Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



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

Nominations[edit]

List of Local Nature Reserves in Surrey[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (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) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks great to me. Great job as always! Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the format of similar pages for Major League Baseball teams (Template:Opening Day starting pitchers by team) which are already listed as FLs. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I can't see any issues at all, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • Per MOS:NUMS, all numbers from 0–9 need to be spelt out (only affects the lead); also doesn't affect scores like 4–2

Everything else looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • MOS:NUMNOTES goes on to add: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. Each of the three sentences with single-digit numerals also contain double-digit numerals. In light of the MOS item I've quoted and since we're dealing with sports statistics, I think the best approach in these three examples is to keep the numbers rendered as digits rather any mixing styles within or between sentences. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Radiohead[edit]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) and Popcornduff 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I previously nominated this back in November but after a while of inactivity, I decided to withdraw it. After reconsideration, I am renominating it because I feel it's featured quality. I received input from Popcornduff during the first nomination so I am nominating him with me on this one. I would appreciate any comments or concerns anyone has. Thanks everyone! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Damn I'd love to support this... it's a really nice bit of work. I mean, if your article teaches even a diehard nerd like me something new about Radiohead, that's impressive. (I didn't know some post-OKC songs weren't produced by Godrich.) But I think the lead still needs a bit of work to be truly special.
  • The claim about unreleased songs needs a citation.
  • This one's more difficult.. the description of the different albums is still not ideal, I think. It's rather abstract and doesn't give a really clear picture of the differences. For example, writing that OKC has "abstract lyrics that reflected themes of modern alienation" I think is fine - you're making a concrete claim there, lyrics about modern alienation. But "subtle, complex and textured songs" is rather abstract and waffly. Likewise the description of IR's songs ranging from "alternative rock to art pop". You're just sorta throwing genres there that don't sound different from the rest of their catalogue, and what is art pop anyway, really? However, I appreciate this is extremely difficult to do, especially when you can only restate claims from other sources. Popcornduff (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Popcornduff The biggest problem I've found with In Rainbows is that everything I find about it only talk about the type of genres it is and not lyrics or topics. I personally haven't heard In Rainbows so I can't make any claims as well. I'll continue looking. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Popcornduff I found a source where Ed O'Brien talked about In Rainbows lyrics being "universal" and Thom Yorke saying they're very personal. I also added mention of the difference of the political lyrics from Hail to the Thief. That better? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Image review and other comments
  • All of the images used on this article have valid fair use rationales and alt texts. Though I'd prefer the alt for the first Radiohead image to be expanded a bit.
  • "Since their debut in 1992" -- I do not believe this bit is necessary in the opening sentence, since its impossible for them to have released music before they debuted. It can be accomodated into a followup sentence though.
  • I think saying Kid A and Amnesiac were recorded "simultaneously" is a bit confusing, this might sound better as "in the same year" or "during the same sessions" depending on what the source says.
  • I do not believe The Guardian needs to be written as "guardian.co.uk" in the sources.
  • There are instances of overlinking in the references, particularly AllMusic and Radiohead. Most featured articles only link the first instance of a source being used but its probably fine either way.
Great job overall with this article. These issues are minor and will be easily fixed.--NØ 06:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
MaranoFan All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--NØ 10:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Emily Blunt performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a listing of the wide range of work done by the lovely Emily Blunt. As usual, looking forward to constructive comments for improvements. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image. Same goes for the 2015 Cannes Film Festival image.
  • This is more of a clarification question, as I am not entirely certain myself. For this part (She began her career as a teenager in the British stage), should it be “on the British stage” rather than “in the British stage”?
  • For this part (Her first screen appearance was in the television film Boudica (2003) and), I would add a comma after “(2003)”.
  • For this part (homosexuality in Paweł Pawlikowski's drama My Summer of Love (2004)), is there any particular reason for naming the director? For a majority of the other films, you do not mention the director. I understand mentioning Krasinski for A Quiet Place given that they are married, though this one seems a little random to me. Apologies if I am missing something.
Well, Pawlikowski is a revered European film director and I thought mentioning that she made her film debut with a film directed by him will stand out in the prose. I hope that makes sense? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (In 2014 she starred), I would add a comma after “2014”, and for this part (In 2018 she starred), I would add a comma after “2018”.
  • For this part (and sung songs for the soundtrack), I would say something like “recorded songs” as something about the current wording sounds odd to me.

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Either way, have a great end of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions as usual, Aoba47. All done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Suggest merging the third paragraph with the second, as it's only one sentence and shouldn't really be a para in its own right
So that line would break chronology and it makes more sense to have it in a separate paragraph, if that's okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case I would suggest amending it to "Alongside her screen work, Blunt has provided her voice to several animated (change that word - I only just noticed this - "animation films" is not natural English) films, including Gnomeo & Juliet and its sequel Sherlock Gnomes. She has also narrated......" so at least it's two sentences rather than just one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Capital E on English against The Wind Rises
    • Baker's wife has a capital W in the table but not in the lead
    • For Henry VIII and Empire, do sources not say which episode(s) she was in? Or is it that she was in all of them so there's no need to specify?
They are both limited series and I guess she was in all the episodes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • For her Simpsons role, suggest moving "voice" into the Notes column to be consistent with the movie table
  • Think that's it from me, other than to note the oddity that she has played three different characters called Juliet. If you ever want to cast a part called Juliet, ring Emily! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Haha, that's such an interesting observation. ;) Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Haha, thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • The lead image looks weird. It's like extra zoomed in on her face; not even her whole head is showing. I'd much prefer this image from 2018.
I know it's a bit too zoomed in, but I really do prefer this image over the other, more so because this one is from a film-related event and more apt for her filmography page. I'm not sure at what event the other image was clicked. Is that alright? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In a couple tables the year col is centered and some it isn't. Make sure they're all centered
  • Make sure all date formats are consistent (Day Month Year). Some are YYYY-MM-DD. In fact, I got a button I'll do it for ya.
Thanks for that! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Little picky but make sure in the discography section, songs that start with "A, An, The, etc." are sorted by the first word, so "A Very Nice Prince" sorted as "Very Nice Prince"
  • Make sure above comment applies to film table as well, notably on A Quiet Place

Looks very good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, BeatlesLedTV. All done! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Alessia Cara[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked very hard to revamp it to the new FL format and add reliable sources to it. It meets all the criteria in my opinion. All input is highly appreciated!--NØ 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Any reason the lead has zero refs in it? (Main problem)
  • Picky, but "Scars To Your Beautiful" → "Scars to Your Beautiful" (Teen Choice Awards section)
  • Refs look good. However, based on the toolbox, a couple urls that were accessed in 2019 have "missing trailing /". They work fine but I'd still take care of that

Everything looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. All done!--NØ 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good. Again great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My only comment is that the sorting is all messed up in the nominee/work column. Basically, everything with a quote mark at the start sorts first, so you get all the songs first, then Four Pink Walls, then Herself, then Know-it-all. I think you will need to use sort templates on either all the songs or all the non-songs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, done.--NØ 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Four Pink Walls still sorts at the bottom........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Messier objects[edit]

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because is in pretty decent shape now and is a vital high level important article in astronomy. It was prepped up for FLC some years before by me but due to very unfortunate turn of events, it did't made it. So fingers crossed for now. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick comments (not a full review):
  • I don't see why this list is separate from Messier object itself- there appears to be about 2 paragraphs worth of text in that article that are not in this list, and it may not be useful text. I think that this list should be merged into Messier object; the result would just be this list with some extra text, so it could retain this nomination.
  • The lead starts out with numbering things as "Messier 1", transitions to "M 31" without explicitly stating that its common to abbreviate that way (maybe it's obvious enough you don't need to?), but then has e.g. "M108" (no space); it's unclear to me if this is a formatting mistake (space vs no space) or if either abbreviation is fine, but since the table has no space I think that it should be "M31" instead?
  • It's unclear what the distance column is sorting on when there's a range- some sort of average?
  • It's a little odd that the ascension column has both Xm Zs and also X.Zm? Feels like it should be one or the other
  • There's a disputed tag on M104
  • Citations have mixed date formats- you have both yyyy-mm-dd and Month dd, yyyy and dd Month yyyy
--PresN 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. The distance is in range values for certain objects when there is uncertainty in determining the exact distance and an average will not yield a correct value due to the shapes. The ascension column is represented in Hours minutes and seconds as per Sexagesimal system and is as per the normal representation of right ascension. Rest all is cleared up. Thank a lot for the quick review and waiting for the full one, if any. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I agree with a merger with Messier object, but keep it as a featured list nomination. There doesn't seem to be much sense in keeping both articles. Mattximus (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems logical. On it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for such a merge, and the merge proposald should be discussed with WP:AST/WP:ASTRO. I have reverted this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I will be a third support for a merge: The main article is not at all long enough to justify a split, leaving the intro to this list quite redundant. This seems obvious and I don't quite understand Headbomb's revert; does s/he have a reason beyond just "no consensus"?
Nope. S/he stated no consensus as the only reason.
You can start a discussion at Talk:Messier object and ping the three of us for some support.
  • "kly" should have a tooltip key.
Done.
  • So the definition of Messier's Object is simply that it was described by Messier? So what is the astronomical relevance to this besides naming? Can you add a couple sentences about astronomical cataloguing and how this fits in?
Sprinkled some NASA wesite dust over it. Should be more clearer now.
Uh there's something off with the construction of that sentence. Good ref to add though. Reywas92Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you please include a brief description of what each of the types of objects are (e.g. open vs. globular cluster and nebula vs. planetary nebula vs. supernova remnant)? Why is M1 Crab Nebula a remnant rather than a nebula? I just think a Featured List should be able to stand alone and not necessary rely on following links for understanding but this doesn't need to be too detailed.
I've thought about it but since the list is of 10 objects and every object is different sometimes. So adding a definition for each and every object would be overkill I think. If needed, a tooltip can be added but piping to the main article would be more concise. But if they are to be defined, it can be done in another section.
  • The star chart caption doesn't need a period.
Done.
  • Not necessarily something that needs to be added to the article but star chart doesn't address this, but what are the green line and the axes on the chart? I'm guessing the ecliptic, right ascension, and declination? Reywas92Talk 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Should they be mentioned as some key? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, you could put that in the caption if you want. Reywas92Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Usually its not marked in any star charts and is left like that. Certain star charts have ecliptic marked on the chart itself. But the ascension axes can be mentioned. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • I would place the whole of what is currently the third paragraph of the lead right after the first sentence and then have a paragraph break before "A preliminary version". You need to explain what is in the catalogue and its significance before you go into its history, not leave it right till the end.
    • "ranging from star clusters, nebula and galaxies." - if you are going to use "ranging" then it has to range from something to something.
    • "M 31" in para 2 - no other M references have a space.
    • "Since catalog......" - catalog is spelt incorrectly (compared to the previous sentence). Also it should be the catalogue
    • "Since catalog includes astronomical objects that can be observed from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere, deep-sky objects that can be viewed, a characteristic makes Messier objects extremely popular targets for amateur astronomers." - this is grammatical gibberish and I don't understand what it is trying to say at all.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Done..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I only just noticed the disputed tag against M104 - that definitely needs to be resolved before the list could be promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's been resolved as a lenticular galaxy..just fixed it now. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Category 2 Pacific hurricanes[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 02:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC), Cooper 02:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

All Category 2 storms on record have been recorded on the list. I have decided to bring this list here in hopes of eventually getting Pacific hurricane to featured topic. NoahTalk 02:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition, all landfalling Category 2 systems have been recorded. I'd also like this to join the other East Pacific lists as a featured list. Cooper 02:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm derp (hi how r ya), and I would like to review this article for FL criteria and practice for English grades. DerpieDerpie:D 01:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Object - Let's start by updating the 2018 to 2019 in the third sentence, and that hurricane season is over. Minor error
    Has been changed to 2019. The article discusses when hurricane season begins and ends in the climatology section, so I don't feel that the second part of the objection would be a necessary addition. NoahTalk 01:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
* Comment - Very nice typing by you and cooper, I am bad.
  • Efficient information and sources.
  • Comment I feel that the numbers in the paragraphs should be in word-form, not, well, number form (except pressure, winds, and categories).
  • Isn't necessary per WP:MOS as numbers over nine may be written numerically or in words. NoahTalk 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Since all problems/typos have been fixed or updated, that the article provides sufficient information and sources, and all lists have enough information, dates, pressure, and wind speed, I hereby support this offer to transform this article into an FA. DerpieDerpie:D 01:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - List article is nearly the same quality as the List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes. Could stand to have a plot of cumulative hurricane tracks like the category 3 article, but that could be made easily. Supportstorm (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Some comments before I can support. Support, thanks for putting the work into this article (and others). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
*Watch out for the redundant links; there are a lot of them.
  • I removed ones that I saw, but I did not see a lot of them. As far as I could tell, each section only had 1 link per item. NoahTalk 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the opening image of Calvin, I question whether "one of the most impactful Category 2 Pacific hurricanes, at peak intensity on July 6" is a good description. Surely Paul in 1982 was more impactful (even if it was a TD). Find a better way of wording it, or perhaps just have a satellite image of the most recent C2 storm (Miriam 18).
    I changed it to Paul and adjusted the wording a bit. NoahTalk 20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fix link to landfall (meteorology)
    Fixed NoahTalk 20:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link to Pacific hurricane instead of Tropical cyclone basins#Eastern Pacific?
    I kept the link for the basin and added a link for Pacific hurricane to "hurricane". NoahTalk 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like some sort of summary of the storms in the lead, such as "Category 2 hurricanes collectively caused X damage and Y deaths".
    I have added in death statistics, but damage would simply be inaccurate and confusing due to inflation
  • "A Category 2 hurricane is defined as having winds at least 83 knots (96 mph; 154 km/h; 43 m/s), but not greater than 95 knots (109 mph; 176 km/h; 49 m/s) on the Saffir-Simpson Scale." - defined by whom? This might be a good place to mention when the SSHS was developed
    Changed to include Cat 2 is defined by the NHC. Also added ", which was developed in 1971" after the mention of the SSHWS. NoahTalk 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Tropical cyclones occur much more infrequently in the central Pacific than in the east Pacific, with only four to five systems forming or crossing into the central Pacific compared to about 15 for the east Pacific." - this wording is a bit bloated. Could you simplify it?
    "Tropical cyclones occur less frequently in the central Pacific than in the east Pacific, with some years featuring no systems forming or crossing into the basin." How does this sound? Cooper 21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Add a citation to the end of the first paragraph in "Climatology" (HURDAT will do fine)
    Done NoahTalk 20:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the article is a little heavy on the climatology side. I'm not complaining or saying it's a huge issue, just something I noticed.
    Acknowledged, but I think it will be okay as is. It may be a bit much, but it doesn't seem to dominate the article. NoahTalk 23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fix the sorting for the damage.
    Sorting has been fixed. NoahTalk 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you sure Paul 82's damage total is correct?
    Appears the damages from Nicaragua were not from the storm. Since YE has fixed the article, the total here has been adjusted to reflect that. NoahTalk 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Where in the source for Vance 90 does it say it caused $10 million in damage?
    Removed the damages NoahTalk 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise for Ignacio 03, where in the source does it say $21 million in damage?
    Grabbed the wrong source for that one. I fixed it. NoahTalk 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hurricanehink: As far as I can tell, all the issues you presented have been addressed. For the links thing, I didn't see a lot of redundant linkage. Let me know on that. NoahTalk 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Waiting until some issues are fixed- Most of the article, in my opinion, is good; the prose is proper, the lead has a fairly good summary, maybe except for damage totals as Hurricanehink said, the length is good, many visual aids are used, and images are used as well. It is also stable. However, there are some things that could use fixing, many of which are covered above. Vance's Tropical Cyclone Report (1990 Vance), which was used as a damage source, listed no damage or casualties which conflicts with the $10 million already listed. Ignacio 2003's is pretty vague when it comes to damage totals. You could use Paul 1982 instead of Calvin 1993 for the image but I'm personally fine with it being Calvin because most of Paul's destruction occurred as a tropical depression (article lists C America damage in the hundreds of millions with relatively smaller amounts in NW Mexico, where it made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane) (EDIT: it was changed to Paul 1982). Some of the links are slightly more complicated than they might need to be but for example, the landfall link seems okay because it doesn't link to a disambiguation, just the TC landfall article; I doubt people will not know that it is the meteorological sense of landfall. The TC basin link could be changed but it is also a good representation of the linked text. I have already discussed this with Hurricane Noah but Connie 1966, which is officially listed as a Category 2 in the HURDAT database, is not listed on the article. There is an argument for not including it, though; CPHC has it as a 75 kt C1 on their table, but at the same time, they have 86 kt C2 listed in the text itself. So, just asking, is there any guidance on what to do in this situation? I'm not very sure on what the proper procedure is for this type of issue. Other than that, the number of Category 2 hurricanes itself seems fine. However, this sentence, " Only one has occurred in the off-season: Hurricane Pali of 2016, which developed on January 7, and marks the earliest formation of a tropical cyclone in the Northeastern Pacific basin on record. A total of three Category 2 hurricanes have occurred in May, a total of eight have done so in June, 19 in July, 24 in August, 18 in September, 12 in October, and four in November" seems odd to me. Adding these numbers up gives me a number higher than the previously stated 83, so this is either an error or possibly has different criteria for being added than the 83 C2s number listed before. I'll wait for some of these issues to be fixed (I'm aware they are actively being fixed) before I'll give my support. -Oof-off (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    The issue you presented in the climatology section has been fixed. NoahTalk 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - changing to support - Thank you. It seems pretty good as of now, the large mistakes have been rectified. I left the Connie section as is because it would be interesting to see what the consensus will be for it. Now, I support this article being on the featured list -Oof-off (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexican National Mini-Estrella Championship[edit]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows all the pro wrestling list guidelines as well as the FL guidelines. Format, details etc. all match the Featured Lists I have created in the past. Supplied sources and quotes from offline sources, translations of foreign language sources etc. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American Midget wrestling; it can also be very short wrestlers who work in the Mini-Estrellas division" - this doesn't quite seem grammatically correct to me. I would say "A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American Midget wrestling; wrestlers who do not have dwarfism but are very short also work in the Mini-Estrellas division"
    • "All title matches take place"- past tense for inactive title?
    • "Afterward, AAA replaced" - given the date at the end of the sentence, the first word is redundant
    • The sequence of the lead seems really odd. I would move the entire third paragraph before the second, removing the first sentence of the latter as this simply duplicates the last sentence of what will now be the preceding paragraph (hope that makes sense). I also don't think you need to state twice that Espectrito was the first champion.
    • "when Peña created AAA" - who is Pena? Not mentioned before or anywhere else.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I was struggling with how to word the sentence on the Mini Estrellas, thank you for your help on that. I have move stuff around and hopefully addressed all your other concerns? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments by LM2000
    • All recommendations involve the lede:
    • Link dwarfism.
    • Link midget wrestling and make the M lower case.
    • First mention of AAA be spelled out to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA)
    • First mention of CMLL should be spelled out to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) and linked. It is spelled out and linked further in intro but not at its first mention.LM2000 (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • LM2000 - I believe I have addressed all issues, as well as removed a category that did not belong on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I fixed a linking error. Looks good now, Support.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments by ImmortalWizard
    • "The Mexican National Mini-Estrella Championship (Campeonato Nacional Mini-Estrella in Spanish). or..." why full stop?
    • I feel like the "Event" column is not required since all of them are the same; it can be noted somewhere instead. Also if you decide to keep it, "Live event" could only wikilinked on first instance.
    • "The championship was introduced in January 1993,[l],.." why two commas? ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, appreciate it. I have fixed the punctuation issues. As for event, it's part of the standard format for wrestling championships. I will do some research to see if there are more specfic show names to be used to make the article better. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Found, added and sources show names. ImmortalWizard MPJ-DK (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Keegan[edit]

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a well sourced, comprehensive list of Keegan's awards that I worked on over the last two days. The lead could've been a bit longer but it includes all the important information and I couldn't really think of anything else I could write about there but that's probably because she hasn't got that many acting credits and most of her awards are for her role on Corrie. ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Combine first two sentences, thus eliminating a sentence of just six words
    • "numerous critically acclaimed" - seems a bit of a bold statement to say "numerous". Numerous suggests a very large number, and I'm reasonably sure Keegan has not actually starred in a very large number of critically acclaimed shows.
    • "The awards were formerly known as TV Quick and TV Choice Awards" - IMO all of the title should be italicised (i.e. including the word "and") otherwise it looks these are two separate former titles. If you don't feel italicising the word "and" is appropriate, please find a way to reword it so it doesn't suggest that the awards have two former titles.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks OK now. As you said, the lead seems a bit short, but maybe there's not much else to say.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • I agree with ChrisTheDude, the lead does seem a little short. I also find it interesting how she's won/nominated for awards for only three pieces of work. Seems kinda short but I'd love to hear other editors' opinion on the subject. Til then I'll wait before giving my support or oppose. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree but there's nothing I can think of that I could write other than what we already got. Yes, she's been in acting business for 10 years but for the first five she was on Corrie and did nothing else during that time. That's how it usually works when you're in a soap, at least in the UK it does. And that's what she's got most of her accolades for. Since leaving the show she only did few TV shows that weren't very big except for maybe 'Our Girl' but she didn't get many awards for it either. Can't really do anything about it but I can assure you that that doesn't mean the list is incomplete, she simply wasn't nominated for her other projects as much as she was for her role on Corrie. I hope it makes sense. The list isn't big but as long as it's complete I think it meets the FL requirements. ArturSik (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Apollo missions[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it exemplifies a featured list on Wikipedia. I have researched this topic thoroughly, and I feel this list reflects that.

Note: I previously nominated this list on 3 March 2018 and then was eventually closed due to my inactivity. I'm not in class this semester and will be much more responsive to feedback. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Newbery Medal[edit]

Nominator(s): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a preeminent children's literature award. I have modeled parts of my work on this list on the Aurealis Award for best young adult novel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, a book award list (I did the Hugo/Nebula/World Fantasy lists at #Literature and theatre). Not going to do a full review yet, but here's some quick comments from a skim:
  • Single-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; a paragraph should have at least some flow to it.
  • "is given to the winning author at the next ALA annual conference" - ...the next? You didn't way when it's announced, so when would "next" be?
  • The lead seems not to be covering a good chunk of the "history" section; it reads like a (slim) intro to a table-only list, but then there's a good section on history that means that it should be a real lead? In any case, it feels slim- compare to Hugo Award for Best Novel, which has a more substantial lead for an objectively less important award.
  • The table has the winner/nominee in a column titled "Citation". I think it's just the column title is wrong, assuming that the whole table is cited to the reference tagged on the heading.
  • The table needs colscopes and rowscopes so that it can be parsed by non-visual browsers or text-based browsers; see MOS:DTAB or copy out of that Hugo list I linked.
--PresN 07:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Responding in order:
  • I did some rearranging and incorporated those sentences into existing paragraphs
  • While this was present in the text I have inserted the timing of the selection into the LEAD
  • I have incorporated some more information from the history section into the LEAD such that I hope it better complies with MOS:LEADREL
  • Citation is frequently used in this context - it was given the Newbery Medal citation but for clarity I have changed the column header.
  • I have attempted to fix this. This is new for me so please let me know if I did something wrong.
Thanks PresN for your early comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had this on my watchlist for a while, I'm glad to see it expanded.

  • "masters and doctoral theses are written on them" (should be master's) is a rather specific yet broad statement. It could be something along the lines "they are written about in academic writings" to be more general and not just copy the source.
  • "fifteen person" needs a hyphen, as does "ex president", as does "then ALSC President"
  • Missing period after unanimous.
  • "first winner of two Newberys" -> a second Newbery
  • space in "year,with"
  • given to the "author of... does not have a closing quotation mark
  • The image of Melcher should be in the section that discusses him
  • ellipses do not need spaces on either side
  • Several books that start with "The" do no sort correctly
  • Would be worth having a small table with the multiple winners/honorees

Just a start, that's enough problems I may have missed some. Reywas92Talk 00:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

All done except the last one. I started doing that and quickly found it wasn't such a small table. If the feeling is that it should be done, I will happily do it but ending up removing the whole multiple winners section as more TRIVIA than encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It could certainly be limited to 2+ wins/3+ honors or whatever combination you think would keep it to an appropriate size, but I think it's relevant to point out the most prolific authors besides just the several we have a license-free photo of. Stuff like that is what makes Wikipedia more useful than just directing folks to the source for the bare list. Reywas92Talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I will work on the table. In the interests of disclosure I have not included all the authors for whom we have license-free photo because it seemed at a certain point it was "another person." If in the interests of completeness you/others think we should include all, I will add in the authors for whom I have skipped (I looked at every medal winning author; have not done so for all honor authors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean including all images? No, the current gallery is fine, I was just commenting that most of the pictures were of multiple winners and that was the only place where such status was mentioned, but there are plenty of photos already. The table looks terrific! Linking to the books is above and beyond, just leave a note in the text above that since readers wouldn't assume that's what's linked from the year. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made a multiple winners table. I am still skeptical about this as I don't notice any such table in any other Featured List. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen it done somewhere before, though to again use my own lists as an example, the Hugo/Nebula etc. lists just list the notable multi-winners or multi-nominees in prose in the lead, like "A has won 5 awards, the most of any author, out of 8 nominations; B and C have won 3 times out of 4 and 6 nominations, respectively. 7 other authors have won twice.", or something like that. Might be difficult to do with this table, though, depending on how detailed you want to get. --PresN 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Lead: five.To → space
  • Beverly Cleary image missing alt text
  • Combine years into one box, ex. only one 2014 instead of five.
  • Whole second table should be centered
  • Keep dates consistent (some are Month Day, Year, others are YYYY-MM-DD)
  • Random double comma in ref 4
  • Ref 10: p. vii → p. 7
  • Add date of publishing for refs 12, 13, & 14 (June 3, 2016 for all)
  • I'd personally archive all the website references

Looks good to me otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions except if I combined the 5 into one box it would make the sorting feature much less useful. I think the current format serves readers better. I've changed Ref 10 but since I took that citation from the John Newbery article and haven't seen the source myself, I am assuming you know that it really should be p. 7 and not vii. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sortable tables can actually deal with cells spanning multiple rows now, it just splits it apart with a different sort. I just did a bunch to see how it would look (easy in visual editor) and it's much less cluttered. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reywas92 for doing that. It actually looks better visually when they're all merged and besides, sorting does fix itself. Having every year in every row makes it more cluttered so it's confusing to the reader, especially me when I was crafting my comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks much better now. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Man'yōshū poets[edit]

Nominator(s): Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It feature professional standards of writing, its lead clearly defines the inclusion criteria, layout and style, etc., it is comprehensive in that it includes every single poet with an entry identifying them as the writer of a poem in Nakanishi Susumu's authoritative Man'yōshū Jiten. It is structured in English alphabetical order with alphabetic section headings, and the layout/organization style was checked by a number of other editors when I requested assistance in formatting it, it complies (as far as I am aware) with all MOS guidelines, and is about as stable as could be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment - the lead definitely needs a lot of work. Lists shouldn't start "This is a list...." and the lead should be much longer than five sentences. At the moment the lead is basically a key written in prose form. I would expect to see two or three paragraphs giving much more background/context on what the Man'yōshū is, information on the most prominent poets, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I've done a bit of work in giving a brief outline of the anthology and its most prominent poets (as determined by Donald Keene, who gives multi-page bios and critiques of the poetry of those poets he considers noteworthy). I had been assuming linking to our Man'yōshū article would be sufficient for this purpose, but it is in a rather sorry state I'll admit. I might have misinterpreted your second sentence in outright removing "This is a list..." despite having already added extensive commentary above that so it was no longer the "start". Your opinion on the new content would also be much appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll give it a proper review later when I have a bit more time, but the lead looks immeasurably better now. Re: your point about simply linking to the main article, in essence each article should stand alone, so a reader shouldn't have to leave this article to get the background/context of what it's about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I really think this list would look better in a table format, the way it looks now in columns is very confusing and messy. Also try to avoid "in the following list " as stated above. An alternative would be "Numbers are assigned to...". Also the prose needs a bit of work, it's a bit clunky in places, but that will have to wait a full review. Mattximus (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I'll get working on your prose/wording suggestions shortly. As for the table thing, I'm amenable to that, but it seems like a pretty big project and so I'd rather wait for more people to weigh in before starting to implement it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1992[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because 18 of these lists have been promoted to FL in recent months and a 19th currently has multiple supports and no outstanding issues so should hopefully be joining them soon. Here's the proposed #20...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good as always. Keep it up! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Poland[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on similar lists for Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, this looks at the various Olympic ice hockey players from Poland. Its been a while since I've nominated a Featured List (or at least a successful one), so any advice on how to get the article to that level would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "and permanently added to the Winter Olympic Games in 1924." - what happened in 1924 to mean that the sport was "permanently" added (bearing in mind it had already been added four years earlier)? Whatever the answer, it could do with a source.....
Reworded, but will have to add a source in a few days, as I'm not able to cite something useful at the moment.
Found a citation for this. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "Hilary Skarżyński has scored the most goals, 9," - the use of "comma, number" looks weird, and the usage right at the end of the same sentence looks even weirder. I would change it to "the most goals, with 9" and so on (which I note you have already done in some other cases)
Changed
    • I don't know much about ice hockey, but is a negative GAA possible, or is this a typo? If it is correct, the figure of -4.5 should sort as being lower than all the other values (currently it sorts in the middle).
Typo, fixed
    • The Toronto Star ref needs a retrieval date
Changed it to one that can be linked and viewed, and included an access date.
    • For the IIHF refs, I would show the publisher as International Ice Hockey Federation (as in fact you have done in one case) rather than showing IIHF.com as the work. Similarly Olimpijski.pl is (I think) the official site of the Polish Olympic Committee, so I would list that body as the publisher.
Done. And should note I've formatted all the references to use the "harvnb" template for consistency (I meant to do that prior to nominating; slipped my mind).
    • Does Podnieks 2010 not have an ISBN?
Unfortunately not.
Not a problem if it hasn't, I just wanted to check that it hadn't been accidentally omitted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I found a citation for that last issue above. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Casualty specials[edit]

Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Casualty specials for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria of a Featured List. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Casualty and what the article lists included. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list give key information about the specials in a table format, which links to a section of prose about each special. No images are in the list, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. All comments are appreciated to my FLC and are considered very helpful! Thank you in advance. Soaper1234 - talk 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Initial comments, more to come later
    • "and On Call starts a storyline" - all the other titles in this paragraph are in quotation marks, so presumably this one should be too
    • "there was several health and safety procedures" - were, surely?
    • "At the time of filming the specials, Taylor had filming on-location for four months" - "filmed"?
  • That's as far as I have got so far, I'll pick it up again later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your quick comments. Some silly mistakes spotted and amended. Soaper1234 - talk 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More comments
    • "She explained that Sam and Iain were in "a different world out there in Afghanistan."" - here the full stop is inside the speech marks, a couple of sentences later there is a similar usage but it is outside. Minor, I know, but best to be consistent throughout.....
    • "Sam, who he described" - whom
    • "Sarker found directing the webisode a challenge, although found it enjoyable" - "although she found it...."
    • "Kent stated that Noel become "anxious detectives" as they" - Noel isn't plural, so presumably the words "and Mac" have gone AWOL?
    • "Seven cast members feature in the special, and continues in the following episode" - "which continues....."
    • "The First Noel is a Christmas-themed" - missing quotation marks on title
  • Think that's it from me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a slight grammar fix to the lead but otherwise it all looks good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Marshmello discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Flooded with them hundreds 12:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. Flooded with them hundreds 12:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Despite gaining a momentum in Marshmello's career at that point," - I don't really understand what this means? Does it mean the album was critically acclaimed? That it sold well (presumably not if it didn't enter the album chart)?
    • "failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it had not charted on any chart" => "failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it did not appear on any chart"
    • "One of his most successful career-singles" => "One of his most successful singles" ("career-single" is not a thing)
    • "became his highest-charting song on the Billboard Hot 100 until October 2018" => "became his highest-charting song on the Billboard Hot 100 at this point"
    • ""Wolves", topped the charts in Latvia, Poland and Hungary" - need a source for it reaching number 1 in those countries given that they aren't listed in the table
  • That's it for now.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments from MaranoFan
  • I don't think the alt text for the image needs a date
  • Why is he introduced as an "electronic dance music producer" on here but an "electronic music producer" on his bio? I suggest removing the word "dance" here too and linking the genre
  • "Despite failing to debut on the Billboard 200, the album peaked on three Billboard charts" -- Why do we need to mention that it "failed to debut" on anything? Its not a given that an album will chart somewhere so this should be removed. The word "peaked" may be better replaced by "charted"
  • Mention that "Keep It Mello" featured Omar Linx in the lead
  • "His follow-up single "Colour" failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it did not appear on any chart" -- Again, this is a little too much detail and I doubt there's any source that explicitly states that it didn't make any charts, similarly, I also doubt there's any source that calls KIM successful. This whole sentence should be replaced by something as simple as ""Colour" was released as his second single"
  • "The song was also certified platinum in both Canada (Music Canada) and the United States (RIAA)" -- No song he released before these was certified in both countries so the word "also" should be removed
  • "Marshmello's following seven singles, which are collaborations with artists such as Far East Movement, Ookay and Slushii, failed to appear on the Billboard Hot 100." -- Again, just remove the fact that they didn't chart anywhere and just mention the people he collaborated with
  • "R&B singer Khalid" -- Replace R&B with his nationality
  • "while four of his subsequent singles failed to appear on the chart" -- Again, we should focus on what charted instead of what didn't
  • "The album became his first to debut on the Billboard 200" -- Replace this sentence with something like "The album debuted at number 165 on the Billboard 200". You've already mentioned it before that his previous album didn't chart
  • "His next single is a song with the British band Bastille, titled "Happier"" -- Change this to something like "Happier", featuring British band Bastille, was released as his next single"
  • No need for a hyphen in "highest-charting"
I'm gonna oppose this. Its not even slightly close to the prose quality required for an FL. The lead section is too bloated for an artist as new as Marshmello, and it puts more emphasis on how most of his songs failed to chart rather than his hits. It needs to be trimmed down considerably and some more emphasis needs to be put on "Friends" and "Happier". Regards.--NØ 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Municipalities of Durango[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (25 states and provinces so far...!). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some. Happy to improve these lists in any way. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • No need to link Durango Municipality twice inside three sentences in the lead  Done
    • The footnotes are complete sentences and therefore need full stops.  Done
  • Think that's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! I've made both easy fixes. Mattximus (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The article on Durango says that the state has the second lowest population density - worth mentioning?  Done
  • What is the difference between trustees and councillors?
  • I don't know, and the citation states "they have the same... status".
  • It is confusing to have the km area for Mexico rounded to a whole number when other figures are to 2 decimal places. They should be shown consistently.
  • I agree but scanning the page every area has 2 decimal places. I can't find the one rounded to the whole number.
  • The area of Mexico is shown as 1,972,550 sq km. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks found it now. The problem is, I cannot find a source that gives the area of the country to two decimals, I assume this is since the area is so large the error on rounding the coast exceeds 2 decimals of precision...hmmm
The figure for sq mi is shown as 761,605.81, and as this appears to be a conversion from a whole number of sq km it is false precision. I suggest showing both figures ending in .00. The columns will then line up and it will be obvious that they are only accurate to a whole number. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with false precision, however adding .00 would also be false precision. So I removed the decimals altogether so at least the precision is accurate. Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks once again for reviewing my nomination! Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

List of World Heritage sites in Malta[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
  • "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
  • Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
  • "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
  • "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
  • Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
  • I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List of MLS Cup finals[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 08:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The greatest soccer championship in the non-soccer half of North America, featuring a mix of international and American sports heritage. As such, this list is based on other soccer cup lists, with a few elements taken from the NFL's Super Bowl list. SounderBruce 08:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I think for accessibility there should be a symbol for the related wins rather than bold or italics.
  • I read "major U.S. expansion team" and was wondering what a minor expansion team was. After looking at the source this should specify this is for across all the major sports, not just MLS.
  • I don't see any other issues, looks great! Reywas92Talk 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude: Added symbols and colors for the remaining key elements. I'm having trouble deciding what to label a dual Supporters Shield-USOC winner as (in terms of color), but feel that the Supporters Shield should take precedent. The expansion team bit has also been fixed. SounderBruce 02:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think indicating them with font, symbol, and color is overkill and a little cluttered, but you can do as you like here and I support Reywas92Talk 21:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "The league also awards the Supporters' Shield to regular season winners." - needs rewording, as it could be interpreted that a Shield is given to all teams that win matches during the regular seasons
    • "Eight teams have also won "the double", claiming the MLS Cup and either the Supporters' Shield or U.S. Open Cup" - need to mention the Canadian Championship as well as the US Cup?
    • "Sixteen of the league's 23 teams" - aren't there 24 teams in MLS?
    • "The New England Revolution have appeared......but has" - bit of a grammar disconnect here
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I have fixed the inconsistencies and omissions that you mentioned. As MLS had 23 teams during the 2018 season (increasing to 24 in 2019 and 26 in 2020), I've added an "as of" to the statement. SounderBruce 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @SounderBruce: - nice one. I didn't bother re-stating them, but I also endorse Reywas92's two points, so as and when those are addressed I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – The symbol is back to normal size, and all of my concerns have now been resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The playoffs tournament is organized by the league at the conclusion of the regular season in a format similar to other professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada... - why not just say "end of the regular season" (alot of "conclusion"s in this bit...)
Second para: The MLS Cup was established in 1996 and originally hosted by a predetermined neutral site selected ... - be better to diversify the starts of the paras - this one can be: "Established in 1996, the MLS cup was originally hosted by a predetermined neutral site selected... "

Otherwise looks ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the notes. I've implemented both changes, with my own modifications. SounderBruce 01:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has both passed its peer review, and is what I believe to be stable, informal and properly sourced from reliable areas. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Let me know if you need any help on this, or just copy List of Square Enix video game franchises. Also, since there's so many items in the platform column's cells, I don't think it should be sortable- because you can't actually group most of the consoles together when they're not single-platform releases. --PresN 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of these "sources" are just links to official websites. I don't see this ever becoming a FL in this state. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Why would the website not be a reliable source? Can you please elaborate on that?Namcokid47 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate on this? Namcokid47 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I would really like to have you elaborate why the franchise's official website would not be a reliable source for these entries, because simply saying "these sources are official websites, this will never be a featured list" is not even remotely helpful when I'm trying to fix issues that other users have brought up. For a final time - can you elaborate on this? Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments from NatureBoyMD
  • "Bandai Namco Holdings" doesn't need to be in boldface per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
  • "and is currently based in Minato-ku..." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
  • "The company was formed following the merge..." Change "merge" to "merger".
  • "formally called Namco Bandai Games..." If you mean it used to be called this, it should be "formerly".
  • "with over $12.8 billion as of 2016..." Is this U.S. dollars? If so, make it "US$12.8 billion" per WP:$
  • "Currently, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue as of 2017." If this is all as of 2017, make it "As of 2017, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
  • Second paragraph: strike all three "currently"s (See: MOS:RELTIME)
  • "Bandai Namco currently owns former developer Banpresto, who currently operates as a toy company..." Change "who" to "which".
  • References (as mentioned by previous reviewer): Sources on Wikipedia should be from reliable third-party sources. While it is reasonable that a developer or game franchise's website is accurate, it doesn't meet the third-party standard. See if you can find sources from reliable games news websites (IGN?), a reliable database of games, or print sources.

NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the issues you brought up. I'll start looking for references now. Thanks! Namcokid47 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Lonsdale Belt[edit]

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z[edit]

Question

Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.--Lirim | Talk 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lirim.Z, i don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: Guys, can you clear this up?--Lirim | Talk 08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. --PresN 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

General

  • The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
  • assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
  • In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done


References

  • Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
  • Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
  • Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
  • Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.
--Lirim | Talk 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Response[edit]
Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The lead should begin with information about SSSIs rather than a whole paragraph about the county irrelev vascular plantsant to the list. Population does not have anything to do with the sites, nor do the local governments, nor do bordering counties, so why are they there right at the top? The location column lists cities and towns, not district councils, so I don't see the purpose here.
  • It is standard to have background information about the area in FLC candidates on lists of SSSIs and scheduled monuments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No need to delete, seems to me a minor change of grammar plus swapping the first paragraph with the third would fix this, and also would neatly reflect the title, 'list' of 'SSSI' in 'Norfolk'. Mramoeba (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment Mramoeba. I put the second paragraph first as it did not seem to work with the third one first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "123 are biological, 25 geological and 15 are both biological and geological." is not parallel
  • This is almost universal in lists of SSSIs and I do not see the objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There does not need to be a whole column to link the citation when it is already linked as part of the reference. Reywas92Talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is useful to the reader and has been in a dozen SSSI FLCs without anyone objecting. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Then there hardly needs to be a duplicate reference when the citation is already linked in the table! Whatever, not a huge deal but not great form.Reywas92Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review but these points refer to features which are standard in SSSI lists I have submitted to FLC and I prefer to keep to the format which has been approved by previous reviewers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed quite a few of these and each time I find fewer comments, the lists are excellent. Few quibbles:

  • Sedge is unnecessarily capitalized in Beetley and Hoe Meadows, Woodlark in Breckland Forest
  • "one species not previously recorded in Britain" doesn't really make sense without some time reference. Every species was not previously recorded until it was...
  • "Invertebrates include two nationally rare dragonflies, and the marshes have several important breeding bird species and an internationally important population of wintering wigeon" and...and...
  • Capitalize Sphagnum, acanthophyma , hygrolycosa
  • "dry acid dune grassland, the latter of which is very extensive. " can be reworded to say " very extensive dry acid dune..."

Ok I've done the A-G sites, and will have to work on part 3 later. Overall these are just minor quibbles and I'm happy to Support once they are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Nice work with this huge list. Two comments:
    • A map of Norfolk would better fit the top of the article instead of a random sunset photo. East Sussex uses a map, for example.
  • I have used a picture of the site in the previous 11 SSSI county lists I have nominated for FLC and I think it is more relevant than a map for an article on SSSIs, whereas a map is more relevant for the article about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • What is a "common"? Many places are named so, and then the text says "The common has ...". I guess it's Common land? A link somewhere would help. --Tone 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Added links in each case where common is referred to. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Tone. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Minor ce., water dropwort has a page on Wikipedia, but as it is a common name is it the same? You have reedswamp as one word, should it not be two? I would wikilink vascular plants for those of us who have to look these things up. Wigeon can also be wikilinked as the other birds are. Hopefully I will have more time to read through later. Mramoeba (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Water dropwort - this is the name of the genus, which is also used of species in the genus. I have linked to the species according to Natural England, but it is a red link.
  • Reedswamp. OED agrees with you that it is two words. Changed.
  • Vascular plant. Linked.
  • Wigeon. Linked.
  • Thanks for your comments Mramoeba

Official Classical Singles Chart[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article for FL status back in January, but the nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I believe that the outstanding issues have been resolved, so I'm having another go. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The following part (In January 2013, following the release of his album In a Time Lapse, Einaudi's singles) is a little odd. I think that the beginning part of the joining phrase should be "Einaudi" rather than "Einaudi's singles" to connect back to the "his" in the preceding phrase.
  •  Rewritten Please let me know if you think this is an improvement. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (E. L. James, author of the original novel on which the film was based, said that she was "delighted" that her readers had been introduced to the piece of music), I think you can paraphrase the "delighted" quote.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe for this part (At the time of the launch, classical music was becoming more popular in the UK:), it should be a semi-colon instead of a colon.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Other than these very nitpicky comments, I think the list is in great shape. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Aoba! I'll try to find some time to review your list before the end of the week. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I supported before and don't see any compelling reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Albania international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have reworked the page to match my other recent international footballers FLs. I believe this list now stands alongside them and meets the FL criteria. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "As of October 2018, Albania have played 324 international fixtures, winning 79, drawing 68 and losing 177" - we're now in November, are these figures up to date?
    • Why are all the player names in bold?
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. The figures are up to date (although only until tomorrow). I put October to avoid confusion with their two upcoming fixtures this month. Removed the bolding. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I have anything else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Regarding note a: Why is the second part ("and are, subsequently, eligible to be called up.") necessary? Could they be called up to this team or some other team? (This is from the point-of-view of someone who has very little knowledge of association football, so it may be very clear to the general audience of this list.)
      Although some players retirement from playing international football is covered by news sources, the majority of players may retire with no mention or simply never formally retire and will just eventually stop being picked. As club careers typically go on longer than international careers, players will continue playing at club level for years after they stop playing international football. The still active here refers that the player is still active playing football, just not necessarily at international level, so they are technically therefore still eligible for selection. Kosack (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Remove the period from the alt text on the first image. - Done
    • The titles of references 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 16 are rendered in sentence case instead of title case. These should be formatted consistently with the other sources. - Done
  • Other than these small issues, the list looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @NatureBoyMD: Thanks for the review, I've addressed two points and answered the first. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ... Well done! NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Croatia national football team results (1991–99)[edit]

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I consider that the list could be interesting to many readers of Wikipedia as it shows historical results of the Croatia national football team, a vice-champion of the FIFA World Coup. It contains many details about football matches played by the Croatia national team between 1940 and 1999, including: scorers, referees, yellow/red cards, stadiums etc. Moreover, unlike other similar pages, this one has a special style, which, in my opinion, is the most simple, navigable and best looking of all others. To be understood no unfiorm code was broken by introducing this style of listing the results, since similar pages use different styles. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

In its current state, of being a hodgepodge list of various vastly different states masquerading under the adjective "national", there's no way this should be a featured list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I split the article since. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - right now, this falls far short of the standards required of a featured list. There needs to be a significant expansion of the lead to adequately cover the timespan the list covers, detailing tournaments, notable incidents etc to start. Kosack (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agreeing with Kosack on the lack of significant prose. Not to mention the lack of inline references and the use of Hrnogomet, which looks to be debatable as a reliable source. SounderBruce 08:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - well short of FL standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Indian Nobel laureates[edit]

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because since the past nom some three years ago, the article have undergone a significant amount of changes and additions. The problems raised in the previous nomination were sorted out and therefore changes were incorporated into the article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
  • You need to mention somewhere in the first para that the awards are given by the Swedish and Norwegian institutions.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • Most of the links are not properly formatted. Provide the title and the publisher.
Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Publisher added in all links and access date updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Geir Lundestad quote on Gandhi seems redundant to me. You can simplify in a sentence.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Alt texts for the table entries were kept as such but !scope is used in the table to provide blue links to the corresponding articles. Also I've added empty alt fields per MOS. Thanks The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • All tables need scope rows and scope cols. You're good on scope rows in the first table
  • I think the lead image of Tagore should be replaced with a regular infobox but that's just my opinion. You can wait to see what other editors say about it.
  • All images need alt text
  • Care if I center the year column?
  • Use plainrowheaders in the tables
  • If it was jointly awarded to Malala in 2014 shouldn't she be in the table?
  • Quick correction, I meant shouldn't her image be in the table together with Satyarthi? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That would again be redundant since the article is specifically about Indians. Her name in the brackets would serve better than to add an entire image, IMO. It would be like blue sea, instead of links, its pictures...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I see now and because she's not Indian. My bad, all good. :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Committee.They" – space
  • Lead: 5 and 7 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • Ref 4 & 15 doesn't have the correct dating style

Looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: All done save infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To add one into a list article like this where already all the information is pretty much summed up as three tables (each containing only their Nobel Prize subject, rationale and year) would be superfluous, IMO. Thanks for the review.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah as I was writing my comments I realized an infobox really isn't needed in this type of list since it's just listing Indians who have won the Nobel Prize, not the Nobel Prize itself. Anyways, looks much better, happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Support; comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

  • It's worth mentioning the year in which the prize was instituted/first awarded.
  • "The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed on "those who conferred the greatest benefit on humankind" in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences.[1][2], instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will, which specified that part of his fortune be used to create a series of prizes." - A punctuation error after Economic Sciences?
  • This is still unclear. The latter half of the sentence doesn't follow from the first part. Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "some more than once." - Seems like a comma splice error.
  • "... the only woman among the list" -> the only woman among the list of recipients/laureates
  • Any reason for highlighting Sri Aurobindo's nomination(s) before Mahatma Gandhi's? We usually follow chronological ordering in these lists.
  • "... in 1937–39" - This should either be "in 1937, 1938, 1939 ..." or "from 1937 to 1939".
  • Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi -> Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME
  • "In 2006, Geir Lundestad, the Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee, cited it as "the greatest omission in our 106-year history" - The first ref. doesn't have the quote. The second one (book) seems to be first published in 2001 - five years before Lundestad made the claim.
  • Can you find some non-Indian sources? Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "first Asian to be awarded with the Nobel Prize" - The claim is not sourced.
  • One-line descriptions (of tables) are often discouraged. It's better to use them as captions.
  • Use plainrowheaders in tables.
  • This one is a suggestion - you could include the life spans of the recipients in the table (preferably under each of the names).
  • What makes history.com a reliable source?
  • Correct the publisher parameter (you've used the author name) for ref#6.
  • Include the names of the books in refs #8 and #10. [2] and [3].
  • Add "publisher" for ref #12.
  • 'the Ministries/Departments in the Government of India' is not a single body. Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Vensatry (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Aurobindo is mentioned first disregarding the chronology because Gandhi invokes a special mentioning and deserves a whole paragraph. Adding it before would make it less catchy to the lead as a whole and thus losing the emphasis it requires. Hence it is placed second. Thank you for your valuable review and comments. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about including R. K. Narayan? Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
All done. R K Narayan is notable but so is Nehru and multiple other personalities. Aurobindo received multiple nominations (for two different fields) and is indeed a bigger notable figure. Hence he is added. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, never knew that Nehru was nominated eleven times. IMO, this is all set once the opening sentence of the lead is reworked a bit. Vensatry (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not convinced this list should exist in the first place, let alone be a WP:Featured list. It would seem to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, which is not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT. The same applies to the corresponding lists for Argentina, Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources and with over a quarter million annual readership, I'm sure the article is valid in its existence. Please go though the AfD discussion for more details. All the citations are verified and from relaible sources and all the criterion from WP:WIAA are clearly fulfilled. Within the past 13 years from its creation, the article was very much near to perfection. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see anything in the AfD, the article itself, or on the talk page thereof which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. By contrast, List of Jewish Nobel laureates notes in its WP:LEAD that the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average. Various theories have been made to explain this phenomenon, which has received considerable attention. Prominent late Israeli academics Dr. Elay Ben-Gal and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, curious about the phenomenon, started to form an encyclopedia of Jewish Nobel laureates and interview as many as possible about their life and work. Could something similar be added to this list? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the current lead is in compliance with WP:LEAD as well as the comments and reviews per this nom page. Or would you like to suggest another change? For example, what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article Well, that would be information which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I am certainly not sure how to put the culturally significant part in words or to support it using references. IMHO, it would be redundant and superfluous given the number of references (Indian as well as foreign) indicating the title's existence and the number of views the article is getting. Adding a line in the lead stating 'so and so reason is the presence of this percent of Indians in the Nobel Laureate list' would certainly be redundant. If you are still not satisfied with the existence of the article, you may go for an AfD. Thank you. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Director comment – Anybody else have any thoughts on whether this is a valid stand-alone article? This FLC has been open for a couple of months and has three supporters, and I need to know whether it's time for a source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if there's reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. If there is insufficient third party coverage of this intersection to substantiate notability, then it should probably go to AFD. Arguments related to other lists have pretty much no bearing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as IK, there is pretty much very good third party coverage on the title as clearly evident from the references and the number of hits the article is getting. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think the references on List of Indian Nobel laureates support the notion that the the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT, and the number of hits the article is getting is irrelevant to its validity as a WP:Stand-alone list. I also have to say that I find its adherence to WP:LISTCRITERIA (Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.) dubious – the first list (Indian citizens) seems like it would obviously pass, but it becomes tricky when one considers that the modern state of India didn't exist until several decades after the first of these Nobel Prizes were awarded (Rabindranath Tagore was born and died in British India, and was therefore as far as I can tell a subject of the British Empire his entire life), and the other two (Indian origin and Indian linkages) are also highly questionable (ultimately, it becomes a question of what it means to be "Indian", which doesn't really have a self-evident and clear-cut answer, and I'm not sure that the amalgamation of different definitions used by this list is in compliance with WP:NPOV). In short, I don't think it has been demonstrated that this is a valid WP:CFORK of List of Nobel laureates by country. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The Herald, this seems to be intractable unless you can provide evidence in the contrary to TompaDompa's position. As I noted, if you can provide reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. Just saying it's ok or saying "as far as IK", is not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the third party coverage, here are some references"
  • [4] - A highly reliable cite by Indian government
  • [5] - Scientific India Journal
  • [6] - Free Press Journal
  • Also, cites such as NDTV, the Hindu, etc also are highly relevant. Plus, the inclusion of the current members in the list is under the category of persons who are either born in India (citizens) or have Indian ancestry. And the inclusion of Tagore is due to the factor that he posses the citizenship of the country and regarded as the national poet of India. It's really surprising to find that the addition of Tagore as an Indian is disputed here. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a valid list. There is reasonable coverage of Nobel laureates with Indian connections in third party sources as the nominator shows and the topic is of considerable interest to Wikipedia readers. I came to this page from 'Nominations urgently needing reviews' and I think the question of validity needs a decision from the director and delegates before anyone comments further on the content. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • My opinion stands. If there's a consensus that sufficient third party coverage of this intersection exists in verifiable reliable sources, then it's just fine. It's not down to the director or his delegates to make a unilateral decision on that one, in my opinion, we act in accordance with the community's wishes, which, so far, seem to be very much in favour of the existence of this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Dudley, TRM is right in that we don't have the power to decide by ourselves that something is notable enough for its own article. We can provide our own opinions in the role of a reviewer, but that's all. If I was to give my opinion, I'd say that the potential sources listed above are enough to show significant coverage of the topic of Indian Nobel laureates. If I was to provide a suggestion for the nominator, I'd recommend reviewing the five references up there with the aim of incorporating them as sources in the article; the only one I see in the citations is the Hindu page. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the 2005 papal conclave[edit]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the success of my previous nomination, here are the cardinals who elected Benedict XVI in 2005. Comments and suggestions made on the 2013 list have been incorporated in this one, which is almost identical in style, so there should be no major issues. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My only comment is that I don't understand this bit at all: "The number of votes required to be elected pope with a two-thirds supermajority and with a one-half simple majority were 77 and 58, respectively". How can there be two different numbers of votes required to be elected? The article doesn't explain this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Clarified accordingly. The simple majority would have only come into use in the case of a protracted stalemate (which didn't happen here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the position on this nomination in the light of the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605/archive1 on the ground that Cardinal electors for the May 1605 papal conclave should be merged with May 1605 Papal conclave? Pinging TonyBallioni, TompaDompa, The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Reywas92. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I support doing it this way per my view that the lists should be covered separately from the articles and that combining them is harmful to the reader’s ability to understand what happened in the actual conclave. These lists are overwhelming (both modern and historical), and despite the view at the last FLC I don’t think that that mergers are a good idea regardless of the size of the main article. If the main article is short and FLC prefers it longer than the May 1605 conclave article was, my view is that the list should be held off on until the article is expanded so as not to have to deal with complaints here at the cost of reader’s understanding of very significant historical events. That being said: this article is much bigger than the May 1605 article, and shouldn’t pose an issue. We passed the March 1605 list at FLC and from memory the March 1605 article is shorter than the 2005 one. I think the issue with May 1605 was 1) it was a relatively uneventful conclave given that the March one had sucked up the drama, and 2) I’m in grad school which wears you out of writing so I never felt up to expanding the main article in ways it could be expanded in a way that could overcome the objections. I’ll likely take it back to FLC when I get a chance to expand the article because based on my understanding the objection was over that specific list/article pairing, not the split concept as a whole. Like you, I think we should just get a format for these and stick with it regardless of the main article, but that doesn’t seem to be the consensus view. But regardless of whether it should pass FLC, I oppose merging this in the strongest possible terms. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I fail to understand this concept of "harmful to the reader’s ability to understand". You have sections "Background", "Conclave activities", "Results", or whatever, and "Participating cardinals". Whether a table listing the cardinals is in the same article or another is irrelevant to the contents and its reading level, and this basis is underestimating the reader's intelligence. Long articles with huge sections of prose can certainly be daunting to a reader and warrant a split, but that's hardly the case here involving a formatted table. Reywas92Talk 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It is extremely distracting and overwhelms the rest of the article by making it about the participants rather than the event itself. The history of these articles was that they were created as lists from an unreliable self-published source years ago. On the historical ones, I’ve been redoing them with academic sourcing and removing the lists as both distracting and as improperly sourced in the overwhelming majority of cases. I looked at the one or two GAs we had before that included lists, decided that the table of 60+ names (120+ for contemporary conclaves) would make it more difficult for me, as someone who already knows a fair amount about this having written 10/13 conclave GAs on Wikipedia, to read the article if I came across it on my own, and went with the separate format that already existed for modern conclaves. I’ve looked at dozens of these articles over the last 2 years, and improved around 15 of them. I can tell you that the inclusion of a list with the main conclave article is almost always a sign of the article being poor quality in this particular area. They are easier to maintain separately as a writer and as a reader easier to comprehend, no conclaves are likely to go to FAC anytime soon, but I would use a table as a reason to oppose there: it just makes for a bad article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick note on this, tables can always be made collapsed (by default even) and allowed to be expanded should the reader (a) find the table "distracting" or "overwhelming" and (b) should they wish to delve into the information in more detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I still think they distract from the overall quality of these particular articles and and that the same result can be achieved in a better way by having a hatnote in a participants section. I view it as somewhat analogous referencing an appendix, which is where you would find such lists if anyone after the year 1970 included them in histories. Anyway, that's a meta discussion, and I don't think the issues raised on the May 1605 list are present here as the article is more than long enough to justify a split of over 100 participants in my view. I'll review later in the week. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with TonyBallioni above. The 2005 conclave had enough news coverage that its article is sufficiently long enough to more than justify a separate list of cardinal electors. In general, I would also prefer similar lists to be split off into separate articles, unless there is significant benefit not to do so. Such lists could also contain information more pertinent to cardinal electors, which might not be that suitable for the general articles: for example, the tables for cardinals' countries of origin in the 2013, the 2005 and the 1978 lists (so far). While some conclave articles (e.g. the May 1605 one discussed above) are relatively brief, these could conceivably be expanded with further particulars and bibliography in the future, potentially meriting a separate list for electors. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
As one of the editors calling for some sort of merger at the May 1605 FLC, I think that this list has a much stronger case for a separate article. It has about twice as many entries as the May 1605 list, the extra details in the table make the formatting twice as large, and the main article has quite a bit more meat to it. I can understand complaints that such detail would overwhelm the main article, which is a pretty good argument for a stand-alone list. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Is voting public or by secret ballot?
  • "generally reflecting seniority and honour" What does honour mean in this context?
  • Looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. As with all conclaves (Latin for 'with a key'), voting is done in secret.
  2. In general, this reflects the nominal relative importance of cardinals in regards to each other, as shown by the order in which they enter the conclave, sit in the Sistine Chapel, cast their ballots, etc.
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment there seems to be some inconsistency across Wikipedia on whether "Papal conclave" should be "papal conclave". I.e. this list has it in lower case, but linked articles has it capitalised. I think that should be resolved.

  • I'm not sure on the utility of the "Office" column being sortable, it's free text.
  • Is there a good justification for the inclusion of flags or are they purely decorative?
  • " announcing the election of the pope " is piped to a redirect.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. I would tend to agree, but someone made the case over at List of living cardinals that a sortable Office column allows one to get some form of breakdown of the roles of the cardinals in the table (e.g. archbishops, prefects); I've kept that convention for this list's table.
  2. The flags are largely there to match the table in the Cardinals by continent and by country section, but they could serve a decorative purpose as well.
  3. Well, not any more.
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. Regarding the capitalisation of "papal conclave", I've just had the "YYYY Papal conclave" articles moved to "YYYY papal conclave" (per the topic's article, it should be a common noun), thus removing the inconsistency. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

List of AFL debuts in 2008[edit]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Continuing my quest to develop more Australian Football League-related featured content, this will hopefully be my third FL this year after successfully getting Norm Smith Medal and List of Gold Coast Football Club players promoted. This time I have turned my eye to developing a format for VFL/AFL debut lists that can hopefully then be replicated across this series of existing lists. Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments - looks good, just one minor point spotted so far: key tables should not have a full stop at the end of text that isn't a complete sentence. Also, given that the key says, for example, "The number of games played in 2008", is it really necessary to say "Statistics are updated as of the conclusion of the 2008 season"? Surely that's obvious/implied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisTheDude, all fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know if it's just me, but reading the title "debut" and seeing that list includes players who transferred clubs confused me. I mean you can only make your AFL debut once right? By this token, a guy who's played in the AFL for 10 years would be listed as a "debut" in the AFT if he joined a new club.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talkcontribs)
    The lead covers this by saying (or at least implying) that the least includes debuts at both levels, i.e. the AFL level and the new club level. I'm also not entirely convinced that "AFL debut" should include the latter. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean, and I tend to agree to be honest; however it seems to be included in the majority of the related yearly lists for "AFL debuts" so I am unsure if removing it in this instance would upset the "status quo". Allied45 (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • You can probably make "this year celebrated the 150th..." in the first paragraph a stand-alone sentence.
  • Link "Carlton" to that club in the third paragraph.
  • Image caption: "Matthew Kreuzer played 20 games this season, after..." Strike the comma.
  • Image caption: "Adam Schneider formerly played for Sydney, before..." Strike the comma.
  • "Summary of debuts... table": The first column only adds up to 82, but the total shows it as 84.
  • "Debuts" table key: Change both instances of players' to player's since each cell provides the age and round for only one player each not several.
  • "Change of club" table key: Change both instances of players' to player's since each cell provides the previous club and round for only one player each not several.
  • "Change of club" table key: Remove the period from the end of the first five descriptions (Round to †) as these are not complete sentences.
  • Everything else looks good. I think these changes should bring it up to meet FL criteria. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks NatureBoyMD, have applied all suggestions. Allied45 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of UFC champions[edit]

Notified: User:Gsfelipe94, User:Matthew0820, User:BEDofRAZORS666; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't see how this is one of the best lists we have to offer. When it was promoted it was already shaky (and the review cursory), and since 2007 it's just accumulated poorly written, poorly verified material...cruft. (Those flags need to go too--there's a consensus for MMA that indeed they must go.) This revert alerted me to the poor stage of the article: the writing is obviously poor. As for the sourcing, it's all Sherdog and a couple other MMA sites, basically, which I'm sure is fine for individual results, but not so much for prose and it doesn't look good. And then, prominently, there's File:UFC-Champs.PNG, some homemade and atrocious thing dominated by national colors (in a sport that has no national representation), with ungrammaticalities ("none weight limit") and a sexist set-up (male is the norm, "female" needs to be marked). No, I'm sure the list is fine for what it is, but it is not a FL. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

List of important operas[edit]

Notified: Moreschi, WikiProject Opera

This 2007 FL has a few significant issues that prevent it from meeting modern standards:

  • The whole basis of the list is questionable. How can we determine in Wikipedia's voice what an important opera is? Here, the term apparently means an opera appearing in a majority of nine lists of operas. How are we to know that these are the only such sources that should be consulted? Even if they are the right sources to use, we have the issue that all of them are over 15 years old, so by definition the list cannot be updated with new operas.
  • Many Grove references are tagged as needing individual pages cited for verifiability.
  • The lead isn't up to modern standards. It's very short and directs readers to the main opera article for a historical summary, instead of providing a brief one in this article as you might expect. I can't even complain about the lead being uncited, since there isn't much in there that would require a reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm - but on the other hand, at least everything in the list is cited, and for Grove we can AGF - and it gets 100-200 views/day- and it doesn't seem to me as if there is anything actually misleading in it (although I personally would disconcur with some of the 20th century entries and omissions ,and I see there's nothing for the 21st century.....)....Seems to me it needs some rewriting rather than deletion. Maybe retitle and verify as 'most performed' operas, using performance statistics? --Smerus (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Would tend to agree with OP: not up to current standards. And how can our "Wikipedia voice" say what is "important" (a different title could address the second concern). N2e (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Delist Agree with both comments above. Criterion for inclusion is vague, the lead begins with and uses out of date wording "The operas listed...", "This list provides...". Actually the whole lead isn't a summary of what is contained below as per requirements, but instructions on how to read it! Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm not really convinced that we could have any such "important" criterion being defined objectively and non-controversially enough to please enough of the people enough of the time. The list itself (apart from the lead) is quite useful, but ultimately boils down to the opinions of a handful of English-language books. Not convincing enough for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist. The selection criterion is arbitrary and requires original research to select the lists used. Even if rewritten, this article can never be objective enough for FL status. Kranix (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree particularly with the concerns over the criteria used for inclusion, which at least verges on being a blend OR and SYNTH. ——SerialNumber54129 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers[edit]

Notified: Vibhijain, WikiProject Indian Premier League

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the main table in this list has not been updated since 2015 and the information in the lead had become out-dated.Sa Ga Vaj 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

TBF it's not quite as dramatic as it sounds, as Rajasthan didn't compete in 2016 or 2017, so there's only this year's stats missing........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: but if you look closely, the stats are incomplete even for the 2015 season. Sa Ga Vaj 11:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It's out of date. Should not remain a Featured List. N2e (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist can't have out of date material being featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist no updates have been made, continues to be out of date. Mattximus (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)