Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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 must satisfy the featured list 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 featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those 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 at peer review at the same time. Nominators 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 ten 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 any 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 leave a post on 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. When 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 your 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. Alternatively, 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 vote 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 (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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:



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

NominationsEdit

List of procyonidsEdit

Nominator(s): PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Fourth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids, mustelids), we continue through Carnivora with Procyonidea, aka "raccoons". It's the smallest family so far, at 14 species, and doesn't have named subfamilies or tribes, partially because modern research has shown that all prior divisions based on appearance were wrong. The animals are less diverse than other families, generally being 1-2 foot-long forest-dwelling psuedo-omnivores with really long tails, but as the lead image shows they can be pretty cute. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(I'm getting faster at these (mainly because my script now pulls information directly from Mammal Species of the World, Wikidata, the IUCN, and Animal Diversity Web to generate the tables in the first place), so mustelids isn't promoted yet, but has supports already.)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1976Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 39 FLs and another has multiple supports and no outstanding issues, so here's the potential #41, covering a year in which everyone was crazy for CB radio and Johnny Cash built a mad car in song, after which some guy built it for real......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

  • File:One piece at a time cropped.jpg I would be amazed if the copyright adopted from File:One piece at a time.jpg is right on this one. Do we have any evidence to support that this is actually the work of "Abernathyautoparts~commonswiki"?
    • Well, Abernathy Autoparts is the name of the firm that built the car, according to the source........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Could you overhaul the image description page: the date needs to reflect the original date of the image (April 1976), though keep the upload date too, and in the author expand on the uploader details, along with the fact that they were the firm that built the car. That should suffice, unless we find anything else out. Even if it isn't the right tag, it would probably be covered by {{PD-Pre1978}}, I don't know if that is worth mentioning? Harrias talk 10:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Harrias: let me know if I have done it correctly/sufficiently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
          • That suits me. Harrias talk 10:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The other three images are all appropriately tagged. Harrias talk 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review (pass)Edit

  • The article is well-sourced to reliable sources.
  • Sources are formatted appropriately and consistently.
  • No dead links.
  • Ref #2 needs an endash, rather than hyphen in the year range in the title.
  • Same with ref #4.
  • Ref #13 needs a page number.

--Harrias talk 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from DankEdit

  • Hey, if Harrias gets a subsection, so do I. I really enjoy your Hot Country Singles lists, Chris, takes me back ... I listened to a little bit of everything back then, and some of these crossed over.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. Which is especially problematic when we've got a nominator who does know what he's doing. Oh well.
  • Chris, I don't know what your position is on archiving using IABot. On the upside, it's just one click to do them all, but on the downside, it adds a lot of characters for not much benefit. Your call.
  • YMMV, but for my taste, the second sentence is a little long and winding. You could lose "in 52 issues of the magazine" without any harm, I think.
  • "Maggard, real name Jay Huguely, would": Any objection to "Maggard (real name Jay Huguely) would"?
  • I'm checking all the non-ref links in the table ... so far, I've avoided one redirect. (Some people find that useful for titles ... feel free to revert.)
  • "Waylon & Willie": I don't get why it's not Waylon Jennings & Willie Nelson.
  • FLC criteria:
    • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. Sourcing is adequate. All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. I might or might not claim 5 points in the Wikicup for this sad little review. (In my defense, there wasn't much to do!) - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly for your review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic Bishops of Hong KongEdit

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • First two sentences are extremely short and could easily be combined
  • Combined. Would I need a comma between "Kong" and "who" (in the middle of the sentence)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Became the first vicar apostolic" - should the last two words be capitalised (to match the heading)?
  • Corrected. And I've also capitalised Valtorta's entry as "first Bishop of Hong Kong" for consistency. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • How did Bianchi resign in 1976 if he only served until 1968?
  • My bad – I messed that one up by listing the date he retired from his titular see. Just a slight wrinkle – the diocesan source (ref 27) says he retired on 19 December 1968 (turns out this was the day his resignation was accepted). However, the Catholic-Hierarchy.org bio (not used here since it's debatable whether it's a reliable source) says he resigned on 30 November 1968 (and this bio is used as the source for a Macau newspaper article that would be considered reliable). I am unsure of whether this fell under nunc pro tunc as is usually the case when a bishop resigns. Which date should I use? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is Bianchi's death date mentioned? Elsewhere you only seem to list death dates for those who died in office.
  • I was planning on listing every bishop's death date (not just those who died in office). It's just that the two retired bishops (Zen and Tong) are still alive. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure the exact same picture of Tong Hon needs to be in the article twice
  • Fixed – removed the infobox image (especially since a new bishop is going to be announced anytime now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


Comments from Dank:

  • Hi Bloom. Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. All this excludes Chris's comments above. I may or may not get 5 points in the Wikicup for this review.
  • In the WP:FLC for List of felids, one FLC delegate recommended, and the other implemented, a suggestion to add alt text to the daggers: {{dagger|alt=Extinct}}. I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps you should add alt text in the same way to your double-daggers.
  • "Hong Kong": duplicate link in the next-to-last entry in the last table
  • "Antonio Feliciani": His Wikipedia article calls him Anthony. All other names in the tables check out.
  • Someone must have anglicized his name here, because that's how it appears on the Diocesan website (under general ref), the diocese's archive (ref 14), and this source from the Holy Spirit Study Centre (unofficially affiliated to the Holy See). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "from 1949–51", etc.: from 1949 to 1951. It's a WP:MOS thing.
  • I think MOS:DATERANGE permits two-digit ending years for "infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column)". —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's at MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from. ... from 1961 to 1962, not from 1961–62". - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • FLC criteria:
    • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. Sourcing is adequate. All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Added a reply above. Also, I've heard we're supposed to announce it if we're claiming points in the Wikicup ... this will go towards your Wikicup total, right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

List of The Mandalorian charactersEdit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all the characters from the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian. It is my hope that it will eventually be the anchor of a good topic on this subject. I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. I modeled it in part after the excellent List of Alien (film series) characters (and I'd like to give a shout-out to DarthBotto for his work on that one). Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of highest points reached in the Tour de FranceEdit

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I created this list after putting together Souvenir Henri Desgrange as a future FLC. I needed to confirm what the highest point of each Tour when I couldn't find one single source. The red stage links will eventually be sorted, hopefully soon. BaldBoris 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just now thought it might be better for it to be instead named List of highest points reached by the Tour de France. BaldBoris 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • Single-laned should have a hyphen
  • "This remains the highest point of elevation the Tour de France has seen" - the Tour does not have eyes so it can't see, suggest "This remains the highest point of elevation reached by the Tour de France"
  • Also suggest putting "As of 2019" at the start of that sentence and not in brackets
  • Lose the "as of 2019" from the last sentence, as I think the one before makes it clear
  • Move notes a and b to the headers of the relevant columns
  • I think you can combine the years when the Tour was lost to World Wars into one row each
    They turn into individual rows once you start sorting. Is that a reason why you believe it should be done? BaldBoris 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think you could just have one line with 1915-1918 in the first column. There's no need for four separate rows which would always sort together anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I do agree yes. I've introduced {{n/a}} for the styling as well as for the "N/A" cells. BaldBoris 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    You need to add sort templates to ensure those rows sort correctly - currently if you sort on another column and then try to re-sort on year they drop to the bottom..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    That's because of |- class="sortbottom", otherwise they stay at the top when you sort. Not sure what's better. BaldBoris 11:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    I made a small edit so that they sort correctly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    It made no difference because the column uses data-sort-type="number". Also, data-sort-vale="" should be used over {{sort}}. They still annoyingly stay at the top when sorting. It seems like this issue has never truly been solved. Looking at the association football season FLs, a number of different methods have been used, with none really working. BaldBoris 14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    They sort correctly for me? If I sort on any other column, they jump to the top (which is what I would expect as they are essentially null values) but then when I re-sort on the first column they appear in the correct place. Are you experiencing something different? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The "Category" column refers to the system used for the mountains classification in the Tour de France to determined iuia climb's difficulty" - "determined" should be "determine" and "iuia" is not an English word, but as I have no idea what it is meant to mean I have no idea what should replace it - maybe "each"?
  • "Before the 1976 Tour de France, the Galibier was stated by the media the highest climb of route" => "Before the 1976 Tour de France, the Galibier was stated by the media to be the highest climb of the route"
  • "The Col du Galibier was planned to be planned to be the highest poitn" - spelling error
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    All done apart from one. Thanks for that Chris, great job. BaldBoris 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • One other thing I only just spotted - ref 64 does not have the title translated into English.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Isabelle Stevenson AwardEdit

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's something different from yours truly, the Isabelle Stevenson Award. This is a non-competitive philanthropic award that has been presented at the Tony Awards every year since 2009 in honor of the charitable work of an individual from the theater community. Am hoping this list is worthy of the bronze star. MWright96 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

List of largest cruise shipsEdit

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1960–1974)Edit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Two years after the last one, this is the next in the series, and follows the format established in the FLs England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), England cricket team Test results (1920–1939) and England cricket team Test results (1946–1959). I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. Harrias talk 12:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

As I've spent a little time looking at the list, I'll add a quick accessibility review.

Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: No text falls below 85% of the base font size. MOS:FONTSIZE
Colour
  • Information: No information is supplied solely by the use of colour.
  • Contrast: All background colours are WCAG AAA compliant with the text colours.
MOS:COLOUR
Tables
  • Caption: The 'Summary' table has no caption, but is placed immediately below the heading "Summary", so the caption is less important.
  • Structure: There are no artificial rows using line breaks; the tables have fairly simple structures that most screen readers will cope with.
  • Headers, Scopes: All tables have sensible row and column headers and all are properly scoped.
MOS:DTAB
Images
  • Alt text: Image has sensible alt text.
  • No fixed size: The image respects users' image size preferences.
MOS:ACCIM

There are no accessibility concerns (though I'd add the caption to the 'Summary' table, as there is one for the 'Key' table). Hope you find that useful. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1975Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 39 FLs, so here's the potential #40. In 1975, crossover pop-country was everywhere, not to my tastes at all, but on the other hand Willie Nelson finally had his career breakthrough with "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain", which is a great song from a great album....... -- -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
  • I would add punctuation to the image captions as I believe all of them are complete sentences.
  • For this part (contrasted with the lush country-pop style which was prevalent at the time), I think you can cut out "which was" to just say (the lush country-pop style prevalent at the time) to make it a little more concise.

I only have these relatively minor notes. It is interesting how the discussion on what constitutes real country music versus crossover with other genres has continued till today. My personal favorite from this would be either ""The Bargain Store" or "I'm Not Lisa" as I have a preference for female singers for some reason. Hope these comments help, and great work as always with these lists. I should do some work on Billboard chart list too. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - done, many thanks. And yes, I think the debate about what is country and what isn't will rage for a while yet...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. At least the debate is interesting lol. I support this for promotion. This may sound weird, but I have honestly learned a lot about country music from reviewing your FLCs. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Cool - to be fair I learnt quite a lot that I didn't already know from working on them! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This list passes the FL standards easily. I can't find any issues. Great job! (What a great year for music. Thank you for working on this) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nashville Xpress all-time rosterEdit

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it merits recognition as a list of high quality. Though it is a list of a minor league team's players, it is an exemplar of what major league all-time rosters could look like. Yes, this is its third nomination. I withdrew the first nomination amid consensus that the list was too thin. The second nomination of the much-improved list received only one comment/support before being archived. I have since further improved it. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I made one small tweak but that's all I could find -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Cardiff City F.C. records and statisticsEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the Cardiff lists I haven't got around to until now finally being brought to FLC. I've based the format on the other promoted lists of club records and believe it's up to the same standard. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • Maybe mention the number of Phil Dwyer's appearances in the second paragraph of the lead; the other two players have theirs included.
  • I'd recommend applying an upright value to the lead image, possibly |upright=1.2.
  • "The club won its first trophy under the guise by winning the Bevan Shield in 1905." Shouldn't it be "...under the guise of winning..."? Otherwise it sounds like "guise" means "name".
  • "The last honour won by the club was the Championship title during the 2012–13 season." Maybe make it "The most recent honour..." since they haven't finished playing. (Optional suggestion)
  • Under the "League titles" and "Cups" headings, each win or runners-up is followed by a colon and an en dash before the years (i.e. "Champions: – 1912–1913"). I don't think both punctuation marks are necessary; just a colon (i.e. "Champions: 1912–1913") would be my preference.
  • Also, the first Southern Football League's championship years can be combined "1912–13" as are the subsequent two-year ranges.
  • I'd link the first instance of "Cwmparc". Even though there seems to be no team article, the the unusual spelling stopped this American reader in his tracks wondering if the was a misspelling or an un-capitalized acronym. (Optional suggestion)
  • There's a stray period at the end of "Most goals conceded in one season: 105, Third Division South, 1933–34."
  • Standardize the use of either "vs." or "vs" as the use varies throughout.
  • If this is a list of team records, I'm not sure the ground attendance set between the Wales and England national teams should be included.
  • The tables are missing row and column scope for accessibility. See MOS:DTAB.
  • {{Abbr|No.|Number}} sould be used instead of # to indicate number in four tables. See: MOS:HASH.
  • Under "Longest run of consecutive league appearances", I'd replace "position" with number as in my previous bullet point and change "Years" to "Dates" since months are also included.
  • Under "All time leading goalscorers", adjust the column width of "Years" to keep it from wrapping the text.
  • In the "Transfers" tables, you'll need to apply sortkeys to each player and club; they currently sort by the name of the country in {{flagicon}}.
  • The "Notes" column heading should probably be changed to "Reference" or {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • References 10 and 36 are dead, but you can add the archived version (or the current correct location).
  • All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Old WykehamistsEdit

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick comments
  • The lead is far too short and should be expanded. This could be done by giving a bit more background about the school and its history, and then writing about how the school has produced N archbishops, including so-and-so and so-and-so, N cabinet ministers including these people, and so on. Also, the VC winners could be highlighted.
Thank you for these helpful suggestions; I've had a go at implementing all of them. It's quite hard to know what and how much to say; it seemed sensible to focus on the school's most distinctive traditions, but there are many other possibilities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks really good now, although it might be worth adding something (if it can be reliably sourced) about the increase in pupil numbers from the original 70 (I presume that the increase in size is one of the main reasons why there are so many more notable alumni from the last couple of centuries. This could maybe go in place of the bit about Notions, which is probably the best least connected to the pupils/alumni -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Having a bit which says "see also this category" as prose in the lead is not appropriate. This should be a "See also" section at the bottom, just above the notes.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I spotted quite a few entries which have no reference.
Fielded all the unreffed cricketers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If the grouping is by birth date then Alex Chalk and Charles Edwards are both in the wrong section - check for any others
Fixed them; checked and sorted the whole list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I only had time for the briefest of glances but that's what jumped out at me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
Done.
  • I would put the "brother" note against Anthony Trollope given that he appears second
Anthony T. is by far the better known (hence the note), so I've just removed it, hope that's ok.
  • Ashley Eden - is "Colonial Administrator" an official title? If not then it shouldn't have capitals.
Done.
  • Jack White, Trade Union organizer => Jack White, Trade Union organiser
Done.
  • Birth and death dates are given for Walter Parke but not for anyone else, which seems a bit random
Removed.
  • Last two people in the 1940s section have different dashes in their date ranges
Fixed.
  • Think that's all I have right now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, done all those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Hennepin County Library branchesEdit

Nominator(s): —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul2520 and I have been working on this list of library branches in Minnesota's largest library system for a few years. We both, but especially Paul, have journeyed all around the county to collect images of all 41 branches and have attempted to develop the most complete list in existence of the openings of the extant Hennepin County libraries. We are excited to work with any further comments and suggestions towards making this article a featured list, and appreciate all feedback. If promoted, we believe this would be the first List of library branches article to make FL status and hopefully serve as a useful template for future efforts to improve coverage of libraries worldwide. Thanks kindly! —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Review by Reywas92
  • This is a very nice list, but it should be merged to Hennepin County Library. That is quite a short article and the lead content is duplicative, so a split is not at all warranted. I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN since there don't appear to be sources that cover the topic of branches rather than the library generally. NYC is the only other list of branches but that's a different animal.
  • "the borders of" is extraneous
  • "across 24 cities and towns" -> "in..."
  • "located" is extraneous, readers know "in" is a locator adverb here
  • "Four of the branches" -> "Four branches"
  • Bloomington is missing wikilink
  • Only the second Minneapolis in the table is linked; link all or only the first
  • Notes column shouldn't be sortable
  • Southdale: "between" requires an "and"
  • North Regional's note is rather random: of course a public building would take a few years to go from proposal to construction completion
  • Rewrite "In late 1800s, opened in Fletcher–Loring Flour Mill"
  • and "Original 1889 was"

Reywas92Talk 07:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Reywas92! Helpful feedback. I've addressed most of your comments.
I'm still mulling over the North Regional note (I agree, it should be updated). Updated the note, per Benidt reference.
Re: the merge, nice idea! I will discuss with Bobamnertiopsis. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment

I would also suggest a merger, as the main article has very little additional content (other than the lead it essentially consists of a less-detailed list of locations). The merged article would still really be a list, though, so I don't see why the FLC couldn't continue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Yes, agreed that this is an attractive and useful list, and that the main article is so slight that it would be better to merge it with this, and that the merged article would be appropriate for WP:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Under-19 Cricket World Cup centuriesEdit

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it has the quality expected from an FL. Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • Photo caption: "India's Shikhar Dhawan has scored" => "India's Shikhar Dhawan scored"
  • "have scored the most number of centuries" => "have scored the highest number of centuries"
  • "most number of centurions" => "highest number of centurions"
  • "18 teams have had at least one century scored for them" => "players from 18 teams have acored at least one century"
  • "26 of the participating teams" - don't start a sentence with a number, so need to find a way to reword this
  • "The highest number of centuries were scored" => "The highest number of centuries was scored" (the subject is "number", which is singular)
  • " the lowest number of centuries were scored" - as above
  • "in 1988, 2000, and 2008 editions" => "in the 1988, 2000, and 2008 editions"
  • "The highest number of centuries at a single ground have been scored" => "The highest number of centuries at a single ground has been scored"
  • "Williams' 108 runs against Pakistan at the 1988 edition final" => "Williams' 108 runs against Pakistan in the 1988 final"
  • Why is there quite a bit of missing data on 4s, 6s, etc? Is this info simply not recorded?
Cricinfo does not have complete data for some matches. Don't know about CricketArchive. Will appreciate if someone with the subscription can check. Bharatiya29 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bharatiya29: Did you manage to find anything.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like even CricketArchive does not have the complete data for these matches. Bharatiya29 12:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The 13 teams that have not got a century scored for them" => "The 13 teams for which no player has scored a century scored"
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your detailed review. Bharatiya29 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in IcelandEdit

Nominator(s): Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The land of fire and ice (insert your favorite GoT pun - but hey, they filmed it there as well!). A new nomination from Northern Europe, following the FLs for Norway and Denmark, and Finland is getting support. Medium-term plan is to get all the countries covered so I can nominate a featured topic, let's see. Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • I would make the bit in brackets a separate sentence starting "The existing site...."
  • "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir has served" => "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir served"
  • "as a venue of Althing" => "as a venue for the Althing"
  • "Althing is also the oldest surviving parliament in the world" => "Althing is the oldest surviving parliament in the world"
  • "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible though the remains" => "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible, although the remains"
  • "off the South coast of Iceland" - no need for capital S
  • "in view of biodiversity, the fish" - change the comma to a semi-colon
  • "The shape and functions of these houses were changing over time" => "The shape and functions of these houses changed over time"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

I saw this now. The general list is so-so, since it mostly includes copy-paste descriptions from the UNESCO sites, has no maps, and provides little content related to the tentative list. So, if there are enough entries on either list, a separate article makes sense. I'll address the other comments later. --Tone 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I probably have time for just one review of these, so I'll go have another look at Finland. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

List of active coal fired power stations in TurkeyEdit

Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these power stations are the main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey so it would be great if someone at COP26 could discuss them. As this is my first attempt to get anything featured I suspect there may be a lot I need to improve.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Very nice list, hopefully it'll be deleted someday for being empty.

Thanks. I got the idea from List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom and List of coal fired power stations in Australia and once this one is featured I hope others will copy the format. Although Global Energy Monitor have a useful world list I guess they have to put most of their effort into the biggest countries like China and are not able to include the smaller power stations.
  • The hatnotes links can be included as in-line or see also links, not needed at the very top for disambiguation
Done
  • -> "so the plants are the largest"
Done
  • I could follow the note on searching the main source, but perhaps you could give the translations for the selection names and/or link directly to a translated version. Not sure if there's a guideline for this.
Done (but when I tried to search from the translated version it just hung)
  • Three say local coal – I see this is what the database says but should be lignite right? All the same for the Soma plants.
You are almost certainly right but I have not yet found a source to cite to confirm that
  • What's the point of having the license number? Seems like internal data of no use to the public.
This is because the names can change with change of ownership or in sources can sometimes be confusingly different for the same plant or confusingly similar for different plants (for example Soma and Bekirli)
  • "Note:" is not necessary
Done
  • The linked page doesn't actually have details about capacity payments: The table marks a number and eligibility but I don't know how to interpret it.
I can easily change the column heading from "Capacity Mechanism Payment (₺m)" to "Capacity Mechanism Payment (millions of lira)" or somesuch if you think that is clearer.

Reywas92Talk 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything more I need to improve on this please?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

List of mustelidsEdit

Nominator(s): PresN 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Third in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids), here is "List of mustelids", containing all of the animals in the Mustelidae family- otters, badgers, weasels, and more such long creatures with legs. It's a diverse set of animals, widely varied in size and habitat, and much bigger than the cat and dog families. The format is based on those other two lists, and like with canids I've included a section on prehistoric species; unlike with canids, there's no generally accepted authority on how to arrange the species, so I've gone with the Paleobiology Database's categorization, which is a bit messy but at least doesn't contradict itself. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • Hmm, unclear- the image was uploaded by the Internet Archive to Flickr as explicitly in the commons with permission from the rights holders, and it's taken from [1] - the image itself is not copyright that journal, but from the Canadian government, and it's unclear how old it is (the sea mink went extinct 125 years ago). --PresN 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, maybe it is from pre-1970 and Canadian crown copyright has expired? I suppose Internet Archive can be trusted. buidhe 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I used it on sea mink which is an FA, so it's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Likely, dropped. --PresN 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Other images appear to be free. buidhe 05:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 17-cm and 1.8-meter need hyphens
  • Not seeing any other issues at first look, great work! Reywas92Talk 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Half-right, it turns out: MOS:HYPHEN - Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word; when using the unit symbol, separate it from the number with a non-breaking space ( ). So, 17 cm, but 1.8-meter. --PresN 22:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Anything else? --PresN 17:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great, so many cute little guys in this family! Reywas92Talk 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77Edit

  • I'd never heard of doing this, but in talking to other editors it seems it's a frequent interpretation of MOS:CONFORM in the biology space, so, done.
  • Instead of having "Population figures rounded to the nearest hundred. Population trends as described by the International Union for Conservation of Nature" as a note and using it a bunch of times, you could just put that into Conventions, and you already cite the IUCN after every population trend, so you don't really need to declare that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Maybe you could put notes for more specific population details given by the IUCN. For example, for the giant otter, there are some population estimates for specific regions (like 2,000–5,000 in the Pantanal)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to, for a couple reasons: for one, the data is very uneven between species, which limits how useful a comparison table is; mostly, however, it's because without context the subpopulation figures aren't meaningful- in the example you give, is the Pantanal a region in which the Giant Otter is mostly found? Is it just one small area? There's no way to know, and most of the numbers would be that way- an animal with a population of a million might only have a firm number of 2,000 on one island, or I might have an estimate for one country without any indication of how representative that is (for example, the raccoon is found in North America, but there's an introduced population in Germany, but that's the only place I've found a population number for; does knowing that there's 1 million raccoons in Germany tell you anything about the global population count?). It's possible to give these contexts sometimes, but it quickly becomes too much text for this kind of list, and is better kept to the animal's article.
@Dunkleosteus77: Done, replied inline. --PresN 17:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For the captions in Prehistoric mustelids, wikilink them and provide the genus name too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to ping me by the way, I'm watching the page (also whenever I get a ping I always get worried that I did something wrong)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Added to captions, though I'd like to come back later and make range maps that don't have those subspecies divides. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent showing/hiding of subspecies lists (for example, the European pine marten defaults to closed, but the Japanese marten defaults to open)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's purposeful; they're only hidden if it's long enough to stretch the box vertically when opened (given normal image sizes), which means 5 and fewer are shown by default. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • At the size of the current image in the lead, that image is unparseable- the words are not close to readable, and the animals are about the size of the text "xxxx", and not really identifiable. It's a useful image, but I'd rather not use it in this space. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, not sure how I missed that. Fixed. --PresN 04:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed, missing the 'File:'. --PresN 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1Edit

  • "went extinct in 1894" sounds a bit passive. How about "was hunted to extinction in 1894" or "was hunted to extinction before the 20th century" or "had been hunted to extinction by the end of the 19th century"
  • @Chidgk1: Changed to your first option. --PresN 04:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: as I trust you to consider and if necessary fix the following minor points:
  • Done
  • Do we need all the "consisting of" and "containing" in the lead? Or could the sentences be something like: "The 23 genera and 59 species of Mustelidae are split into 8 subfamilies: Guloninae, martens and wolverines; Helictidinae, ferret-badgers; Ictonychinae, African polecats and grisons; Lutrinae, or otters; Melinae, Eurasian badgers; Mellivorinae, currently only the honey badger; Mustelinae, weasels and minks; and Taxidiinae, currently only the American badger. Three former subfamilies are now extinct: Leptarctinae, Mustelavinae, and Oligobuninae."?
  • Done
  • Canids are mentioned in "conventions" - perhaps a leftover from a previous article
  • Whoops, done
  • Hunting: "preys on fruits" and other things which are not live animals sounds strange.
  • It's a little odd, yeah, but none of these species are herbivorous, so they all have an animal type they "prey on" in addition to any plants; if fruit or similar comes first it's because the prey types are in order of amount, if possible
  • some of the "Europe" headings are for maps which also include parts of Asia
  • Fixed
  • a pity not all the weasels have pics
  • It really is, but nothing I can do about it, as I'm stuck with free-use images- the Amazon weasel and Malayan weasel are very poorly studied, the Indonesian mountain weasel, Colombian weasel, and Bornean ferret-badger have tiny and remote ranges, and the Vietnam ferret-badger has literally only 2 specimens ever recorded. --PresN 04:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WCW Light Heavyweight ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the third time's the charm for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its previous two candidacies. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments
  • As the opening paragraph is only one sentence, I would merge it with the next one
  • "WWE, who purchased WCW's assets in 2001" => "WWE, which purchased WCW's assets in 2001"
  • "Morton and Pillmen contested" - typo
  • "Pillman successfully defended the championship against Tom Zenk at the May 17 WrestleWar event in Jacksonville, Florida; before being defeated" - that semi-colon should be a comma
  • "would depict any maneuver performed from the top rope of the ring as illegal and resulting in disqualification; this effectively ended the appeal of the light heavyweight style" - I don't think it's quite right to say it ended the appeal of the style, as the style would still have been appealing but essentially wasn't allowed to be used. I would say "effectively ended the viability of the light heavyweight style"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed anything you have raised here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest CatchEdit

Nominator(s): CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the award nominations and wins that Deadliest Catch has accrued over the years showcases its place in television popular culture. The show continues to draw an audience and bring entertainment to millions. The list also meets criteria. CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Done, done, done, and done. CYAce01 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments on new lead
  • "The documentary and reality television series Deadliest Catch showcases the life and tribulations of men" => "The documentary and reality television series Deadliest Catch showcases the lives and tribulations of men"
  • Done
  • "edited into about 10 to 21 episodes per season" => "edited into between 10 and 21 episodes per season"
  • Done
  • "In the course of its run, the show has amassed an extensive list of award nominations and wins since its debut on the Discovery Channel in 2005." => "Since its debut on the Discovery Channel in 2005, the show has amassed an extensive list of award nominations and wins.
  • Done
  • No reason for capital on Season 15 in para 2
  • Done
  • ", 16 of which have been wins" => ", 16 of which have resulted in wins"
  • Done
  • "Other award ceremonies with nominations" => "Other award ceremonies at which the show has received nominations"
  • Done
  • "such as Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) Awards." => "such as the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) Awards."
  • Done
  • "Bob Bronow received 33 nominations" => "Bob Bronow has received 33 nominations" (unless he has stopped working on the show completely, in which case leave it as it is)
  • Done
  • ", 9 of which have been wins." => ", 9 of which have resulted wins."
  • Done
  • In the sentences about Beers and Hanifan, the numbers should be written as words as they are less then 10. Leave the sentence about Bronow as it is because it mixes numbers larger and smaller than 10.
  • Done
  • I would add a sentence about the Northwestern being the most prominent boat on the show (probably to the first para) to make it 100% clear why its picture is in the infobox
  • Done
  • That's it for the revised lead, I will look at the table later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. All items listed above have been corrected. CYAce01 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leadersEdit

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Famous HoboEdit

  • The title of this list seems odd, but I'm not sure there's really anything you can do about that. I personally think "List of Major League Baseball players who have hit two home runs in one inning" sounds better, but not only is it a longer title, every other baseball record list follows the same title format. Just wanted to point out that the title is kind of awkward to read.
  • Duly noted. The Baseball WikiProject decided a couple of years ago to standardize the wording of titles. So I don't really have much say over this title, unfortunately. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you should mention in the first paragraph how there are two different ways of hitting a home run, either hitting the ball past the outfield fence or an inside the park home run
  • The MLB definition (which is what I used to write the first sentence) should suffice. I don't want to get into tedious details, since the specifics of the home run is not the point of this list (otherwise I'd also have to mention that a player must touch all bases for the home run to count]]. The reader can click the wikilink if they want to learn more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • One decade later, Alex Rodriguez set the single-inning American League record for RBIs with seven when he hit a three-run home run and a grand slam in the sixth inning for the New York Yankees on October 4, 2009. Link RBI.
  • Linked the earlier reference in the sentence that immediately preceded the one above (i.e. "… Tatís became the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning and established a new major league record with eight runs batted in (RBI) in a single inning."). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Did any of the players on this list get one of their home runs via an inside the park home run? If so, I think you should mention that. If not, ignore this comment.
  • Not to my understanding. And unfortunately, the box scores do not differentiate between a home run on the fly vs. inside the park. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall this list looks solid. Table looks properly formatted, images have alt text, the few references I checked were good. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your feedback. I hope I've addressed your comments in a satisfactory manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Support – Very interesting read and very good list. Happy to support. Great job to you. – zmbro (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMDEdit

  • When first mentioning runs batted in, the abbreviation "RBI" is introduced. In the next sentence, "RBIs" is used. I know there is much discussion over the proper abbreviation, but usage here should be consistent. Either make both instances "RBI" or "RBIs".
  • I'll strike this, too, as a common baseball abbreviation. NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, italics should not be used in the lead image caption.
  • Not an issue in the 20 other lists I've took to FL, because these italics "would apply if it occurred in the main text". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But italics would not be used if "(left)", "(center)", and "(right)" were present in the main text. Why would they? NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I actually would use italics in the main text for those bracketed one-worded descriptions that I'm trying to signify are not part of the sentence. Just like I would if they were Latin terms, or a word I wanted to place emphasis on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I read MOS:ITALIC and MOS:IT, they should not be italicized as they are not foreign words or needing emphasis. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, but they are one-worded descriptions are not part of the sentence – that would justify italics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ASL and MOS:FNNR, the general references should be placed after the specific references.
  • I think I'm reading the MOS differently. Specifically, the part that reads, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." In this list, there are no explanatory footnotes (for example of such, see List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders#Notes), nor any short citations. There are only full citations/general references. I've just separated them into generic and specific ones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I could see it that way. I guess you're right. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some references are in title case (i.e. 1, 4, and 12) others are in sentence case (i.e. 2, 3, and 5). They should be formatted in consistent case.
  • I follow the exact title capitalization used in the respective articles. This has never been an issue in the 20 lists I've successfully took to FL. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CITESTYLE, "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." (My emphasis added.) NatureBoyMD (talk)
  • And that consistent style which I am employing in every one of the articles I edit is following the capitalization given in the articles. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll strike this based on the same inconsistent style being used in other recently-promoted lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything else looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I have struckout all of my comments. All-in-all this is a well-written, well-organized list, but I will refrain from supporting or opposing. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback! And no worries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Champions League Twenty20 captainsEdit

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meats the criteria. Some changes might be required but I am completely open to any constructive criticism. Bharatiya29 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Bharatiya29 06:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HarriasEdit

  • Off the top of my head, Somerset were known as "Somerset Sabres" in 2009 (but just Somerset by 2011), Hampshire were known as "Hampshire Royals" in 2012, and Yorkshire were known as "Yorkshire Carnegie" in 2012.
  • I determined all the team names through the tweets by the official CLT20 handle. For example, none of their tweets regarding Hampshire uses the word "Royals". (I can't provide the link for the search results as it is blacklisted.) Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That be as it may, that is how those clubs were officially known in T20 cricket at the time. Here is a source for the Somerset Sabres in 2009 and this one for both Hampshire Royals and Yorkshire Carnegie in 2012. Harrias talk 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No need for accessdates for book sources (ref #2 and ref #3).
  • What value does the nationality column add?
  • I followed the precedent set by the existing FL List of Indian Premier League captains. I am aware that the justification given for the nationality column in the past was the limit on the overseas players in domestic tournaments like the IPL, which makes one's nationality an important factor. The overseas limit continued to be enforced in the CLT20 (at least for IPL teams as far as I know), so I think that the nationality column does add a minute value. Although if there is a consensus that the list will be better off without it, I am willing to remove it. Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Among the captains who captained.." The repetition makes this clunky, consider rephrasing.

Generally very good, not too much from me. If you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1960–1974)/archive1. Harrias talk 10:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. I have given the justification for point 1 and 3, rest two are done. Bharatiya29 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in BerkshireEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image reviews —pass

No issues. Sources are reliable for what they're used for and images are free. A few source checks did not uncover any problems. buidhe 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - the two FLs which you link above have leads of over 1500 characters, whereas this one is only 900, which seems very short. Can it be beefed up a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Added information about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Support - I guess the flora thing makes sense now that you have explained it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder was one of the greatest American filmmakers. Known for film noirs such as Double Indemnity (1944), Sunset Boulevard, and the comedies Some Like It Hot (1959) and The Apartment (1960). As always I welcome all constructive comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - Jimknut (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "while there he co-directed" => "where he co-directed"
    • "French language version of Scampolo" - seems odd to have this much further up the table than Scampolo, prompting me to initially think "what's Scampolo?" Either move Scampolo above this one, or else remove the note here and instead put a not against Scampolo saying it's a German version of Un peu d'amour.
  • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Made the above amendments, I don't know why I had put the French version so far from Scampolo. Cowlibob (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in FinlandEdit

Nominator(s): Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

With Denmark promoted and Norway getting in shape, Finland is next in the series of sites from Northern Europe. I started paying more attention to the alt text for images since the last discussion. The style of the article is following the previous ones. Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image reviews
  • Both pass. Sources look reliable and spot checks check out. Images are free and I added FoP-Finland tags where appropriate. buidhe 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This should have a longer lead so it can stand alone. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom in comparison which goes into some more detail about the types of sites and the country's relationship to UNESCO. I don't see any issues with the table though. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I expanded the intro. --Tone 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • My go-bys here are the assessed articles from Lists of World Heritage Sites#Europe and what I've seen in general at FAC.
  • 90% of the table text is crammed into the rightmost inch of my laptop screen; I use a zoom (magnification, Ctrl-+) of 133%, which is a fairly common zoom for older readers. If you're interested in the subject, you can read the posts at WT:FLC#User:Dank/Tables ... but it's not something you have to study up on. From what I've seen so far, I'll be able to support this nomination ... after my support, I'll ask if you'll let me fiddle with the tables a little to make the columns narrower.[Striking ... now that I see the 3c problem, we may need to tackle the organization of the columns sooner rather than later.]
  • I'm still studying up on how to review sources at FLC, so I'll finish that part of the review later. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • We have had some discussion during the previous nominations, what we have now is a compromise that seems to be working best. As you probably saw, the current layout is quite functional. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago": Per WP:SLASH, a slash isn't the answer here. Generally, it's a judgment call what to replace a slash with; I think "High Coast and Kvarken Archipelago" works.
    • This is the official name of the site, from the UNESCO source. Verbatim. I agree it is clumsy but that's the name. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I feel your pain, but if High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago were the best name for the site (according to Wikipedians ... and I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying their judgments are what we're stuck with), then there would be a page at that name. If you're sure, then create the page and let's see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) [Changed my mind ... not ideal, but I can live with it. Take your time, of course, but please consider the remaining two points. I think Wikicup rules require us to either support or oppose.] - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Swedish part, the High Coast, was listed individually in 2000, the Kvarken Archipelago was added in 2006.": That's a comma splice. A semicolon, or a comma and "and", will work.
  • "and one natural site. The natural site": redundant. "The natural site" works.
  • Caption: "Green dot indicates": The green dot indicates
  • The UNESCO data column is either too much or too little. I wouldn't have an objection to just saying either "cultural" or "natural" and nothing else; that would be clear. What you've got now isn't clear ... I didn't know what "582" means, for instance, until I looked it up, and the link doesn't explain it. (Many UNESCO pages call it an "ID" rather than a "reference number".) I don't know what the criteria numbers mean either, or I didn't until I followed the link ... but that information is supposed to be available at a glance in the table. What I'd probably do is put this information, for just the criteria that appear in this table, at the top of the table, and you can call it a "Key" or not, to explain what iv, etc., mean, and then just put iv, etc., in that column, along with "cultural" or "natural" (since that seems to be the preference in similar lists). If you want to include a reference number, then put "Ref. No." either in the key or in the column label (not just in an abbreviation).
    • As said above, this is the style we have been using for a while in several related FLs. There is the explanation if you move the cursor, and the criteria numbers are listed and linked at the top. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not buying that we can't give the readers a more visible clue as to what the numbers mean. I don't have any preference for what form that clue takes. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "This church is a typical example of the architectural tradition of wooden churches in northern Europe. It ... demonstrates the masterful application of European architectural influences to a structure made of logs.": Damning with faint praise. Is there anything that can be said about the architecture that makes it sound interesting or significant?
    • Yeah, the original descriptions are really boring sometimes. I added what has been influenced by what styles. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Both the High Coast and the Kvarken Archipelago are situated in the Gulf of Bothnia and consist of thousands of islands.": Doesn't the High Coast consist mainly of coastline?
    • Looking at the map, there are many many islands in High Coast as well. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • It's not accurate to say that the High Coast consists of islands. There's more to it than islands. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Since the 15th century, sailors waiting for favourable winds have carved images into the rocks. There are over 600 drawings, mostly heraldic symbols or people's initials, that constitute a unique "guest book".": Yes the phrase "guest book" appears in the source, but we generally don't repeat whimsical language of the kind a tour guide might use. It's not actually even vaguely like a guest book.
    • Good point. Removed the guest book part. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "the hunter-gatherer society": a hunter-gatherer society
  • "to help them with seal hunting activities, such as keeping the killed animals": To store seal carcasses.
  • "as well as hand prints": and hand prints. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I used this link to archive 20 of the references. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article makes good use of attractive images. I'm not doing an image review, since that's been done already.
  • The references look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • FLC criteria:
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. Sourcing is adequate. I've added archive links. All retrieval dates are present.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • So far so good ... until we get to criterion 3c. There's a lot of duplication between this list and the larger List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe. Can you detail everything in this list that wouldn't make sense to include in that list, so that we can see if it's enough to warrant a separate list? (Personally, I don't think this is a fatal objection ... there's an argument that more text could be added to this list ... but others may disagree.)
  • Otherwise, this is looking very good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I may or may not pick up 5 points in the Wikicup for this review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Tone, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dank: I think I'm through. Thanks for the review, at some points I added extra comments above. As with the Iceland list, the individual countries' lists have the advantage for maintenance (there is no actual Northern Europe UNESCO category so the tracking of changes is tricky - the items on the tentative list tend to change a lot, with modifications of nominations etc.), and the tentative list has next to zero info in the general list. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm skeptical that this meets 3c in its current state, but since I'm the new kid on the block, I'll leave that for other reviewers to figure out. If you can clear up the remaining points, I can give you a conditional support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Washington College alumniEdit

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after much research I think I have listed all of the notable Alumni of Washington College. I modeled the formatting and organization after several existing FLs and I think this lives up to the MOS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mexican National Tag Team ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the appropriate quality for a Featured List, it has actually been through an FLC before, but failed due to lack of participation sadly. I have kept this up to date, make sure to do format improvements as our FLs evolve. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Further comments
    • Note d - should be "changed" not "changes"
    • Note j needs a full stop
    • Note k has a random capital I in Vitoria
    • Note l has Guerreras spelt incorrectly
    • Ref 35 has a missing [
    • So does ref 41
    • And ref 64
    • Refs 60-63 start with "#ReferencesLucha" which doesn't seem right
    • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
      • ChrisTheDude - thank you for catching these, I have addressed them all. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You hadn't quite fixed all the Observer links correctly, but I have sorted that for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Justin Moore discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, my work at this page has been limited to quite recently, although this is because I've only been a user since November. I've been a regular updater at this list since. I believe this list meets, or is very close to meeting, the featured list criteria, and I have compared it formatting wise to other featured lists and the formatting seems consistent with them. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert Mitchum filmographyEdit

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUSTALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well referenced and well worded list of Robert Mitchum's work in film and television. LADY LOTUSTALK 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Robert Mitchum (1917 – 1997) was an American actor who was in over 110 films and TV series" - "was in" is a bit weak. Maybe "appeared in"
    • "He is ranked as #23" => "He is ranked 23rd"
    • "During the 1940s, he also cast in" => "During the 1940s, he was also cast in"
    • "The Friends of Eddie Coyle, The Yakuza and Farewell, My Lovely (in which he played Philip Marlowe)" - presumably he only played Marlowe in the last-named film? This could be interpreted as saying he played him in all of them.
      • Tweaked a bit and just took out the Philip Marlowe role altogether
    • "His later roles in the 1980s up until 1995" - 1995 was not in the 1980s, so this needs re-wording. Also why 1995, given that there is one film listed for 1997?
      • Tweaked again to say "His later roles between 1980 and 1997"
    • "He was also in the 1985 miniseries" - as above
    • "He had a reoccurring role" - pretty sure you mean "recurring"
      • Lol yup, done
    • In the 1940s films table, the role of Jeb Rand seems to sort under J and Seaman Chuck Ryan under S. Both should sort under R.
    • In the 1970s films table, Father Oliver Van Horne should sort under V, not H, and "the final victim" should sort under F.
    • In the TV table, is there a reason why Victor 'Pug' Henry's rank is not listed both times?
      • I checked and he's actually not credited as Captain at all, so I removed
    • Also in that table, Jake Spanner should sort under S, not J
    • In the short films table, titles starting with A or The should sort under the next word in the title
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good work on this list. Cowlibob (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for all your help and ref work :) LADY LOTUSTALK 17:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by BTSEdit

Nominator(s): DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the K-pop group BTS. A group of editors (including myself) did an overhaul on this page back in August to fix all sources and essentially come up with a format that meets FL standards and works for K-pop articles. This list wasn't nominated due to issues with the lead but the format was used by List of awards and nominations received by Exo which passed FL. After making some changes to the lead and speaking to that editor group I got the go ahead to nominate this. This list is long, so the deciding factor on which awards to omit and those to keep was based on WP:GNG; if the win got significant enough coverage for the award show to be notable, it was put on here. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


  • The feature on Boy with Luv is inconstantly included
  • These are the awards that I have questions about meeting the GNG and are redlinked
    • Edaily
    • Spotify Awards
      • Comment: The Spotify Awards were added by an editor outside of the core team so it's notability was not verified before its inclusion. At first glance it doesn't appear to make the cut but I'll do some checking tomorrow to be sure. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Fixed: added fn with references from reliable sources (BB, Variety) to establish notability for Spotify Awards, replaced spanish citation for nomination with E! News source and corrected formatting for consistency. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I have not tackled that one yet as I'm working on a very slow pc (motherboard issues) and it takes a great deal of time for my browser to open/load pages. These little adjustments I've been making based on your comments so far took me way longer than they have any right to. I will try to search Naver by tomorrow for more sources, apologies for the delay. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You firmly establish the notability of the Sisa Journal but Gold House is more questionable
    • Comment: I have articles from THR, Deadline and Indiewire talking about the A100 and Gold House. Would those be satisfactory? I honestly can't remember why I used only primary sources for this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Are the Billboard records in the Guinness book? The citations are to Billboard itself.
Fixed: Yes they are. I removed the 2 BB refs (#247+248) and expanded Citation #246 to cover those records as it mentions both of them in the source. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The buying of Guinness book records makes them kinda suspect in and of themselves. Are they a standard inclusion in these kinds of lists? My gut feeling is that these are outside of the lists scope.
    • Comment: Yes GWR are a standard inclusion in lists like this. Other featured lists for awards rec'd by Taylor Swift, Kylie Minogue etc. have their GWR cited as well. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought I saw an instance where the publication name is inconstantly included in {{cite news}} templates, but I can't find the number.
    • Comment: I am on mobile right now which makes searching harder for me so I will go over the page tomorrow and see if I can find what you are referring to, though it would be easier if you could directly pinpoint the specific reference. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I found it! Citation 81 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Fixed: I cleaned up the ref and made it consistent with the rest of the article. Not sure how that one slipped through the cracks but it might have been added by someone outside of the core team of editors who reworked the page hence the inconsistency. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Daum an RS. The article makes it sound like a social networking site
    • Comment: Daum is not an SNS site but a web portal that hosts news articles, entertainment articles etc. It is not a source in of itself but news articles hosted on its site are so when those links are used we include the the "via" parameter. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Same with Joins --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: Joins is a news portal site for the Joongang Ilbo news media group, they are a well known SK newspaper/internet newspaper. It is a reliable source. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Citing Twitter's blog (186) is questionable. The information is in citation 187
  • Citing YouTube is questionable. Is there a secondary source for that information?
Which citation in particular are you referring to? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Citation 123 --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 99, 109, 113, and 121 are all to the TV broadcasts of the award show. Those should really be to articles about the award show. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: iirc the nominations for these awards in particular were not (and are not usually) announced beforehand so there are no articles to refer to. They were only shown on the live award show broadcasts when the winner was announced hence the reason the for directly citing the broadcasts. @DanielleTH: should be able to verify this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Holocaust transports from SlovakiaEdit

Nominator(s): buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all transports that deported from Slovakia between 1942 and 1945, carrying most of the Slovak Jews to their deaths. It is a pair with The Holocaust in Slovakia, headed to FAC soon, and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. Copyediting was recently done by Twofingered Typist of GOCE. This is my first FLC nomination. buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The first sentence feels a little weird since you're trying to have that first link; I'd suggest "During the Holocaust, most of Slovakia's Jewish population..." and link The Holocaust in Slovakia another way
    • Done
  • The lead has "In 1944" but doesn't mention the rest of "and 1944–1945". Does that 13,500 include the 1945 transports?
    • Yes it does—fixed
  • The 1942 destinations all repeat "concentration camp" but the 1944 ones do not; see if there's a better way to word for conciseness.
    • I'm not sure there is. In 1942 it's needed for clarification because destinations were concentration camps, ghettos, or extermination camps, but in 1944 all the destinations were concentration camps so it's not needed. I'll have to think about it.
  • I know sources can't all be perfectly accurate and consistent, but here it says around 67,000 died, but The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Aftermath has 68,000 to 71,000.
  • "The logical solution"???
    • Reworded
  • Wikilinks for the source cities like Trnava
    • Done, on first mention.
  • Is there reason some have the citation in the date column and others in the Source column
    • Yes, sources differ on the dates because some sources are giving the departure date, others the date of crossing the border, and more the arrival date. So where sources differ I cite that in the date column. For the third table, the source location is cited inline because it isn't mentioned in the main source (Büchler).
  • HSĽS is not defined
    • Fixed

Great job, thanks for your work on this important topic. Reywas92Talk 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    • Reywas92, thanks so much for your comments. I think I have addressed most of them and the others I'm not sure how to fix. buidhe 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Excellent, I support! It wouldn't hurt to expand the lead a bit but overall it's great. Reywas92Talk 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor point: The Auschwitz list could have one or two columns sortable and I guess the notes columns in all the tables could be set to be "unsortable".Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Done both. Thanks for your review. buidhe 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchisesEdit

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I have decided to nominate this for FLC. This is a comprehensive list of all video game franchises created by Bandai Namco Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Banpresto and B.B. Studio, alongside those from both Namco and Bandai created prior to the merge. All entries contain references from reliable sources that prove it is a series, all of which meet WP:V. This list has been a personal project of mine that I have worked hard on improving and fixing, and I hope to see this finally become a Featured List. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

Third time's the charm, let's take a look:

  • The first reference is to Bandai Namco Entertainment's coporate history yet the first sentence is about Bandai Namco Holdings. This is quite confusing.
  • In references the website parameter should be filled as well as the publisher parameter. E.g. for website=Eurogamer the publisher=Gamer Network. A useful list is on WP:VG/RS.
  • "As of 2017, Bandai Namco was the largest toy company by revenue in the world" Statista source states 2018.
  • "as well as the third-largest video game company..." I think the "as well as" is redundant here since you are using a list.
  • "Bandai Namco owns former developer Banpresto, which operates as a toy company in Japan and was purchased in 2008," ,In the source it states Namco Bandai Holdings made Banpresto a wholly owned subsidiary in June 2006 hence it was purchased in 2006 not 2008.
    • Bandai Namco purchased Banpresto in 2006, and merged their video game operations with theirs in 2008. Fixed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The company retains the rights to defunct developer BEC" Could you be more specific here? Do you mean BEC's video game intellectual property? If so it may be worth stating for clarity.
  • " Licensed IP" I do not see why the acronym is since Intellectual property (IP) was not introduced in the lede.
    • Not sure what you mean here...? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I was confused as to why "IP" was used over "Intellectual property" in the key for the table. Although this has already been addressed by Dissident93 when he changed "Licensed IP" to "Note: Fields highlighted in yellow are licensed intellectual properties"  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we shouldn't be using abbreviations unless we've used the full word at least once prior. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not managed to look at the table yet.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Spy-cicle I've corrected all errors you have brought up so far. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Namcokid47: Just to remind you there are still some outstanding issues below.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Spy-cicle: Not sure what you mean here. The Statista source does show the revenue of the company. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
        @Namcokid47: My concern was that the archived Statista source not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company instead showing a pop-up for a subscription. However, I did not see that there was a paragraph of prose which was not covered by a pop-up. Although, there is still a small issue with this archived source as it is not the most up to date infomation on the revenue of the company as it is displaying 2017 infomation as opposed to the 2018 infomation currently being linked. This needs to be fixed as is states "As of 2019".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay it seems you have fixed all the issues addressed so far in the lede however I have found something else. Currently the archived Statista source does not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Additionally the references in Japanese need to have the following parameters filled out: trans-title, trans-website (if applicatable), language.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • "while Tekken is its best selling franchise, selling over 40 million copies across multiple platforms." Having "selling" twice in three words isn't the best writing possible; how about "with sales of over 40 million copies" instead?
  • "and is also the third-largest video game company in Japan...". The "also" is redundant here and can be removed to make the sentence tighter without affecting its meaning.
  • I've never been a fan of "List of" section headings, as it's obvious from the title that this is a list. "Franchises" would work just as well as a title.
  • I haven't checked the references in detail, but ref 47 has all caps ("GOD EATER") that should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bruno Mars videographyEdit

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive look at Bruno Mars' videography to today. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the music videos, directors and a small description of the video's plot. I'll try to update it constantly as new videos are released, like I have done with all the works for the artist mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and fixes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

List of North Carolina militia units in the American RevolutionEdit

Nominator(s): Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:G._Moore is nominating this for a featured list because it is a comprehensive look at North Carolina militia units during the American Revolution. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the units and their first commander. It will be of interest to readers of the history of the American Revolution and early North Carolina history. G._Moore (talk · contribs) Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • BTW what makes Lewis (carolana.com) a reliable source? It just seems to be some random guy's personal website...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • He has a book that documents his research and has put all of the information in the database that is online. I have compared his results to all of the other sources and have found it most accurate. He actually used some 50,000 sources to compile the information. I added an intro to the bibliography about the work that has been done. Whenever I see a discrepancy, I send him a note and he corrects it based on the original sources. William S. Powell, a state historian in North Carolina, has produced an encyclopedia of NC history, much of what is now online in a cite called NCPEDIA. Together, these have been my guides to NC Revolutionary History. I found that having this in WikiPedia was really nice because it links to the other info in Wikipedia on NC and the Revolution. Let me know if there is anything else that I should do to the list. User:G._Moore User talk:G._Moore
      • I don't think that note above the bibliography is needed, and referring to the "heroic efforts" of historians definitely doesn't conform to WP:NPOV..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I took out the non-NPOV wording. I think the intro for the bibliography does add to the historical perspective on how we know about these units. It was not just a matter of copying from muster rolls and Tables of Organization. I asked J.D. Lewis to review the page. I put his comments on the Talk page. Is there anything more to do on this FL nomination? User:G._Moore talk 18:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Has Mr Lewis been published on the subject (by independent outlets - his books listed in the bibliography are self-published)? Has he been cited in others' publications? Trying to establish if he is regarded as an established expert on this subject rather than simply an avid amateur....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
J.D. Lewis's works are cited in the following journals, bibliographies, books, historical societies, public education curricula, and South Carolina County governments. His books are also available via Google books:
  • "The Battle of Moores Creek Bridge". Journal of the American Revolution. January 6, 2014.
  • "Evolution of Marion's Brigade after the Fall of Charleston" (PDF). Francis Marion Symposium. 2018.
  • "St. Joseph the resting place of Revolutionary soldier". News Press Now.com. November 17, 2019.
  • Whitney, Frank (2015). Jean Ternant and the Age of Revolutions: A Soldier and Diplomat (1751-1833 ... ISBN 978-1-4766-6213-8.
  • "National Humanities Center, America in Class, Primary Sources in the American Revolution".
  • "Francis Marion Trails".
  • "Annual Francis Marion Symposium". 2014.
  • Smith, Claiborne T. (1979). "Alston Philip". NCPedia.
  • "Lesson Plan: Overview, Into the Wild: Settling the South Carolina Backcountry". Teaching American History in the South.
  • "Swamp Fox Research Hub". seeking liberty.org.
  • "A Roadside Guide to Chester County, South Carolina Association of Counties" (PDF). 2019.

G._Moore (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Comments from zmbro
  • Table needs scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS
  • Images seem a little big. Also, why is the lead image smaller than the rest?
    • I added upright in the pipe, so all portraits are similar. Does this work? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All notes should have references
  • Most refs should be archived
  • There you go. Under "view history", there's a link that says "fix dead links" which will take you to the IABot which tags and fixes dead links. There's also an optional button that says "add archives to all non-dead references" which you click. It makes it much easier to do it manually. HTH :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All images need alt text
  • Many urls have connections issues (seen here)
  • In background, you say "thirty-five" then "37" three sentences later. One or the other
    • There were 35 counties and two counties had two regiments as explain in the text. Will try to make this clearer in the text. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry what I meant by that was you spell out "thirty-five" but then use numbers for "37" a few sentences later. I just meant either spell it out or use numbers for both. My bad.
  • Is there a template box that can be added?
    • The template is at the bottom of the page {{NCRevWarUnits}} Militias were at the state level and I don't think there is a template for all Militia units in the United States during the revolution. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Rumple, Jethro Rev (1881). A History of Rowan County." This is a book and will need much more than author year & title
  • "Connor, Robert D.W. (1916). Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina (PDF). Greensboro: North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College." This is in both "references" and "bibliography"
  • Not sure if "carolana.com" is an RS (same with "beaufortartist.blogspot.com" on ref 67 since it's a blog)

What I've found so far. Lots of problems but seems do-able. – zmbro (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

    • See note above. The carolana.com website is a database based on the books that J.D. Lewis wrote on the North Carolina militia. He lists the sources used in the database, also. It is considered by the researchers of the North and South Carolina Revolutionary War history a Reputable Source. Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785,
    • I am still trying to find a more direct link to the book, Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785, by Jean Bruyere Kell

This has been quite the learning experience. I will take a look at it again tomorrow and see if everything is fixed. Thanks everyone for your help and kind advice. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Took a final look at everything this morning and added: a few links, description of places were the units fought with existing ref; image of MG Smallwood (2nd NC Militia commander, sorry no images of John Ashe, Sr. the 1st cc, he died in 1781); summary of table. Can't think of anything more to add or fix. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no more unresolved issues, what is the process for making this a Featured List? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't all of the books in the Bibliography have a publisher? Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I added publishers for all the Bibliographi references and inline citations that were books. G._Moore 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Game of ThronesEdit

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list of nominations and awards are cited thoroughly. The content is also up-to-date and sorted correctly. The list was a FL candidate a few years ago, I think the list has been updated and sourced correctly since then. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

    • ChrisTheDude, I believe I addressed all of your comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Humblest apologies, but I just spotted one more thing - "The Norman Felton Award for Outstanding Producer of Episodic Television, Drama" is shown in quote marks for some reason, which means it sorts incorrectly. It's also shown inconsistently both with and without the "the" at the start. I would say without the "the" is correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the note Chris! Not sure why "the" was included because it's not included in the official award. I've removed both "the" at the beginning as well as the quotation marks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - thanks for bearing with me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Spy-cicle
  • In the second paragraph in the lede ref #5 does not reference all 10 nominations. There is also no referencing for Producers Guild of America Awards (one win), eight Directors Guild of America Awards (two wins), seven Art Directors Guild Awards (five wins) and fourteen Satellite Awards (three wins).
  • So just a comment about this. I couldn't find any references containing all of the nominations and awards for the specific award. I had to create a ref list within it to list the different award ceremonies. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • AFI Awards 2014 and 2015 are not correctly referenced. Currently Ref #18 displays the 2019 awards.
  • Changed the 2014 and 2015 AFI Awards references. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some refs are not archived some of these include refs: #1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and more (did not count all of them).
  • I went through and added archived links to all of the references that didn't have one. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it might be worth giving a brief explanation under the Significant Guild and Peer Awards heading as to how they differ from most of other awards
  • I added an explanation under the section heading. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The publisher parameter needs to be correctly filled out when there is one. For example: website=IGN|publisher=Ziff Davis
  • Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • When filling out the website or publisher parameter could you make sure to wikilink it where possible as I can still see some which are not wikilinked.
  • Added a wikilink to both the work and publisher. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

More comments to come. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Spy-cicle, I have started to work on these. I will continue this week. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Spy-cicle, I believe I addressed all of your starting comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, great. I should have some more comments up by the next weekend.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Brojam
  • Infobox replaced. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The series, mostly written by Benioff, Weiss and Martin," change to "The series, mostly written by Benioff and Weiss," since Martin only wrote 4 of the 73 episodes so not really appropriate to be mentioned here alongside Benioff and Weiss, who wrote 50+ eps. Especially, considering that Bryan Cogman and Dave Hill have written more or the same amount as Martin.
  • Removed "Martin". -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the lead, it's not necessary to include all those references while listing the number of noms and wins for each major award (from Golden Globe Awards to Peabody Award) since it's already sourced in the body of the article per WP:CITELEAD, especially since you are duplicating references.
  • I have removed the duplicate references in the lead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the nominations and awards for the cast table, each "Actor" row needs a "! scope="row" |" next to it and all the columns a "! scope="col" | " for accessibility. You can also remove "align="left;"" from the "Actor" rows since the "! scope="row" |" will handle that.
  • Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the awards tables, only "scope=row" the first row, not every row.
  • Actor/crew names and categories in the awards tables should be linked every time since the tables are sortable and thus the first instance will not always be the same.
  • The "Emmy nominations and awards for the cast" section should be a subsection of "Emmy Awards".
  • Moved the section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There should be some sort of consistency between "awards and nominations" and "nominations and awards" everywhere in the article. Probably best to stick with the former to align with the article's name.
  • Done. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's it for me for now. Great work on such a long list! - Brojam (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-ManEdit

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game for the PlayStation 4. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all parts of the FL criteria, covering the plethora of awards and nominations received by Marvel's Spider-Man whilst also following accessibility guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on the List. Kind Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro
  • Table has scope cols but still needs scope rows per MOS:ACCESS
  • Make sure all refs are archived (I can pinpoint a couple that aren't)
  • I believe "Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018" is listed twice in the bibliography section
  • Does "Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"" have a pub date?

Rest looks good for me. Great job on this! Absolutely loved that game. – zmbro (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, @Zmbro: I have made some changes based on your suggestions and here. I have Added Scope rows, Archived all sources, Removed duplicate reference (Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018), and added the date on the reference (Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job to you! – zmbro (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "the game received twenty-one nominations and went on to win three awards for:" - don't think that comma needs to be there
  • "Spider-Man appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2018, including first place by Wired" (and so on) - this reads a little oddly to me. Personally I would use say "being ranked in first place by Wired" and so on
  • "one of the top-30 games of the year" - don't need that hyphen there
  • Any reason why "runner-up" is not coloured the same as second/silver? Surely being runner-up is the same as coming second? Or does that award have multiple runners-up?
  • Note a refers to "the Metacritic". I think this should just be "Metacritic"
  • Notes which are not full sentences don't need a full stop.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude, I have made all the requested changes here except to the colour of the "Runner-up" Result since Runner-ups are given to multiple games. However, I have changed it so when it is sorted by Result "Second" will appear above a "Runner-up" result here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now updating oppose rationale, see below. Please implement the award inclusion criteria as described by User:Dissident93 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Undertale/archive1 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_comment_by_WPVG_editors_at_an_FLC. As a general note, I'm not pleased with the recent trend I'm seeing of editors unilaterally splitting out lists and then rushing them to FLC. The rush leads to sloppiness, as evidenced by comments above. FLC/FAC should be where a piece of content gets put through its final paces, not act as a first time peer review or copyedit. The best content on Wikipedia takes time and, more importantly, collaboration to get to that point. In this case, you also copied a tremendous amount of work from Spider-Man (2018 video game) (without attribution in the edit summary) without consulting or even notifying Darkwarriorblake who was the primary contributor there. FL is not an "easy chit" to add to your editing resume. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Consensus for these type of Lists (Video game accolades) has been to include these as seen the last three FLs of this type: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto V. One user does not get to simply overturn years of consensus. In regards to your second point, in hindsight I probably should have notified User:Darkwarriorblake but in end decided not to when I made a good-faith edit to the lead and was met with a rather rude edit summary [8]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You don't get to avoid attribution and credit just because you perceive someone to be rude to you. That's not how this place works. Consensus can change and this and other discussions are evidence that the consensus, if any existed at all before (n.b. there was no specific WP:MOS/VG guideline on it as of this writing), is not what you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I have not heard of that guideline here before, I have added a contribution message on the Talk page since I cannot alter my previous edit summaries. In regards to your second point, yes consensus can change but there is currently no significant evidence of it changing. Perhaps an RfC could be set up?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Angeldeb82 too, they found most of those awards and were a star in sticking to the referencing structure used throughout the article to maintain its integrity as an FA. Given that most of the content was made in the initial edit, a lot of that work was probably done by Angel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. Point stands that this FLC is tantamount to taking credit for other people's work. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per failing FLC#3c: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Per WP:SIZERULE, the main article Spider-Man (2018 video game) is only 43kb of prose and does not warrant a split of this nature. The lead is largely a copy of the parent article but the table should be merged back. No one was clamoring for this bold-split-and-immediately-nominate-for-FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On Grand Theft Auto V the readable prose is 37kB and yet the accolades table (FL) has a readable prose of 2.9kB. So in theory it should be put on the same page per WP:SIZERULE. However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
    • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
    • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
    • Uncharted 4: A Thief's End readable prose = 25kB; Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
    • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
      • This is an FLC about List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man, not a FLRC on other FLs. It is not relevant that you seem to be arguing that those lists should be merged back to their main articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet WP:SIZERULE but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
        • Furthermore, Spider-Man (2018 video game) has a readable prose of 43.8kB. Thus it falls between 40kB and 50kB so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful per WP:SIZERULE. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.
        • Pinging @Rhain: for some input, since he knows far more about Video game accolades tables than me. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing Harv errors on citations 34 and 79. It also looks like three quarters of the citations in the bibliography do not have a Footnote pointing to them. They should be pulled off into a further reading section. It is hard to find which citations in the bibliography are used and which ones are fluff to citation check. The lead is okay, but it talks more about the game's reviews than the contents of the table. Can you expand the third and fourth paragraphs a bit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Guerillero: I have changed the list based on your feedback. I have fixed the two harv errors and have removed citations in the bibliography that do not have a footnote pointing to them (instead of a further reading section since most of them can be found in the main article). Additionally, I have expanded the lede to encompass more awards. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support quick work Spy-cicle --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Daft Punk discographyEdit

Nominator(s): Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhaustively covers Daft Punk's releases since the start of their career in 1994, including remixes, production credits and music videos. It is also accessible and reliably sourced wherever possible. I believe that all concerns from the past two failed nominations have been properly addressed. Philroc (c) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "French electronic music duo Daft Punk has" / "Daft Punk released their second studio album" - so is Daft Punk singular or plural? Pick one and be consistent
  • "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks with each other" => "They subsequently recorded several demo tracks together" would be better
  • "Indo Silver Club" needs a reference as it didn't chart anywhere
  • That's all I've got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: All addressed, thanks for your comments! Philroc (c) 20:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Incorrect standard for tables (for example separate columns for "Released" or "Label"). Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Eurohunter - These differences are to comply with MOS:ACCESS as per the article's peer review. If I recall correctly there isn't a specific standard stating that the details all have to be in one column. Philroc (c) 21:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Philroc: It need to follow standard from previous nominations. Eurohunter (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Eurohunter: I still don't understand how a slightly different table format that WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't explictly prohibit is a significant issue, though I'm glad to be corrected since this is my first FLC. Requesting a second opinion. Philroc (c) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Philroc: There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space. US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory." should be included in tables where it's neeeded. I'm not sure if "Production and remix credits" should be included in the discography. Eurohunter (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Eurohunter: "There are only 10 charts in tables due to space limitation. If add additional columns it takes that space."
              The extra columns may take up more space, but they help simplify the tables and make them easier to understand for those using screen readers to access Wikipedia.
              • Don't gues so otherwise it would be a standard but it isn't. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "US Dance chart should be replaced with another national chart as there is already main US chart in the table."
              The US Dance/Electronic Albums chart is a component chart of the main Billboard 200 listing which DISCOGSTYLE does allow to be included. Daft Punk was significantly more popular in this chart than the latter chart; for example, Human After All only reached number 63 on the Billboard 200 but topped the Dance/Electronic Albums chart.
              • Dance/Electronic Albums is very little chart in comparision to Billboard 200 that's why they had better positions and that's not argument. You could also pull out UK Dance etc. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "'"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.' should be included in tables where it's neeeded."
              This notice is already included at the top of each table in the article.
              • Shouldn't be there. Should be in the table at the end. Look at other featured discographies. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
            • "I'm not sure if 'Production and remix credits' should be included in the discography."
              As far as I know anything that contains a credit to an artist is OK for inclusion in their discography article. Philroc (c) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Someone mentioned in my FLC that it shouldn't be there. Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videographyEdit

Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has improved greatly from its previous failed nomination... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm unsure of the scope of this list is it every video that Jackson has been in as a person or every video he has been in as a solo artist. Normally, these kinds of lists are only for someone's solo career. For instance, I would expect Paul McCartney discography to not include records from his time with The Beatles or (maybe) Paul McCartney and Wings.
  • The citations are inconstant. Some inline cites have years while others do not. Per CITEVAR people can use whatever citation method they want, but this one leaves me confused. Which inline style are you using?
  • mvdbase.com doesn't seem like an RS
  • 147 and 148 appear to be the same citation. I would really like timestamps inside of the commentary
  • PR Newswire isn't a RS
  • There is inconstancy over if outlets are linked or not
  • MOS:ACCESS problems --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents of the National Rifle AssociationEdit

Nominator(s): –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJLTalk 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
  • The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
  • president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
  • Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
  • The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
  • The lead is too short
Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJLTalk 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Drive-by comments:
  • There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
  • You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
  • First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Query
  • What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJLTalk 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJLTalk 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I made a few small tweaks to the lead and am now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Satisfied with the above comments. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TeratixEdit

  • If, as the title suggests, the list only includes presidents, why does the lead discuss LaPierre, the vice-president?
  • Specifying image sizes in px is discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, use the upright parameter instead
  • There are a few seas of blue links throughout (e.g. Union general Ambrose Burnside)
  • position of president of "of" twice in close succession is jarring to read.
  • the lack of shooting skills of recruits same here
  • the newly organized rifle association selected 1) cut "newly organised", it's clear from preceding text 2) Any information on how this selection process worked?
  • famed Union general WP:PEACOCK
  • to act as its first president cut "to act"
  • Throughout its history, Presidents you lowercase the term in this context everywhere else
  • Outrage porn refers to media, not people
  • to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation. One source for this which, while reputable, only covers a single contemporary president.
  • In recent times MOS:DATED
  • No need to link Obama
  • currently chosen by the board of directors see above
  • have gone on to become paid by the NRA this phrasing is awkward
  • during Oliver North's time in office he sought to make the position a paid one Missing some context here. Why did he fail? Why was this opposed?
  • In total, there have been 65 different presidents of the NRA between 67 separate terms in office -> "There have been 65 presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." or similar.
  • Those who have held the position include former president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene. why highlight these particular people?
  • As of 2019, the current president of the National Rifle Association is Carolyn D. Meadows. -> "As of 2019, Carolyn D. Meadows is president" or similar
  • For accessiblity, the table needs:
  • Why are the numbers right-aligned?
  • No need to link "businessperson", it's a common term. And there's no ambiguity over gender, so just write "businessman"
  • Source says Kayne Robinson was only a deputy police chief
  • Mustin's tenure needs a dash
  • The table is inconsistent on whether the subject's locations should be presented
  • All the footnotes should go. The information is either covered (or should be covered) in the lead or best presented in the subjects' articles.
  • Anything wrong with the lead image in Oliver North, rather than the noticeably wider one in the list currently?
  • May add more comments concerning citations later

Overall, I'm a little uneasy about this list. The prose problems are fixable, but there's a lack of detail concerning seemingly key elements of the position (single sentence on the purposes of the role, single sentence on the selection process, nothing on the duties of the role beyond noting that it's "largely symbolic"). – Teratix 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In reverse order (bottom of the list to top):
  • Sounds good
  • I like variety
    • It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)re
  • Do I really have to remove the footnotes?
    • Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Originally, I wanted to include a section dedicated to their home states, but I could not get reliable information for each of the presidents in that regard and worried about WP:UNDUE. However, it should now be consistent for every politician and chief law enforcement officer on the list.
  • Fixed
  • He was also the Chief of Detectives, so I went with that instead.
    • Upper or lowercase "chief" and "detectives"? – Teratix 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed
    • Couple still outstanding. – Teratix 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The right-aligned numbers make me happy.
    • Not very important, I guess. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated
    • Might need to double-check this, I don't see any changes on my end. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done
    • Could still be more concise. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Those people are interesting, I guess.
    • Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed
  • Added content
  • Replaced with Some former presidents have later been employed by the NRA
  • de-linked
  • used Since the 1990s
  • Added a source about Porter
    • Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • De-linked
  • lowercased
  • Cut
  • Removed "famed "
  • Now the rifle association voted to have Union general
  • of --> among
  • Removed "position of"
    • Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it  Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • See above
    • Some are still outstanding. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Corrected where possible
  • He's basically the shadow president of the NRA.
    • The list is on the position of president, not the actual leadership, wherever it may lie; that's probably more appropriate in the group's article. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Teratix: I hope that covers 90% of your concerns.  MJLTalk 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Probably will not support nor oppose this list, as I'm not best placed to evaluate the neutrality and comprehensiveness of certain sections in a page on such a politically-charged group. (For future reference, it's easier to follow a featured content discussion if you reply to comments directly underneath where they are posted, as I have done). – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Red Dead Redemption 2 charactersEdit

Nominator(s): – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in Red Dead Redemption 2 and providing insight within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters' roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. I believe that the article is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Support - as mentioned, fantastic work, and very enjoyable to read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the images.
  • For this part "native-American hunter Charles Smith", I believe "native" should be capitalized. Also, is the dash necessary? I have more commonly seen the phrase as "Native American", but that could just be from my own personal experiences. It is already done this way for this part "as well as Native American tribe members" in the lead.
  • I am a little confused by this descriptive phrase "widow-turned-gunslinger". Widow is not a job title so she is still a widow when she becomes a gunslinger. Just something about it is off to me.
  • I do not think that this image caption, "Some of the main cast members of the game: Roger Clark, Alex McKenna, and Rob Wiethoff.", should have a period as it is not a full/complete sentence.
  • For the "Creation and conception" section, I would use a character's full name whenever you mention them for the first time as this would be the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article. Examples are: "and each character's relationship with Arthur" and "in which Dutch is described as an equitable leader".
  • For this part "The actors sometimes improvised some additional lines, but mostly remained faithful to the script.", I do not think "sometimes" is necessary as it is already clear from the context of the overall sentence.
  • Since "Western" is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same for this part "felt more appropriate for the narrative structure of a Western." in the body of the article for consistency.
  • I would clarify that the "first game" in this part "Some lines of dialogue from the first game" is Red Dead Redemption and wikilink it.
  • I noticed that the sections for individual characters have large uncited portions about their storylines. Is the game being used as a primary source/reference for this? I am pretty sure that it is okay, but I just wanted to make sure.
  • For this part "despite watching the Dollars Trilogy (1964–1966) he did not take much inspiration from", I believe there should be a comma before "he".
  • The lead says that Arthur Morgan is the lead character of the game. Is there a reason why he is second on the list instead of first?
  • I was a little confused by this sentence "John Marston (Rob Wiethoff) is the secondary protagonist and playable character of Red Dead Redemption 2.". The last paragraph of the "Creation and conception" section mentions how "the team decided that the player would control one character in Red Dead Redemption 2," so the mention of a secondary protagonist/playable character here took me by surprise as someone who has never played any of these games before.
  • I also agree with ChrisTheDude's comments above.

Great work with the list. I will do another read-through tomorrow to make sure that I caught everything, but this is everything that I noticed when reading it for the first time. I hope my comments are helpful and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba47! I've made some edits based on your suggestions. Dutch is the leader of the gang and Davis is listed first in the credits, so I felt that listing him first was more suitable (despite Arthur being the lead playable character). As for the unsourced plot paragraphs, you're right in that the game is the primary reference for this. I've asked Chris above as well, but if you'd like sources for the in-game missions, let me know. – Rhain 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! Your explanation for the listing order makes sense to me. I think that the sourcing should be okay as it currently stands since it is pretty consistent throughout the list as a whole. I will review the article momentarily and put up my second (and hopefully last) round of comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a "face camera"? It i used referenced in the part about motion capture in the "Creation and conception" section, but I am not sure how a "face camera" is different from other cameras.
  • For this sentence, "During the events of Red Dead Redemption, in 1911, John tracks down Bill, Javier, and Dutch, before being killed.", I do not think the comma between "Redemption" and "in" is necessary.
  • This may be a silly question, but would it be helpful to wikilink "reservation" to the Indian reservation article to help any unfamiliar readers?

Thank you for your patience with the review. I only have three relatively minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I will definitely have to check out these games sometime in the future. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. No worries if you do not have time or interest. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47! I've made some changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more concerns. I'll try to find time to check out your FAC sometime soon! – Rhain 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EurohunterEdit

  • It doesn't looks like list and could be rather moved to "Red Dead Redemption 2 characters". Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Check out other featured lists for video game characters. This is a common format. – Rhain 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from The Rambling ManEdit

  • Oppose while the huge mass of white space as a result of the TOC remains in place. It looks terrible and undermines what is essentially a reasonable piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I have addressed this on the talk page. – Rhain 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Can you see my comments at the talk page as well? Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
TOC is better now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by David FuchsEdit

After having read through this list, I am inclined to argue that it fails criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL. This is 63KB article—10,000+ words—about the characters of a single video game. It's bigger than the article about the actual video game. There's no third-party sourcing that demonstrates that the characters of Red Dead are notable outside reception of the game's story in general, and it's stuffed full of plot that definition runs afoul of our fiction guidelines. It's an improper spinout from the main article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: The list is larger (in word count) than the main game article because the latter has been split into several other articles due to its size. Would you be able to point me to the fiction guidelines to which you're referring? The plot descriptions here seem no different to what I have seen in the past. Similarly, the third-party sourcing here seems no different to that of other video game FLs, made up of mostly interviews with the developers/cast and reviews of the game/s, both of which demonstrate notability in this context. – Rhain 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd have similar issues with excessive detail about those other subarticles, to be honest. I'm mostly referring to the Manual of Style's entries on fiction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Any suggestions on how to stick to the MoS a little better? For example, would changing the in-universe perspective ("Arthur retrieves Jack...") to a real-world format ("In the game's third chapter, Arthur retrieves Jack...") work better? – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Anything? – Rhain 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Figured I'd try to get you one more time. Yours is the only oppose vote at present, so I'd like to hear your thoughts. – Rhain 03:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Realistically I think the changes you describe don't substantially address my core issues with the list meeting featured criteria or notability per WP:SAL on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Do you have any suggestions at all? – Rhain 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this list should exist at all, so not really. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Interested to hear your thoughts on the changes made to the article over the last month. – Rhain 01:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the changes change my fundamental issues with the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicleEdit

Superb list it is well referenced and uses a good range of media. The only thing I found that needs improving is the ciation to the book. It should really use the "cite book" template with something along these lines: Price, James, ed. (October 26, 2018). Red Dead Redemption 2: The Complete Official Guide — Collector's Edition. United States of America: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1911015567.. I will happily support this nomination once that is done.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Spy-cicle. I've replaced the book citation. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The only other thing I noticed was: "The secretive nature of Rockstar's development processes meant that the actors and the director were unsure of the future of the characters during production" Does this refer to one specific director or should it refer to multiple directors. If so I think some clarity may be needed and is also repeated under Creation and conception Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: Good catch. I've clarified that Rod Edge was the director for the majority of production (though I don't feel as though that's important enough to include in the lead). Let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I could not spot anything else, Great job. I now Support this nomination. (Not required but I currently have a FLC on an accolades table for Marvel's Spider-Man your feedback would be appreciated especially in regards to how WP:SIZERULE is applied to video accolade tables).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from zmbroEdit

Great list! Loved this game. Very well-written and should be an FL in no time. Few comments:

  • "Several characters reprise their roles from the 2010 game Red Dead Redemption, to which Red Dead Redemption 2 is a prequel." Idk why but this sentence reads weird to me. I'm not really sure how it'd be reworded though :\
  • Normally see bibliography below refs and not above them
  • I'd rename "notes" to something like "sources", as refs aren't really "notes"
  • I see a few refs that aren't archived.

That's it for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, zmbro! I've moved the bibliography and renamed "notes". All of the unarchived references are to YouTube interviews, which cannot be effectively archived. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. – Rhain 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from PresNEdit

Flipping through this list, I see that a full 15(!) characters don't have a single reference, and another 8 have one from a guidebook in the middle of their text; many of the others are that plus a sourced one-liner. This seems to be because their sections are solely composed of plot summary. While not as vehement as Fuchs about it, this is emblematic of a structural problem with the list: the main purpose of a character list (or article) is to hold a description of the character along with as much real-world information (development/reception) as possible. To see 23 out of 42 characters in a list essentially have none of that is disquieting. A list like this needs to be based on reliable sources for the purpose of notability, not just verifiability- that is to say, it should contain only major characters, as shown by 3rd-party sources writing about them, not instead including every single named character that you could find a bit of backstory for. I'm inclined to oppose, but I'm going to open a discussion at WPVG for other opinions. --PresN 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is certainly not "every single named character"—such a list would end up in the hundreds—but a selection of the game's primary characters, including the 24 main gang members and the several supporting characters and antagonists. That's not to say that it couldn't be trimmed, though, and I'm not opposed to cutting some characters down to a table or prose if necessary. – Rhain 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that there are 24 "main" characters in this game? I've never played it but that and 9(!) main antagonists seems like a stretch. PresN's point stands that many many sections are completely devoid of references establishing notability. I hope this page isn't being used as an island of lost plot sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The game's narrative revolves around the characters in the gang and their relationships. At a stretch, though, I'd argue that at least half of the gang could be defined as "main" characters (which is discouraged). The game is about 60 hours in length with six main chapters, so nine antagonists is accurate: chapter 2 is primarily Leviticus Cornwall; chapter 3 is Catherine Braithwaite and Leigh Gray; chapter 4 is Angelo Bronte; chapter 5 is Alberto Fussar; chapter 6 is Henry Favours; and throughout the whole narrative is Andrew Milton, Edgar Ross, and Colm O'Driscoll. They are each important to the game, though I wouldn't be opposed to shortening their sections to a table. – Rhain 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
If each chapter has its own antagonist, does that make all of them noteworthy antagonists or just temporary obstacles in the story? Summary style demands that you balance the desire to document every beat in the story with the requirement for a high level overview for a reader to understand. I'd start with going through and identifying which characters you can eliminate entirely without diminishing the reader's understanding of the story. Then trim back the ones that are necessary but consist too much of WP:JUSTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Question and comments from czarEdit

Arrived via that WT:VG thread
  1. Is there a reason why this article doesn't have a Reception section (like The Last of Us's and Uncharted's)? If the set of characters is independently notable from the game itself to warrant a summary style, ostensibly there would be enough coverage for such a section, right? czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. The article reads very heavy on plot compared to other character FLCs. Converting the minor characters to a table, as in other articles, would be a forcing function to greatly reduce their length and focus their descriptions to that which can be referenced in reliable, secondary sources. While it isn't necessary to source plot information, adding a ref when available makes it clear that secondary sources considered the character's info significant enough to cover. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Right now, I'm on the fence on the case of merging the article back into the parent. It's clear that there has been a fair amount of coverage on the game's cast, though much of it looks like primary source interviews, especially from interviews and otherwise unreliable sources. The summary style split should be predicated on whether the characters, as a set, have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact, via its sourcing, would make the case for why this set's added detail is too noteworthy to reduce and merge back into the parent article. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, czar. I've added a Reception section, cut down on some characters and plot information, added some more sources, and trimmed all supporting characters and antagonists to tables. Please let me know your thoughts when you can. – Rhain 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Much improved! Are the table rows without citations not mentioned in other sources, or is it just your preference to use uncited plot summary for those? And how are the voice actors sourced—to the credits or a secondary source? With this Reception section, the summary style appears warranted and I'd err on the side of not merging back to the parent article. czar 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks! They are sometimes mentioned in other sources, but the specific plot information is not discussed in those sources, so I've opted not to use them—if you think it might be best to source the missions within the game for some of these characters (as in The Last of Us's characters table), let me know. The actors are sourced to the credits, as no secondary source seems to list more than a few actors' names. – Rhain 03:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, it does not appear that you've done any prose trimming in converting the Supporting characters and Antagonists sections into tables, like Czar asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: You are mistaken; I trimmed back a few of the characters—most notably Eagle Flies, Rains Fall, and Leviticus Cornwall—and cut out two characters entirely. – Rhain 23:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough; the diff display made it hard to notice the change. RE: Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact As for the "main" cast, a character list should primarily describe who the characters are, not what they do. I'm worried that this list is still too focused on giving a play by play of the plot. See also MOS:WAF for what I'm seeing as a continued problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Do you have any suggestions for describing "who the characters are, not what they do"? I will look into trimming the plot even further, but other suggestions would be useful. – Rhain 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A useful way of thinking about it is why characters take the actions they do. Characters in a (good) story rarely do things for no reason; they usually do them because the writer(s) want to illustrate something about their character (a character trait) or help them achieve their goals. One way to trim would be to focus in only on the events that reveal something about the character's traits or goals and omit the events that they are only ancillarily involved in. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: I've done some more trimming per your suggestion. – Rhain 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a good change but I'm also not familiar with the source material so it's hard for me to evaluate. I think it's overall a lot tighter. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for removalEdit

List of Major League Baseball single-game home run leadersEdit

Notified: Staxringold, WP:MLB

The list has numerous issues: (1) multiple sources are dead; (2) multiple sections of the lead lack inline citations; (3) the prose is choppy and written poorly, as it is just a list of random facts about four-home run games. I also feel like the scope of this article, as titled, isn't comprehensive. In reality this is a List of Major League Baseball four-home run games, which would be a better title that accurately captures the scope of this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasonEdit

Notified: Tropical cyclone WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because a few users and I discussed making improvements to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. This article is more of a content fork IMO, and shouldn't exist alongside the other 2005 AHS article. There will also be three other articles merged into the main article. See here for the accompanying featured article review for the 2005 AHS article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support bookkeep/procedural removal pending the result of the merge discussion in the FAR for the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. NoahTalk 22:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventionsEdit

Notified: PericlesofAthens, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Invention, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

The list was well-researched when it was nominated a dozen years ago (how time flies) but since then too many low-quality additions have been made. On the surface the listing may still look polished but when you check the cited sources more closely that are meant to support the claim of a Chinese invention there are too many inexcusable misreadings and misrepresentations. I will limit myself to a few examples:

  • Parachute: A jump with a pair of bamboo hats described by an ancient Chinese historian is supposed to amount to the invention of the parachute. Even if we accept for a moment that the awareness of air resistance slowing down a fall is a sufficient criteria, the entry ignores that the jump never happened but was part of an ancient legend that the writer recounted, a fictitious non-event. By this criteria we could also ascribe Daedalus the invention of heavier-than-air flight and not Otto Lilienthal or the Wright brothers.
  • Umbrella: Typical in that it is doubly misleading. The entry claims the invention of the umbrella as such but then concerns itself solely with collapsible umbrellas. But even these turn out not to be introduced first by the Chinese. The cited source merely opines that in Greece and Rome umbrellas "were not generally collapsible" (Joseph Needham pp. 70). From this, so it seems, the inference was made that collapsible umbrellas were completely unknown to the Greeks and Romans and by extension everywhere else too outside of China.
  • Moveable sails: Here it is — falsely — claimed on the basis of some blog, a feng shui guidebook and a children's book that Chinese sailors were the first to acquire the capability to sail against the wind.
  • Hand fan: The invention of the hand fan is referenced to a décor site that does not even make that claim.

For more examples, check my edit summaries. I had to remove now around twenty entries, about ten percent of the total listed, and I have not even checked the majority of them.

I understand that such lists of scientific discoveries and technological inventions have some intrinsic difficulties as one has to deal in the history of technology with competing definitions, compartmentalized scholarship, and a paucity of evidence the farther one goes back in time. But here too much of the research has been conducted too shoddily to warrant featured status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gun Powder Ma: Hello. Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. It's been a while since I've taken a good look at the article, but you're right that a lot of new additions have been made since I nominated it in 2008. I've just taken a look at the edit summaries and to be honest it seems like you've already removed the majority of newer entries that were arguably quite spurious. I'll take a look at things, but if you could perhaps compile a quick list of further entries that you find to be questionable or cited poorly then I'll see what I can do about rewording or removing them as well. Another alternative, albeit a drastic one, would be to restore the article to its stable state around 2009 to 2010, perhaps as late as 2011-2012. I think that's a better option than simply removing the featured status of a list article that I personally spent at least a solid month working on and that met the high standards of featured status when nominated. Keep in mind that the article saw various improvements after its successful nomination, such as the splitting of material to form the new List of Chinese discoveries article. We also removed all citations by Robert K. G. Temple, as he is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. I think restoring the article to around the time of the split and removal of Temple would be optimal. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: I don't think I removed already the majority of incorrect entries. I am spotting more of them at mere sight. If we are honest, and you acknowledge as much when you suggest to restore the list to some prior point of time, the list has been in a dubious state for a number of years. In 2008, when you successfully nominated the list it had 60 entries. Now it has accumulated over 300. But somewhere along that path it also lost its original quality that elevated it to featured status.
On the other hand, I don't deny that there have been made valid additions in the meantime. To eliminate them together with the spurious rest in order to save the FL star seems to be a drastic move indeed. But the real problem is what happens when this step has been taken but poor entries are added again? In the absence of somebody willing and knowledgable enough to oversee new additions – you say you are semi-retired – we will have the same situation sooner and later again.
My suggestion would be therefore to keep the list as it is now, but delist the article from FL AND put a tag on top of the list that points to the lack of source quality until all the issues are resolved. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gun Powder Ma: Hello. That solution would be more drastic than simply restoring the article to a previous state, especially since a statement exists on the talk page banner shell with the following: "A stable version of this article has been noted on 22 June 2013...As of 22 June 2013 this stable version met the criteria to be classed as a FL-class article." For more info on that, see Template:Stable version/doc. If that is the case, I think a solution that would satisfy everyone would be to restore the article to the state it existed in June 2013 when it was observed as still possessing FL quality material and sources. I had stopped contributing to the article by that point anyway. Delisting the article would be entirely unnecessary if a simple restoration was made instead. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The only edit to the June 2013 version I would make, for that matter, would be the removal of citations and statements attributed to the unreliable source The Genius of China by Robert Temple (1986), as mentioned above. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist is the better choice at this point. Perhaps it will spur editors to improve it. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I think this article can easily be cleaned up and I would be willing to volunteer my time to do so over the next few weeks. Many (but not all) of the dubious entries were the work of a single editor and criticism of their contributions is already discussed at length in the talk page, so I would argue that even a surface-level cleanup should be trivial.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 02:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Khanate General: Hello! Thanks for offering your help, it is sorely needed. I was honestly considering reverting everything back to the "stable" FL-quality version of the article noted in June 2013 as mentioned on the talk page banner shell. I will refrain from doing that if you put in the work to clean up the article and remove the more exaggerated or spurious claims. Once again, many thanks! Pericles of AthensTalk 02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, with conditions: those being that User:Khanate General copyedits and improves the article in a timely manner per his comment above about volunteering his time in these next few weeks. The spurious and poorly sourced material added by a well-known sockpuppet account can easily be spotted and removed in that case. Thanks for all your hard work so far, General! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment photos need to be removed or added to a gallery section. The egregious amount of white space between the See also and References section would alone make me vote to delist. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: hello, thanks for bringing this up. I just deleted about 20 images that were arguably too generic, tangential, or in some cases far too similar or downright duplicative. There is now only a tiny amount of white space between the "See also" and "Reference" sections. I hope it's to your liking! We could put images into small galleries if necessary, but I think it looks okay for now. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens, appreciate the removal, but any images past the article body are somewhat pointless. Images are supposed to be associated to the text and be close by the relevant text. On my screen set-up, it still requires three screens worth of scrolling to get past the white space (13 tota images with just white space next to them). I would recommend a gallery section or further removal of images. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The gallery proposal is a great idea.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 04:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Khanate General and Gonzo fan2007: hello again! I have recently edited the article to make all images "upright" and hence smaller, which seems to have drastically improved things as my monitor no longer shows any white space at all between "See also" and "References", with only one image hanging or pushed down into the "See also" section. Your monitor might display things differently, but I think this is an optimal solution, since a gallery also doesn't exactly align images up to the appropriate text where they are explained in full. Let me know what you think and if you still feel that a gallery or two would be necessary. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 10:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I still support a gallery. With 1920x1080 resolution (common widescreen set-up), there still is a significant amount of white space. Right now, 10 images fall below the see also section on the set-up. If we were talking just 1 or 2 images, I would probably right it off as minor. But this is significant. There are something like 60-70 photos in this article! Maybe just choose the top 30 and put the rest in a gallery? Also, the "Chinese geomantic compass" photos looks weird as the only left-aligned photo in the list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: As you suggested, I moved the "Chinese geomantic compass" image over to the right. While I haven't created galleries yet and am not sure if it's entirely necessary, I have just deleted about five more images from the article, to the point where my monitor displays the last images hovering over the "W" letter sub-section of the main "Shang and later" section. For me, at least, that is located far above the "See also" section, with the entire "Modern (1912–present)" section between them. Surely that did the trick for you as well? Pericles of AthensTalk 20:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's getting better. This is what I see in my screen resolution: [9] « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by MegadethEdit

Notified: Retrohead, WikiProject Metal

Multiple citation tags, many refs are bare urls, few permanent dead links, and it's in the outdated mini table format. In its current state, I don't believe it deserves the star anymore. – zmbro (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per sourcing issues as noted above as well as the need for a rewrite of the prose and the use of a deprecated table format. Cowlibob (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist it is far from meeting any sort of standards. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)