nuanced- basically it needs to meet WP:Stand-alone lists and WP:CFORK, which means that the list shouldn't be better kept in a parent article due to their sizes. I don't think that this list violates those guidelines, for three reasons: One, there isn't a good parent to merge to anyways- Ukraine men's national ice hockey team is about the Ukraine national team, but this list is about their Olympic team members (though, I guess practically it's just their 2002 national team members). Two, we typically are more okay with shorter lists if they're part of a well-defined set/series- in this case, Olympic men's ice hockey players per country. And Three, generally the cutoff is about 10 items, which this passes.
All that aside- it is short. Given that it is only about a single team, I'd expect more detail about the (4) matches and (23) players, and some discussion about why they only sent a team in 2002 and never since. It wouldn't have to be a ton, but right now the lead is just 1.5 paragraphs and that's a little scant. You may also consider at least listing the Ukranian Soviet Union/Unified Team players, since most of the Ukrainian Olympic players have been under that umbrella, and you have the space to discuss it. --PresN 14:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. As noted I am in the middle of moving, so don't have immediate access to some sources that could fill out the prose a bit, though I do know that information like you mentioned is there. It will just be about a week or so until I can get into it, if that is alright. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think this passes criterion 3b either. Although these other articles are not particularly well developed as an older event, this list is redundant in part each to Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's team rosters, and Ukraine at the 2002 Winter Olympics. I don't see this as a topic for a stand-alone list. Reywas92Talk 19:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Getting the idea that this is not going to successfully pass, so may I suggest withdrawing it and saving the effort? The suggestions noted here I will take in, and while I will not try and submit similar-length lists, I do plan on going through other country lists, once I get them up to the standards here. Thanks for the reviews, it is good to have such quick, in depth feedback. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Romelu Lukaku[edit]

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

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

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

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

Well I disagree, the main article is easily large enough to sustain a forked off article such as this. Other points addressed. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
PS, for what it's worth, see WP:SIZERULE. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a good guideline! Lukaku's page size is 21kb, so based on that rule of thumb "Length alone does not justify division". What justifies division then? --Cheetah (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Coverage of him being Belgium's top international scorer. If people prefer to merge it back, sources and all, that's just fine. At least I've improved things, one way or another, with this. Just make sure you get the attribution right when you do it. Plenty more fish in the sea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Comments 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)
  • "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)

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s[edit]

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

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

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

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

Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

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

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

@A Thousand Doors: Hi! I now removed the year column alltogether, as I realized it is superfluous since we have the dates each item reached number one. It would be a good idea to clarify the Manual of Style entry, since it could be helpful for editors wanting to improve other lists. Best regards! Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@A Thousand Doors: Was a consensus reached in the subject matter? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

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

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

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)

Comments 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)

List of Kate Winslet performances[edit]

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

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

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

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments I have a couple of nitpicks
    • I am not sure now, but back in the day it was a requirement to have inline citations in ascending order: [13][10] should be [10][13]
    • Why is there a note saying "Refers to the film's earliest release"? Did someone require it? To me, it's obvious and no need to note that.
      • When a conflict arises regarding a film's theatrical release and festival release, this footnote prevents edit-warring. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • When you have two directors for a film, like for the "Manou the Swift", how do you decide who should be the first when sorting?
      • Ordered them alphabetically. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • When there are multiple years, the column should be titled "Year(s)", and for multiple references - "Ref(s)"
    • What was the reason when one of the editors removed the film "Critters" here? Was it because she was uncredited?
      • Yes, and I didn't add it back because no other WP:RS mentions it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

--Cheetah (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Crzycheetah Thank you for the review. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
There are a couple of tables that still need "Ref(s)". One more nitpick, I just noticed this ref titled "For real pride, tune in the aboriginal awards" was retrieved in 2004 even though the article is published in 2018, I am not even stating the fact that this wiki page was created in 2013.--Cheetah (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Crzycheetah Sorry, the date and accessdate parameters were mixed up. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I hope you don't mind my minor edit there.--Cheetah (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. Thanks for the fixes. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

Aoba47, tweaked accordingly. Thanks for the review. Much appreciated, as always. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Older nominations[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror[edit]

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

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


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

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
    Other than the redirect one, not sure what the problems were—the links all work for me. I've archived them anyway. Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Link science fiction in the opening sentence.
  • Link the publishers in their first instance, just like its in ref 1 to 10.
    I've linked work/publisher in all instances (they're an exception to MOS:DUPLINK). Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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]

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)

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.
  • "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
  1. American band No Doubt – I'd add a genre modifier.
  2. 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.
  3. "synth and new wave influences" – I'd remove the MOS:SCAREQUOTES.
  4. Their third studio album, Tragic Kingdom (1995), incorporates punk, pop, and ska; the album spawned seven singles, including the commercially successful hits "Just a Girl", "Spiderwebs", and "Don't Speak". – don't mix verb tenses.
  5. whereas her brother – Eric Stefani – had written – the WP:ENDASHes are unnecessary here.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. The group also has writing credits on several other albums. They collaborated [...] – I'd use a semicolon instead of a period here.
  10. All songs recorded by No Doubt, except where noted. is unnecessary and should be removed.
  11. This is not a complete list. Two things:
    1. This should use the {{inc-musong}} template.
    2. How do you reconcile this with WP:FLCR 3(a)?
  12. What does the {{N/A}} template for "Intro" mean (considering the different {{Unknown}} template is used for several other songs)?
  13. 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?
  14. 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)

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2011[edit]

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

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

One simple question: Is it really necessary to link Billboard in every single ref? I guess everybody knows what Billboard is.--Lirim | T 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that works/publishers should be linked in every ref because the order of them could change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Having said that, I've noticed that in some/most/all of the other lists that have been promoted to FL, I haven't linked it every time. So I guess I'm not wedded to them all being linked. I am not fussed either way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no hard rule about it beyond consistency- some people link every time because ref order is not fixed (as you state); some link only the "first" time (and generally don't try to keep that up to date...); some don't link publishers at all. --PresN 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

  • Thanks for your kind words. I have fixed the issues which you raised, hopefully to your satisfaction. I will try to look at your FAC in the next day or two.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

List of Civilization media[edit]

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

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

Comments from Anarchyte

Great work on the article. Here are some comments:

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

@Aoba47: Adjusted the sentence, made it "Music CDs", and move the linux link to the first instance. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help/input with my current FAC? Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • CommentAbout the only thing I can even nit-pick is that I'd put a comma after "as well as a spin-off title" in the second paragraph. Otherwise this article looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • The WP:ALT text for the logo doesn't match the image file.
  • digital albums have been sold for Civilization VI and its expansion, and Civilization: Beyond Earth and its expansion would be clearer if the second "and" were replaced with "as well as for".
  • I don't like the table layouts where entries are built more vertically than horizontally. I'd rather see additional pieces of information relating to the same entry presented in additional columns than in additional rows. In the first table, for example, I would split the "Details" column into a "Release years by system" column and a "Notes" column rather than keep it the way it is now (although I might split it into even more columns than that). The current layout looks disorganized, even though it isn't.

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

@TompaDompa: Fixed the first two. As to the row format, a few things: 1) it's a template used by 200+ lists, including several FLs, so I'm disinclined to change/replace it on a whim, but more importantly 2) I hacked together a version of it where the notes is a new column instead of a new subrow, and tested it here. I actually find that much more visually confusing than the present version, and on smaller screen resolutions (aka <= 1200 pixels wide) it still stretches vertically in the way you disliked, but with the columns squashed. I'll keep playing with it, but right now I'm not going to change the template for this list. --PresN 01:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I see your point about smaller screen resolutions. Would it be possible to structure the recurring information (such as developer and publisher, genre for the second table, number of pages for the books, duration and number of tracks for the music) in a way similar to the way "Release years by system" currently is? I think it would look a lot more structured if there were what might loosely be called "headings" for recurring types of information rather than just identical placement in an otherwise featureless bulleted list. TompaDompa (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It's problematic to keep subdividing it into sections, because if you don't split it into columns then each sub-row needs to have their own headings (like "Release years by system:" and "Notes:" here) in order to still meet WP:ACCESS requirements (and just to be easily comprehensible). And since you need a header for each section, you end up with even taller game-rows then you currently have. The solution is obviously columns, but as previously noted that gets messy if you have a lot of words per column (and you also can't split some subrows by columns and not others, again per WP:ACCESS- it's talking about column headers in the middle of tables there, but it's really cells that span multiple columns when the cells above/below that row don't do that). In fact, for lists that have too many games to really use the format of this list that's exactly the tradeoff I make- see List of games by Epic Games for example, where everything gets its own column but I have to drop all language around the bare fact and don't have space to talk about extra details except in footnotes at the bottom.
I guess ultimately I don't see anywhere near the issue with this format that you seem to (with the possible exception of the extra space to the side of games with long platform-releases, like Civ 1). I'm not 100% satisfied with it, but I'm also not so dissatisfied that I want to sink a ton more hours into trying to make it slightly better, especially when I don't think there's a good way to do it without just dropping all non-structured "notes" from the table itself. --PresN 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a way to make the structure of the notes more apparent while changing little else: preface the publisher with "Publisher:" (using bold), and do the same for the other pieces of recurring information. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Tested that for the first section: [4]; I don't think it's an improvement. It makes it clear what each sentence is about, but they're not exactly long sentences: "Developer/Publisher: Developed and published by MicroProse" is pretty redundant. I don't think I'll keep this change. --PresN 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more like this. TompaDompa (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so more converting the prosish text into essentially cells without borders? Well, honestly, I don't really like it- I don't like the way it looks, and I don't like how it drops information even though there's plenty of space for it. --PresN 04:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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)
Comments from TompaDompa
  1. The colon in the first sentence should be a semicolon.
  2. The first CD, with music performed live in recitals in Italy, was released by Decca in April, followed by a double CD with performances from the 16th Chopin International Piano Competition in Warsaw (where he won the third prize), and finally, in July, a studio recording which included, like the previous release, Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1. – this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas. Readability would be improved by rephrasing.
  3. In February 2013, Trifonov signed an exclusive recording contract with Deutsche Grammophon (DG): the first release under that contract was a live recording from a recital he had given in Carnegie Hall that month. would be better as two sentences.
  4. Other recitals and chamber music concerts were recorded at festivals such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus, resulting in webcasts, and a few works, including Mieczysław Weinberg's Sonatina in a performance with Gidon Kremer, being issued on other labels, courtesy of DG. – again, this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas.
  5. This CD was issued mid-2015, a few months before a double DVD with two films directed by Christopher Nupen was released: a documentary, in which Trifonov performed parts of his own Piano Concerto in E-flat minor, and one of his recitals interspersed with interviews. – this would probably be better as a few shorter sentences.
  6. Trifonov's 2016 album for DG, a double CD of the complete piano études by Franz Liszt, was a major success: it reached the number one position in the Specialist Classical Albums Chart in the United Kingdom in October 2016, was designated one of "The Best Classical Music Recordings of 2016" by The New York Times, and won the 2018 Grammy Award for Best Classical Instrumental Solo. – again, a very long sentence that would benefit from being split up into shorter sentences.
  7. I feel terrible for saying this as the restructuring must have taken a lot of work, but I think the first table ("Daniil Trifonov recordings") should be removed. A list of every performance recorded is a poor fit for a discography. Basically, it's the difference between Led Zeppelin discography and List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin (which I'll note are both WP:Featured lists).
  8. As for the table structure for the actual releases, I would suggest basing it either on this old revision of the list or on the structure of the WP:Featured list Vladimir Horowitz discography.

My main issue with the article at this time is that I think it fails WP:FLCR 4 by being structured in a way which I feel impedes navigability and readability severely. To put it bluntly, I disagree entirely with Francis Schonken's opinions on the layout (except for the part about sortability being unnecessary) and think it was way better the way it was before those changes were made. Another big issue is that the WP:LEAD contains a lot of very long sentences filled with punctuation marks (some of which are used incorrectly). Understanding the intended meaning consequently gets unnecessarily difficult, making the reading experience rather frustrating. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 21 August 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)

List of Lutheran denominations[edit]

Nominator(s): Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Between February and April of this year, I significantly expanded this list, more than octupling the size of the list (at least in terms of the byte size). The most significant improvements I made were 1) organizing the denominations into tables, 2) adding the year each denomination was founded, 3) adding the current membership of each denomination, 4) adding references (the list previously had four references; it now has 295), and 5) adding denominations that were not previously included in this list. This list should now include practically every active Lutheran denomination in the world.

Looking at the FL criteria in detail, I believe this list meets them all:

1. Prose - The list includes only a few short paragraphs of prose, but I believe these meet professional standards.
2. Lead - Short and to the point, but I believe it does define the scope of the list.
3. Comprehensiveness - I have done my best to include every active Lutheran denomination in the world. If it isn't completely comprehensive, it should be extremely close.
4. Structure - The division by international affiliation (LWF, ILC, CELC, and unaffiliated) has been in place since the list was first created. I think this division makes sense and makes the list easier to navigate. The ability to sort denominations by country, name, founding year, and membership should also aid in navigation.
5. Style - The list does have a number of red links, but after looking at a few other FLs, it seems that this is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Also, I intend over the next several (6–12?) months to create a series of "Lutheranism in (country)" articles, and to link each of the redlinked denominations to those articles. See Lutheranism in Angola for an example.
6. Stability - The only major changes in the past several years have been my edits expanding the list.

Although I think the list looks fairly good as-is, I would obviously be happy to make any changes others feel are necessary. Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I would give a date for the numbers. "As of January 2018" or something like that. Just giving numbers for a religion without giving a date is somewhat useless.
  • why did you use two "--" and not just one "–" (en-dash) or "—" (em-dash)?--Lirim | T 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for getting back to you so late; this past week has been a busy one for me. I have added a note to each of the tables indicating that the membership numbers are the most recently available numbers as of April 2018. Some of the sources I used didn't include a date, but I'm reasonably confident none of the numbers are more than a decade old, and I know most are less than three years old.
As for using "--" rather than an en- or em-dash, I believe I copied that from another FL. If you think an en- or em-dash would look better, I can certainly change it. Just let me know which you would prefer. Bnng (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The list looks fine, but I wonder if it could be improved by merging the tables and using 3-color backgrounds instead. Also, a world map could be nice, coloring where each of the 3 players is present. Also, a mini-section summarizing the 3+1 headers could also be better, so that way you can compare the 3 organizations a bit. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I initially thought about putting all the denominations into one large table, but I ultimately decided against it, for a few reasons. First, there are currently eleven church bodies that are members of both the LWF and the ILC (and that number is steadily growing), which would complicate a simple colorization scheme like the one you proposed. (Thanks for mentioning that idea, though; after reading it, I realized I forgot to add a footnote to those church bodies, indicating their dual membership.) Second, using a colorization scheme to indicate membership would not allow the readers to sort the church bodies by membership, which seems like a drawback. One way around this problem, and an idea I toyed with for awhile, would be to add separate columns to indicate membership in the LWF, ILC, CELC, and possibly also the World Council of Churches. This would show the dual membership arrangements very clearly and would allow the readers to sort the table by membership if they wanted, which are definite pluses. The downside is that it would make the table more complicated and a bit messy, and might make them too wide for easy reading on most computer screens. The current split into four separate groupings (in place since the list was first created) seems to me like a good compromise between navigability and conciseness. That said, if you or anyone else can think of a way to combine these tables in a way that avoids those pitfalls, I would love to hear it. I don't really like the fact that several denominations are duplicated in two separate tables.
I like the idea of including a map, and I'd be willing to put one together, but I'm not sure exactly how I would do it. In addition to the problem of denominations with dual memberships, many countries also have multiple denominations, some affiliated with the LWF, some with the ILC, some with the CELC, and some unaffiliated. I'm not sure how I'd include them all in a single map. I'm also limited by the fact that this is about the most complicated map I'd be able to create on my own.
Finally, I think your idea of adding a short section comparing the various groupings is a good one, and I will try to put together something to that effect either tonight or tomorrow. Bnng (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
  • As noted above, there are a lot of WP:Redlinks. This is a deal-breaker to me. For now, I think the best solution is to remove the links.
  • I'd suggest using a centered en dash (<center>–</center>) for missing information rather than "--".
    • On second thought, I'd suggest using {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}}. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of empty cells. I looked at a few of the sources, and it should be possible to give at least approximate years (e.g. "c. 1984", "1982–1986", or "1980s") for many of them. I don't know about the membership numbers, but it might be possible to give approximate figures for some of them too.
  • The visual appeal would be greatly helped by some kind of image or images. A map would of course be ideal, but an image of Martin Luther would be a pretty good start.
  • There's plenty of room the expand the WP:LEAD. I'd suggest explaining more about the LWF, ILC, and CELC as a start.
  • Instead of footnotes, I'd suggest adding a column called "Notes" to improve readability. This would make the table wider, but the improved readability is more important in my opinion.
  • The "Ref" column should be "Refs", using the {{abbr}} template.
  • I noticed some discrepancies. The text says that the LWF includes 145 church bodies. I count 141 entries in the list. Likewise, the text says that the ILC includes 38 church bodies, whereas I count 39 entries. Finally, the text says that CELC includes 32 church bodies, but I count 22 entries in the list.
  • The number of members for the LWF should be mentioned in the text preceding its table (as is done for the other two, as well as in the WP:LEAD).
  • Avoid using the "This list [...]" phrasing, as it is clunky. Instead, try summarizing the contents (e.g. "There are XX affiliated and YY unaffiliated denominations, not including groups that have been merged into other groups (e.g. Hauge Synod), nor groups that have become defunct (e.g. Eielsen Synod)."
  • The word "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space (74&nbsp;million instead of 74 million). This turns up a few times.
  • The sorting by year is broken for the entries with "c." values. I'd suggest using {{Sort}} or {{Hidden sort key}} sort keys to solve this.
  • A few of the references need to be fixed. A list (which unfortunately contains false positives as well) can be found here.

This should be possible to bring up to WP:Featured list standard (the topic is definitely suitable), but right now there's a long way to go, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs[edit]

Nominator(s): exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was originally submitted 13 years ago in 2005, and only failed due to some minor, since-fixed issues. This list has gone far beyond that and is a very comprehensive and useful index of some of the Sun's nearest neighbors in the Milky Way. Plus, with the release of Gaia DR2, it's most likely 100% complete to the scope described in the lead. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

60-second scan review: The lead has a bunch of grammar problems and is just kind of messy; it really needs to use much more plain language to explain why the definition of "within 5 parsecs" can be fuzzy. I mean, you don't link parsec, go off on arc-seconds and stellar paralax without saying what it is or what it means in this context, it's not until the 3rd paragraph that you say how many stars are in the area even though that's half the point of the list, you start off with "the following two lists which a) they're tables, not lists and b) lists haven't started out like that for over a decade, you don't need to predefine what your sections are going to be about.
Having only recently seen List of nearest exoplanets finally make it through FLC with a lot of back-and-forth on the lead: A large amount of the readership of a list about "what are the nearest stars" is going to have only a passing understanding of astromic terms. The lead needs to be written in a way that guides these readers in to the big points (how many stars/systems, why we count stars that aren't within 5 parsecs but look like their future motion takes them inside the line, etc.) and briefly explains the technical details that go into making those determinations.
As to the 1st table, 2 fast changes: drop the system/star "number" columns because it clutters things up without clearly adding anything, and make the first three columns 'system name'/'star name'/'distance', not 'distance'/'system name'/'star name'. Distance is a property of the star/system, the star is not a property of the distance. Oh, and you can't use just color to distinguish something per WP:ACCESS because color-blind/blind/sight-limited readers can't get it. For stellar type it seems to be decorative and gives the same information as the text in the cell, but the brown/blue coloring isn't. (also, it's not clear what it means even if you can see it- please use a key, like at List of nearest exoplanets. --PresN 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Also: please add the FLC template onto the list's talk page, or else this FLC will not close correctly when it ends. --PresN 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I can probably manage to fix all that by tomorrow. Stay tuned? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've left this at the article's Talk page as well, but I object to removing the rank "#" column. I think it provides needed context. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall:@PresN: Okay, I updated it to the best of my ability/judgement based on your inputs. To add a few things, I support removing the number as it is somewhat redundant to the distance. It could give context, but I feel it is not particularly significant. Additionally, I attempted to clarify some of the definitions and explanations in the lead (please tell me how I did on that) although I feel that the distinction of a list/table and the exact phrasing of the lead is getting slightly into semantics and doesn't affect the actual quality or readability of the article in any major way. Furthermore, while the spectral types are indeed redundant and therefore don't present a significant loss for colorblind users, as someone familiar with color blindness, brown, light beige, and light blue should be distinct enough from one another as to be easily distinct from one another to even 100% color blind people. Again, please let me know if my additions and concerns are reasonable & justified or not. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd support renaming that column to something other than "#" (possibly "Rank"? Or "No."?) but I don't support removing it entirely. Also, it looks like the list has been switched to "small text" (e.g. "font-size:90%), probably in attempt to "fit it to a screen", but that should not be avoided as much as possible on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds – it is "allowed" in this particular case, as per WP:FONTSIZE, but in general it's not a good idea. In fact, in general, I suspect this entire table is problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds – I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, in this case... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • In the first line you give parsecs first and then light years first. You should be consistent. This shows up when you switch back to parsecs in the second paragraph, with the result that you give two different criteria for stars close in the past, 5 light years and then 4.9. Below you say 5.1.
  • You do not define astronomically near past or future in the lead. This should be given.
  • "The second table additionally lists stars" Additionally to what? If to the first list then the word is superfluous and confusing.
  • "Determining which stars fall within the stated range relies on accurate astrometric measurements of their parallax and total proper motions" Presumably proper motion etc only applies to predictions, not to the first list.
  • "only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, meaning only about 12% of these objects can be observed with the naked eye" I assume you mean that 6.5 is the limit for normal vision, but you should clarify this.
  • "first-magnitude stars" You link to List of brightest stars which does not define first-magnitude.
  • "Gaia DR2 astrometric results" What is Gaia DR2? You also mention 13.8G, and on a quick look I do not see a definition of G in the linked article.
  • If predictions thousands of years ahead are not accurate, what is the point of giving them for 15 million years?
  • " 694 solar-like or cooler stars " What is the point of the qualification "or cooler stars". Why exclude hotter ones?
  • The last paragraph of the lead is not strictly relevant but would be interesting if it did not have so many unnecessary technical details which mean nothing to the layman.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean it as an excuse or a valid reason, but most of your issues are due to nothing but the inevitably convoluted editing and conflicting views of a large number who have written the article, which I am almost scared to touch for fear of reawakening one or both sides. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The article will not pass FLC unless you are WP:Bold and fix problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that other people have been involved in writing it, but this is your FLC- take a deep breath, rewrite the whole lead without worrying about what other people have done before, and then let other editors make tweaks if they want. If they fundamentally disagree with any changes, then they can be discussed/adjusted. --PresN 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I remember this having a short table showing THE closest star in the past and future. Can this be added back in? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Exoplanetaryscience: Are you still engaging with this nomination? --PresN 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'd gotten onto some other projects and had somewhat forgotten about this. Will see what I can do! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@PresN: sorry again about the further delay, I am currently on vacation so am unable to do anything about it, and should have realized I wouldn’t be available earlier. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

exoplanetaryscience you've been editing over the past few weeks, if you don't wish to return to this then please let me know and I'll archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose this is starting to seem to the contrary, but I did forget again. Give me a moment and I will try my best to get to it tomorrow morning. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Alright, updated it to the recommendations. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments from TompaDompa

I restructured the WP:LEAD to what I consider a better structure, but feel free to change it around again (I did it mostly to get rid of "this is a list of"-like phrasings). I also added symbols with WP:ALT text (and a key) to the first table to make it WP:ACCESSIBILITY-compliant. On to the things that still need fixing:

  1. All images should have WP:ALT text (see also below about whether all of these images should be included at all).
  2. only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, the dimmest magnitude visible to the naked eye from Earth. – I really think it should be clarified whether this includes the Sun or not.
  3. Of these, 26 have a good probability to come within 1.0 parsec (3.3 light-years) and another 7 within 0.5 parsecs (1.6 light-years), although this number is likely, in reality, much higher, due to the sheer number of stars needed to be surveyed. – this sentence has so many commas that it impedes readability. I'd split it in two, and combine the second half with the following sentence (A star approaching the Solar System 10 million years ago, moving at 200 kilometers per second, would be more than 6,000 light years from the Sun at present day, with hundreds of millions of stars closer to the Sun.), joining the two with a semicolon.
  4. moving at 200 kilometers per second – if this is a typical velocity relative to the Sun, it should be mentioned.
  5. It is currently predicted to pass roughly 19300±3200 Astronomical units from the Sun – in order for the reader to be able to compare this to the other distances on the page, it also needs to be given in light-years. Also, the explicit MOS:UNCERTAINTY makes the word "roughly" pretty redundant. I fixed it myself.
  6. spectroscopic determined radial velocities – I believe the first word should be "spectroscopically".
  7. Many brown dwarfs are not listed by visual magnitude but are listed by near-infrared J band apparent magnitude due to how dim (and often invisible) they are in visible colors. – I take this to mean that all magnitudes followed by "J" are MJ /mJ values and the rest are MV /mV values, but this should really be spelled out explicitly.
  8. Nearest star systems is not a bad caption for the table, but I'd prefer one that stated the inclusion criterion (e.g. "Star systems within 5.0 parsecs (16.3 light-years) of the Sun").
  9. When something is linked in a long sortable table, it should be linked at every instance, not just the first one (because the reader might sort it in a different order and then have difficulty finding the explanatory link).
  10. The only valid reasons for an empty cell is (1) it's in the "Notes and additional references" column, and there are none, or (2) you are going to fill it in, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If the value is not applicable (like the discovery date of the Sun), use {{N/A}}. If the value is unknown, use {{Unknown}}. If the value is known but unavailable, use {{N/A|Unavailable}}. This also applies to cells with "?" or "–" as the only content.
  11. Star # – if this means "Star number", it should say that (per MOS:NUMBERSIGN). Otherwise, it should just say "Star".
  12. For the magnitude columns, I'd just move the reference that verifies almost all values to the respective heading cells (after MV/mV) and only place the reference in the cell if it's some other source. This would reduce the visual clutter.
  13. There are several cells in the "Stellar class" column and a few in the magnitude columns that are apparently unsourced, as is the entirety of the "discovery date" column.
  14. I'm not sure that the bottom row of the first table is necessary, but it should at least match the top row.
  15. The "Maps of nearby stars" section essentially repeats the same information thrice (in greater or lesser detail). I think the rotating 3D image is by far the most helpful one to the reader as it gives a sense of depth, but it would be more helpful if there were a version that didn't have the 3D glasses effect (just the rotation). It also kind of duplicates the information given in the video in the WP:LEAD. I tried removing this section and replacing the video in the lead with the rotating 3D image, and I personally think that was an improvement (though I may have made the image too large for smaller screens).
  16. Over long periods of time, the slow independent motion of stars change in both relative position and in their distance from the observer. is an anacoluthon.
  17. This can cause other currently distant stars to fall within a stated range, which may be readily calculated and predicted using accurate astromertic measurements of parallax and total proper motions, along with spectroscopic determined radial velocities. – "fall within a stated range" is very clunky, and "astrometric" is misspelled.
  18. I'd use "predict" for stars that will be close in the future, and "calculate" for stars that were close in the past.
  19. The "Distant future and past encounters" section shouldn't contain both a table and a bullet list. The bullet list should be converted to prose and cleaned up.
  20. Examples of notable predicted stellar encounters falling within 5 parsecs from the Sun appear in the list below. A summary of the more likely candidates include: is a very "this is a list of" phrasing, which should be avoided.
  21. Scholz's star and its companion brown dwarf is thought to have passed should be plural.
  22. Gamma Microscopii approximately 3.8 million years ago has been predicted to approach as close as 6 light-years from the Sun. badly needs copyediting. I'd consider removing it altogether considering both the qualifier that comes later and the relatively large distance.
  23. The Gliese 710 / HIP 89825 entry should be copyedited for length. Previous predictions in particular aren't relevant.
  24. With the release of Gaia DR2, it was determined that HIP 85605 is actually a much more distant 1790±30 light-years away, and as such will not be passing remotely close to the Sun at any point in time. – in that case, this entry should be removed.
  25. Known stars that have passed or will pass within 5.1 light-years of the Sun within ±3 million years: shouldn't have a colon at the end, and "5.1 light-years" seems very arbitrary to me. I'd go with 1.5 parsecs (4.9 light-years) (which would still include all the current entries).
  26. There are a bunch of WP:Redlinks in the second table. I'd remove those links.
  27. It should be made clearer for the Alpha Centauri AB entry that where two values are given, one is for A and one for B (I think the easiest solution would be writing "A:" and "B:" before the respective values).
  28. HIP# should either be spelled out or use the {{abbr}} template.
  29. For the entries that do not have a Hipparcos number, the {{N/A}} template should be used, not just an empty cell.
  30. The use of tildes (presumably to denote "approximately") breaks the sorting for the column, and I'm not sure if it's WP:MOS-compliant.
  31. The "External links" section needs a clean-up.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Azerbaijan international footballers[edit]

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

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

  • Comment - the only thing I can see is an issue around the use of "all-time". When the words are used in a phrase like "the all-time top goalscorer" then it needs a hyphen, but in something like "the top goalscorer of all time" then it doesn't. Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get what you mean, I've made some amendments to the page to hopefully fix the issue. Thanks for your review. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The caption on the lead image doesn't need a hyphen.............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot that one was there. Fixed. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

List of Delhi Daredevils cricketers[edit]

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

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

Comment - "The second list includes all those players who were brought by DD but they did not play any match. They are also initially listed alphabetically by their last name" - I can't see any such table...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed Bharatiya29 13:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments
 Done
  • Is "CricketArchive" a RS?
It is used as a source in many featured cricket lists and articles. I don't see any reason to not consider it a RS.
  • I would suggest you to delink Delhi in the opening sentence, per WP:OLINK.
 Done Bharatiya29 08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

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

Enough for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Coahuila[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This list is modeled cloesly after two successful Mexican municipality nominations Colima and Aguascalientes, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 18 promoted lists of municipalities of North America all using standardized formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • On the surface this works for me since I'm more familiar with first past the post terminology as well, however the source uses "plurality" and there are technically a few kinds of plurality that are not first past the post, and I'm not 100% certain that it is first past the post in local Mexican elections.
  • It is not an issue for this article but it is curious that the Mexican lists are in Category:Lists of municipalities, but not the US and Canadian ones.
  • They appear to just use topic boxes instead (which I actually prefer), whereas this one uses both (I personally find the category link at the bottom to be a bit redundant and ugly compared to topic boxes). I kept it since I had no good reason to remove some other user's work.
  • I find both useful and always use them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll keep both for all of these lists of Mexican Municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The dagger for state capital should be on the municipal seat, not the municipality.
  • It's the whole municipality that is the "state capital", the seat is the site of government for that municipality, which likely but not necessarily overlap.
  • For consistency, you should give the date of the name change of Guerrero, as you do with the other ones. Done
  • In note 4, you only give the second half of the book title.
  • Interesting find! I did some digging and it looks like google books has the title wrong, here is the official title: [5]
  • Thanks for your review! If any of my replies are not satisfactory, I'm happy to revisit and make appropriate changes. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium[edit]

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article rightfully deserve to be renominated. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TRM, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed all these issues. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: ^^ --PresN 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • "to take a five-wicket haul at the ground during an One Day International match". Since you gave the abbreviated version earlier, the shorthand ODI can be used here.
  • The shorthand WODI is used in the photo caption. As it isn't explained in the lead, I suggest adding the abbreviation to the lead or writing this one out in full in the caption. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Giants2008, with no activity from Ikhtiar H since the nomination was posted, I have addressed the above comments. Sagavaj (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Support – Everything looks good after the fixes. Thanks for stepping in on behalf of the nominator. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I made one tiny grammatical tweak myself, but that was all I found -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]