Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2014

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:03, 28 September 2014 [1].

---

List of accolades received by Blue Jasmine

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Blue Jasmine was a particular highlight of last year primarily for Cate Blanchett's performance in the film. Here is the accolades list for it, as always, I welcome all the helpful suggestions and comments for improvements. Cowlibob (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by TriiipleThreat

• Table: The bottom note does not point to anything. You should either add {{ref|1|[I]}} to the Ceremony header or replace the note reference with a asterisk.

• References: You should strongly consider archiving your references in order to prevent WP:LINKROT. There are many services you can use, I personally prefer WebCite. Its very simple and only takes minutes.

Overall its a very good list; well organized table, well referenced, and the lead does a good job summarizing the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Thanks for your comments. I've added a note to the date of ceremony column and archived all the references. Cowlibob (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Good job!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments— There is no inline citations for the second para; at least three inline citations required there! Added. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) The infobox shows 32 "Won" while the list has 31 Fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) The list is arranged in a random way i.e. "Date of ceremony" starts with March 2, 2014 and then December 19, 2013, February 8, 2014 and so on. Could you arrange this in ascending or descending order?! And also add a note that how the list is initially arranged. Pardon me for butting in. I think Cowlibob has arranged the list in alphabetical order of the ceremony names which most of these lists follow. —Vensatry (ping) 12:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC) My bad. If alphabetical ordering is the criterion AACTA Awards should come before Academy Awards. —Vensatry (ping) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Move up AACTA and is now in alphabetical order. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) You may add {{Template:Woody Allen}} at the end of the list. --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I think that should be reserved for the film articles themselves and he has his own awards and nom article already included in the template. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) @Sahara4u: Thanks for your comments. I've fixed all the issues you highlighted I think. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – meets the standards! --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) "July 26, 2013" and August 23: Not in the same format. Also year should be mentioned for more clarity If it's the same year, there's no need to mention the year twice but changed the sentence so it's clearer that it's the same year. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Years needed for "86th Academy Awards" and " 71st Golden Globe Awards" in the lede Changed. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) You've listed the producers (on behalf of the movie) in the Producers Guild of America Awards, where as in other awards only the name of the movie is mentioned. The source doesn't mention the name of the producers either. Changed to the film itself. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC) I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness of the list owing to my limited knowlegde on the subject and topic. The list seems to meet the rest of the criteria and I'd be happy to lend my support once my concerns have been addressed. —Vensatry (ping) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Thanks for your comments. I've fixed all the issues you highlighted I think. Cowlibob (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 01:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

• I'm not a big fan of rowspans as there are access issues with them (see Avoiding rowspan/colspan), but I'm not sure that is an enforceable criteria.
• Be consistent in your spacings in refs: some have " ' and some have "' (compare FNs 11 and 14, but there are others)
• Be consistent in providing publisher details: you do for some, but there are a lot of gaps

That's it from me: very slender fare for a well put together list. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the spacing and added publishers wherever possible. I don't know if it helps that the rows return after the column is sorted. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: Well done once again Cowlibob (talk · contribs), though I am not sure if describing the film as a "comedy-drama" is apt. I think it has been generally described as a drama. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: It's not a pure comedy but I've seen it described as a black comedy which I've changed in the lead as well. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: Looks consistent with all the other film accolade lists that are featured articles.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:45, 28 September 2014 [2].

---

List of accolades received by The King's Speech

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The King's Speech is the most successful independent British film, a critical and box office success. It was well-received enough to win a pile of critical riches that were poured forth onto the cast and crew alike. It's had a recent work over, and should now be FL standard. All comments and criticisms are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments This one was on my to do list but you got there ahead of me, gosh darnit! Lead Probably avoid the word hailed just state it. Include box office, production budget, Rotten Tomatoes. Include where and when it premiered and went on wide release. Added info and tweaked. Rancid Tomatoes not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I seem to remember that it had the most Oscar nominations probably something to mention, add which award Firth won at Globes even though it's obvious. Wikilink SAG Best Actor, Best Ensemble. At the SAG, the cast is nominated so include their names as per your source. That's too much bloating for the lead, I think, but I've added the full list to the table. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) For the BAFTAs, mention that the film had the most nominations and won the most awards. Cut the list of BAFTA awards mentioned or the including bit is pointless. I believe the National Board of Review included the film in their top ten of the year, include it in the table, lead and infobox. Added to the IB and table: not needed in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Infobox Not essential but would be nice if the main picture was awards related e.g. the cast or a cast member who won the most awards/nominations attending an awards ceremony. I'd rather keep the film image there, with the various film members images collected together alongside their awards. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Awards and nominations --> Accolades. wins and nominations --> awards and nominations Aspen Filmfest is included in the infobox but isn't present in the table. Also there is wikiproject film consensus to not include awards which don't have an independent wiki so you could remove this award. Cut the 2010 bit of the British independent awards. Pick one of Broadcast Film's Critics or Critics Choice Awards and ensure it's referred to as the same in the table and infobox. Dallas awards need en dashes. Check this throughout the article. Detroit is present in the box but not in the main table. European film awards should total 4 as per the table. It should also come before Evening Standard awards. Film Independent Spirit Awards not Independent as per table. Wikilink International Film Music Critics Association. VFCC --> Vancouver Film Critics Circle General note ensure that there is consistency with how the awards/awarding bodies are referred to as between the infobox and the table. Check that the infobox awards are in alphabetical order and also check that the number of awards and nominations corresponds to the table. Table Check that the awards/awarding bodies are in alphabetical order Emile Sherman is probably notable enough for a red link as a producer of a Best Picture film. AFI award is referred to as "AFI Special Awards" in the source and the recipient was the film not the actress. BIF actor award, the individual critics choice awards, Chicago film critics 2010 wikilink on the date, Dallas individual awards, Empire individual awards, European film individual awards, Florida 2010 (wikilink on the date), Las Vegas film critics 2010 (wikilink on date), London film critics circle 2010 (wikilink on date), London film critics circle individual awards, Los Angeles 2010 (wikilink on date), Online film critics 2010 (wikilink on date), Phoenix 2010 (wikilink on date), St. Louis individual awards should all be wikilinked. All done - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) References Metacritic and European film academy should not be italicised. Link publishers wherever possible for example: American society of cinematographers, art director's guild and costume designer guild. Replace awardsdaily sources as it's basically a website by one blogger. Replace film-book, altfg sources. Cowlibob (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure Metacritic about Metacritic: the MoS says that "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized", which I think is the situation here. Working on the remaining sources and should be done shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) All now done: thanks very much indeed for your thoughts and comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reordered the lead a bit. One minor thing I would add is an introductory sentence before the 83rd academy awards which highlights that although the film earned recognition in a variety of categories, certain aspects of the film earned the most recognition in terms of accolades e.g Firth, Hooper, Rush and Carter. In regards to Metacritic, I've seen that bit of MOS most of the time interpreted as only news/magazine sources should be italicised so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else brought it up but it's so minor. Anyway, great list which is well written and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers Cowlibob. I've seen Metacritic italicised and not italicised all over the place, and it's a shame there's no concrete decision made somewhere to make the MoS more clear on this! Thanks again for your time and effort here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments "ritish film ever.[5] The film appeared in the Top Ten lists of more than twenty film reviewers, for the best films of 2010.[6]" I count four "film"s here in one-and-a-bit sentences. Reads a little clunky. "—more than any other film—" you use this twice, perhaps deliberately? It looks a little awkward, the unspaced em-dash combined with the references (I added spaces between the reference and the subsequent text, by the way, as it looked even odder without...) "the film received seven nominations, more than any other film nominated" could you not simplify the second clause to "more than any other nominee"? Otherwise pretty good stuff. "Just one more thing", how do you know it's comprehensive? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Many thanks, The Rambling Man, I've tweaked all three points. In terms of comprehensiveness, it's as full as I've found anywhere, less the non-notable awards. I suppose if a couple of the non-notable ones rise up to their own page, then we can always add it on later. Cheers for your thoughts here. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support quality list, decent references, not seeing glaring omissions, all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, RM. As always, your comments are always great to have – and always lead to great improvements. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Can't fault a thing on this excellent list! Cassianto^talk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cass. Your time and effort are, as always, much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The title is a touch unexpected (I might have gone for "Awards" rather than "Accolades") but that's of no consequence. This is a thorough and impressive piece of work, fully meeting the FL criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks indeed for your time and thoughts here. As always it is very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 14:35, 28 September 2014 [3].

---

Academy Award for Best Actor

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because SoapFan12 and I have worked on the list more than a year ago to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Daytime Emmy Award acting list were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Matthew McConaughey is the most recent winner in this category for his role in Dallas Buyers Club. The sentence should be shifted to the end of the lead as we follow chronology to these kinds of lists. I have no other thing to say --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG:: Done: I moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph.

Comments from Jimknut

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Introduction "The Academy Award for Best Actor is an award presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). It was first awarded at the 1st Academy Awards ceremony, held in 1929; Emil Jannings received the award for his roles in The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh and it is given in honor of an actor who has delivered an outstanding performance in a leading role while working within the film industry." I would consider rewording this as: "The Academy Award for Best Actor is an award presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). It is given in honor of an actor who has delivered an outstanding performance in a leading role while working within the film industry. The 1st Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1929 with Emil Jannings receiving the award for his roles in The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh." This way the description of the award is not interrupted by historical information. Also the word "first" does not appear twice in one sentence. List 1929/30: Footnote A does not link properly Lawrence Tibbett — The Rogue Song: No reference is given or the box for ref 10 does not extend down far enough "Dr. Henry L. Jekyll/Edward Hyde" could be linked: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (character) Should Marlon Brando (for The Godfather) and George C. Scott (for Patton) be listed as having refused the award? Notes Note C: "Paul Muni's performance in Black Fury was not nominated for an Oscar." — Black Fury should be in italics. References Ref 64 is not formatted correctly Hope these comments help. Jimknut (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC) @Jimknut: Done: I fixed every you mentioned above. For the refused awards by Scott and Brando, the winners are indicated in pink. --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments – I really like the list after reading through it. However, I do see one area that could be improved: the multiple wins and nominations lists, which are just bullet-point lists with minimal formatting. A simple two- or three-column table would look nicer in each case, in my view. Also, the See also section contains several links that are in one of the templates at the bottom of the page; they probably don't need to be duplicated and make the section long. Finally, the bibliography should probably be alphabetized, which won't take much work with only two books there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Fixed: I have alphabetized the bibliography by author's surname and eliminated duplicated Oscar links. Regarding the multiple winners and nominees section, however, I'm not sure what to do. I attempted to do a similar table as the one featured here, but other Wikipedians complained that it was too long. How can I fix the problem?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• You could change the emphasis of the latter grouping to be about actors with the most noms, and pick a minimum number of noms required for inclusion that will help control the size. If you limit a table to actors with at least four or five noms, the table's size should be much more managable than if you try to put all of the actors currently listed in a table. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Done: I merged the multiple awards/nominations into one section. For the nominations, I put the limit to four to avoid a long column. Thanks for your help!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

====Comments from Cowlibob==== Overall great effort on this list. I wonder if it would look better with Emil Janning picture being first as he was the first winner? Add a reference that supports that Olivier directed Hamlet even though it's well known he did. Add a reference that supports that Poitier was the first black winner. Add a reference that supports that Benigni directed Life is Beautiful even though it's well known he did. Dujardin was also the first French actor to win the award, might want to mention that with a reference. Add references for the age superlatives section. AMPAS should not be italicised in the references section, should be publisher=Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) Cowlibob (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Done: I fixed every you mentioned above. --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Another great list, good job. Cowlibob (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Neonblak talk - 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I couldn't find anything specific on this, but shouldn't any content, inlcuding image captions, be properly sourced? Examples being the captions that include information on the youngest and oldest award winners, and number of nominations. Shouldn't that information be included in the lead, then cited? Or cited inline in the caption? Or neither? Or is it already, and I am not seeing it?Neonblak talk - 20:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) @Neonblak: I too picked up on that. I took the line of requesting sources for any info which is not verifiable by the table and these have been duly added. Number of nominations is implicitly verifiable by the main table. That being said, Birdienest, please add these two sources for the two declined awards. [[4]], [[5]]. Another thing I've picked up on now is that the alt text for the images are inappropriate. As per WP:ALT, alt text shouldn't describe what someone is wearing unless the article is about fashion and should include the person's name. Options are named actor at this film festival or named actor in publicity photo. Also article has CS1:error dates so check the refs. I still continue to support the list though. Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob: I've added a book reference to the refused Oscars and the posthumous Oscar nominees and winner. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - List looks great ! Neonblak ^talk - 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Nice to see a different type of great list for a change.--Jagarin 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent work!! Just one minor point: For the images of the actors on the right, I see some of the captions are accompanied by the year(s) in which they won, while some are not. For example, it doesn't state the years in which Sean Penn and Daniel Day Lewis won. I suggest the years are mentioned for all of them. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: Added missing years in the thumbnail captions to Brando, Hoffman, Brody, Penn, and Day-Lewis.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:51, 28 September 2014 [6].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Courtney Walsh

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Courtney Walsh, the leading Test wicket-taker for the West Indies, took 23 fifers in international cricket. This list of his fifers is now, I think, according to the FLC criteria. Comments/suggestion from anyone will be much appreciated. Cheers! --Khadar Khani (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments Why do we need to say "the sport of"? Removed. This was added by Cowlibob. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Link five wicket haul the first time round. Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) " 22 five wicket hauls in Tests and one in ODIs" MOSNUM says this should be "twenty-two" and "one" or "22" and "1". And be consistent with hyphenation. Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "off splice" is a bit jargon (in the quote) so may need to link this to something. Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "pair of five-wicket hauls" so a ten-wicket match? Worth expanding and explaining the significance. Already said that he accumulated 13 wickets in the match?! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) " Due to his man-of-the-match performance" not strictly true, he was man of the match and they won, it could have been a number of other factors (e.g. the opponent played poorly). Reworded. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Walsh was most successful against England taking 5 five-wicket hauls" again, another way of spelling out "five-wicket haul" and I would say something more accurate, like "Walsh took more five-wicket hauls against England than any other nation." Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "He took 5 wickets conceding only one run in the match." should be "five" but this is outstanding bowling, is it a record? I thought so but according to ESPNcricinfo, he was three balls shorter to achieve the record! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) This is truly outstanding bowling, yet he is three balls short of earning a place in the list. Didn't you come across any articles in Cricinfo? —Vensatry (ping) 17:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC) No. Let me know if you did!? Thanks, --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC) In fact, it's the "cheapest" fifer in ODIs. —Vensatry (ping) 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Done. Thanks a lot! --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "As of 2013..." it's now late 2014. Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 04:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) Cricket linked twice in the lede. While we normally add a the before "West Indies", I don't think the "the" in "The West Indies won the match by an innings and 322 runs" sounds good. I'm not sure either "Walsh took more five-wicket hauls against England than any other nation: 5" Shouldn't it be five? The Kensington Oval in the Bridgetown/ Also "Alt text" should have the name of the ground. I'd like to see an explanation for "Drawn" in the key "He took 5 wickets conceding only one run in the match". This should be either five wickets for one run or 5 wickets for 1 run. You could add a tertiary sort for the fifers based on dates or economy. —Vensatry (ping) 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Fixed all, thanks for the comments! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards —Vensatry _(ping) 04:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Click show to see resolved comments and support from NickGibson3900 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments A few comments: Ref 1 - You say it was published 17 August, page says it was published 16 August Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Ref 7 has the date published in a separate sentence while Ref 30 the published date is in brackets Ref 7 doesn't have author so date is in separate sentence. Khadar Khani (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Really good article, almost know errors. Will support when my points are addressed - NickGibson3900 Talk 23:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! Khadar Khani (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ok Support - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Another good list. Had a look at this list earlier in the month and fixed a few things and it's only improved since then. The alt text is currently inappropriate as per WP:ALT which says you shouldn't mention clothing unless the article is about fashion. It should also contain the name of the person in the picture. Cowlibob (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Cowlibob: fixed alt text, thanks a lot! I'll review your list ASAP. Khadar Khani (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Meets FLC criteria. Cowlibob (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria, well-sourced, well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks all of you for reviews and supports, much appreciated! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:19, 24 September 2014 [7].

---

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a good example of her career, with proper lists and everything referenced appropriately. It's my first featured nomination, be gentle ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• This is quite close to being featured quality :). Just need to get rid of one New York Post ref. Also, if not including number of movies, shows, and plays she appeared in, may as well say she appeared in "many films, television shows, and plays" or say she had "an extensive career in films, television shows, and plays". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blast! I thought I got rid of that NY Post ref. I'm on it! And I like the second one, so I'll go with that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, just minor fixes, and include her roles for all the "stage" roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to look them up but some of her roles were nameless roles. Should I leave them blank? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• If nameless, Lady Lotus, just describe the type of character (i.e. office secretary, opera singer, nun, bartender, dancer) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ok so I dug a little deeper and got all the names but one. And all I can find was she was a shy 17-year old, it was speaking part, but no name. I don't want to say what she is if I dont' know. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I did some searching myself, but found no names for her character either on Franlin Street. Before anything else, tell me this: what was this shy girl like? A pedestrian, student, townsperson, you name it: some more detail on her character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well she was 17 so I'm guessing a student but I'm not sure. Not a whole lot of sources talked about her character just that is was her stage debut at 18. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm..... just say "unnamed teenager" or something..... as long as there are no blank fields for roles (please also take a look at A Star for Two), I support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What about adding {n/a} to it? That way it's not blank...? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Works for me if you can't find the name of a role or even a description of her character, good work :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

This is very close to featured quality. just a few minor points:

• Since the release years for Applause and Woman of the Year are already stated, I don't think the years should be repeated for her Tony Wins for those plays.  Done
• The Tree of Hands links to the novel, not the film.  Done
• Ref no. 30 is not centered in the ref. column, like the others.  Done
• Are her roles in A Star for Two and Franklin Street unknown? If so, it would be good to state that. (I see the previous reviewer has also commented on this)  Done; put "Unknown" for A Star for Two; and "Unnamed teenager" for Franklin Street.
• Playbill is a magazine, right? So it should be in italics in the reference section.  Done -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Godot13

Resolved comments from --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments – Nicely written prose, easy to read. Thank you! Alt text very thorough, external links appear fine (couldn't check ref links, tool error) Reviewed the Filmography (will review TV and Stage tables tomorrow) In 1999 (by release date) Diamonds comes before The Venice Project.  Done A Conversation with Gregory Peck has internet-reported release dates listed ranging from 1998 to 2001, which is correct?  Done, it's actual inital release was 2000 Gone Dark (aka The Limit) appears to have a 28 Dec 2004 released date, not 2003.  Done The sort by year function works, but not completely... In you run another sort, and then re-sort by year, the films return to the correct year, but in a different order (i.e., they are no longer in the initial chronological release order). @Godot13: I honestly don't know how to fix that, this is the first time I've ever worked with sorting before, if you give me an example of how to do it, I can go in a fix it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC) --Godot13 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I’ve made a few changes which I think will be helpful (anything you disagree with get rid of)… Added hidden key sorting for the dates (based on first screening, film festival or general public) Moved a few slightly up or down in the list so the default is in the correct date order If the available release date info does not contain the day, for sorting the day of the month is defaulted at the first. There are a few that only have a year of release. I haven’t added any month or day and these may possibly be slightly out of order (they sort last within the correct year). Perfect Gentlemen was a TV movie, should that be in Film (where it is now) or Television? Please take a look at what I changed/added and let me know if you are okay with it and/or if you have any questions.--Godot13 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you so much for doing all of that with the years! :) I leave TV films in the television section just because they were made for tv regardless of being a film. Which actually now that I just looked at it, there was one in the tv and in the film section, so I removed the one from the film section. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• Support – A peer reviewer, I was happy with the responses there and I feel the article has only grown in quality since. Nice job! Cassianto^talk 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall, great effort on this list. Mainly some sourcing issues. Main pic could be further described as Bacall in promo photo, unknown date.  Done WSJ source is behind a paywall at least for me. Consider alternative? Per WP:PAYWALL, I thought it was ok to use? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) It is. However if there is a reliable source (which you found) which isn't behind a paywall, we should go for that one. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Happy 85th birthday source is a TCM blog by a "Shari Lee". Is this person reliable?  Done as in replaced Probably could find a better source than Yahoo! blog for Chicago Hope and Yahoo! source for Get Bruce could also be replaced.  Done What makes Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention, The Wire.com, Broadway World and Hamptons reliable? Cowlibob (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)  Done Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention was honestly the only (what look decent enough) source I could find to reference Patterns, but I've since deleted it since it was a major role in her career, it was just a bypasser. I wouldn't say the Wire wasn't reliable, it seems to be reliable enough. I've replaced the other refs. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) You could use this one for Get Bruce, [[8]]. I think laurenbacall.com looks like a fan site and not official. Here's an alternate for Mr. Broadway, [[9]]. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC) So sorry that I am JUST now getting to these but thank you so much for your input! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) @Lady Lotus: Ping to let you know that I've made additional comments above. Cowlibob (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support All good now. Great job. Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492 and We hope

• Delegate's comment - I'm not too sure on the acceptability of some of these images. Promotional stills, though rarely copyrighted, were sometimes still given notices. Short of actually being able to see the rear of the page (and thus check for notices) we can't be sure either way. I'm putting this on hold until all of the images can be thoroughly vetted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: do you know which images of Bacall in commons are already vetted and can be used appropriately? I would hate to see this put on hold if I can easily just swap out images. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • We just need what, at FAC, is called an image review. I'd generally be able to do it, but RL is fairly busy right now. I can tell you, however, that We hope is really good at this, and could probably help you find more than you need. (BTW, the main image here is an example of the type I'm concerned of; we lost an FP of Katherine Hepburn because it didn't have the back). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all sure about the headshot as there's no information about when it was done nor where it came from. I can try to find a copy of it if possible and we might be able to fill in the blanks. I'll take a hard look through Commons at the Bacall photos today and nominate any that are questionable for deletion review there. The rest look exactly like what they are, screenshots from movie trailers, and shouldn't be a problem. I can also have a look through various places for more photos of her that might work and upload them at Commons. We hope (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, We hope. I'm concerned about blanket rationales for trailers though, so if someone who's not on a maximum 80kb/s line (shared by three laptops) can verify those... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Working my way through the trailers now. IMDB To Have and Have Not. Unfortunately for File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg, there's a copyright notice at 2:33 of the 2:47 trailer. page 165 shows the film was renewed. We hope (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dark passage trailer bacall.JPG. IMDB-copyright notice at 2:06 of 2:11 trailer. Copyright of film renewed page 159. We hope (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question though: are these renewals for the trailers, or the movies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me go back into the Den of the Deep and haul out the original registrations. Meantime-

File:Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer 1.jpg IMDB. There's no notice on the trailer at IMDB, but the trailer there is is black and white; this screenshot and the others taken from the film are all in color. The film itself was renewed and colorized at some point. There was a situation like this with some Three Stooges shorts at Commmons. They were colorized and that case, Columbia let the non-colorized version lapse into PD while taking a new registration on the colorized ones. There, the older clips were PD but not the color ones. Since the trailer at IMDB is in b&w and not marked, could the screenshots be replaced with ones from the PD b&w trailer? We hope (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Type of Work: Motion Picture
• Registration Number / Date: RE0000103015 / 1981-10-13
• Renewal registration for: LP0000003269 / 1953-11-04
• Title: How to marry a millionaire.
• Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH)

TCM has another trailer-this one in color-they say is the original. I viewed that one also and saw no copyright notations on it either. We hope (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For To Have and Have Not page 13. Copyright L 13056 on January 20, 1945-so it appears this wasn't filed until after the film had premiered. We hope (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For Dark Passage page 48 Copyright LP1232 on September 27, 1947. And it looks like this went public before it was filed also. We hope (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what does that mean for the images you have already gone over? Which ones are ok to use? Does that mean that File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg needs to be removed? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to confirm that the two earlier films were available to the public before they were copyrighted. October 12, 1944. To Have and Have Not showing at a New York Theater. September 25, 1947 Dark Passage showing at a Connecticut theater 2 days before copyright was filed. I'd say this means they're in the public domain because we have proof that the film was "published" before copyright was filed. We hope (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent! Thank you so much. Only possible issue is the publicity shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me note all of this on the Commons files so nobody "trips" over what we discovered. Can do the remaining movie trailer there also because I watched that too and no copyright notice. If you think you can do something with this, I checked the renewals for 1974 and 1975--not renewed. Lantern has some copies of the magazine, but unfortunately not (yet) including 1947. All the copies I found of the publicity photo didn't have any information about where the photo came from or when. We hope (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant. What do you think, Lady Lotus? Colour magazine cover? One of the other images of Becall? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Am now asking about what the screenshot licenses should be changed to. I think it's an "improper notice" tag. Will be changing them and adding the links re: original registration and news clippings when I find out about the licensing. We hope (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll use whatever images I am able to use, it's hard to not like a photo a Bacall lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent. Just work it in, and we're pretty much golden except for that one trailer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's where I start earning my money. :) The How to Marry a Millionaire trailer was able to be seen at TCM (link above) and there's no copyright message. The one in black and white at IMDB has none either. Both have some different material in them; no idea why there's a b&w and color one. Have included the TCM link to all screen shots from "Millionaire", but have not yet heard what the licenses for the 2 older ones should be changed to. We hope (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Under the pre-1976 law, copyright began upon publication, provided that the appropriate notice was included. A work that was not published could be registered and that would also begin the copyright. Although there were certain benefits to registration, it was not required for initial copyright (the first 28 years), so the fact that the registrations in this case were after publication is irrelevant. see Copyright Basics, page 6 . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. So far, I can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot with one published in an old movie magazine and will look for one for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bogart and Bacall To Have and Have Not.jpg This can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot. We hope (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done

File:Bacall and Bogart Dark Passage.jpg This can be used for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done thank you so much! what about the image from "Millionaire", was that ok? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked the trailer and there's no copyright marks. Last night, I added the link where it can be viewed to all screenshots from the film, so that should be good to go. We hope (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

See if you like either of these File:Lauren Bacall Gary Cooper Bright Leaf.jpg or File:Lauren Bacall 1945.jpg to replace the publicity photo. I had no luck finding out where it came from or when. We hope (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ew I love the 1945 one, I just now replaced it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about File:Lauren Bacall - YankArmyWeekly detail.jpg ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's from an US Army publication--all those who produced the magazine were servicemen, so the license is right, and the AFRS is OK also because that was a US government entity. I think you're good to go! :) Nice that someone's going to be happy because I have to send all those older screenshots to deletion review and that's probably going to make some people unhappy. We hope (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I greatly appreciate all your help! And they'll just have to be unhappy, that's what happens when you upload something with a bad license. Thank you again :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, let's promote this! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:22, 22 September 2014 [10].

---

Jimi Hendrix discography

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list. It covers Hendrix's original recordings and is separate from the Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. It has been completely revised with the addition of new sections and many new sources within the last seven months. It is extensively referenced with inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies. Recommendations made during the peer review regarding the format have been incorporated and it has been thoroughly fact-checked. In the past, comments have been made about tendentious editing, ownership, and vandalism of Jimi Hendrix articles. However, they now seem to be stable—Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced have been promoted to Featured Articles and several others are nominated as GAs. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Question, would the Jimi Hendrix Interview Album count as a release??Coal town guy (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: No, it is not within the timeframe of this discography, because it was released posthumously. Long(er) answer: By definition, a discography is "a descriptive catalog of musical recordings". If the release doesn't include music, it usually isn't included. Biographers McDermott (1992), Roby (2002), and Shadwick (2002) don't list interview albums in their Hendrix discographies. Shapiro (1990) lists two under "Miscellaneous"—a BBC transcription LP (1976) and Jimi Hendrix: The Interview album (Rhino 1980s). Portions of interviews are included in the film See My Music Talking (1968) and several posthumous videos, along with musical performances. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wow, you did a great job on this one, I don't see any problems with it. It always feels a bit weird for me to just support without having any comments that have to be resolved, but that is the case here. Though I will ask you, why is a filmography included on this page, as it regards Hendrix' discography?--Music26/11 15:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be the accepted FL discography practice (see David Bowie discography, Led Zeppelin discography, Nirvana discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, The White Stripes discography, etc), unless there is enough for a separate videography (Madonna videography, Beyoncé videography, etc.). The proposed style guide doesn't address videos; under "What should not be included" it lists "Non-musical releases or works." Hendrix's appearances in the films are essentially limited to musical performances and are listed along with his published discographies. Since these predate videos, the term "Filmography" was used. Maybe rename it "Music performances in films" or similar? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be better, to avoid confusion with acting appearances.--Music26/11 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Renamed. Thanks for bringing it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

CommentSupport — This looks good and thorough, but I do have one query: I notice that you give two sources for the UK and US peak chart positions, however under the "other" peak positions, none of the footnotes you give has actually been referenced. I can't see that they are explicitly sourced elsewhere in the article. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

The references for the "Other" charts were listed in a subsection "Other charts" immediately below "Citations" and above "References".[11] However, I can see how they would be missed, so they are now in "Citations" (by using inline cites for the "Other" columns). Hope this makes it clearer without overburdening the citations. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the matter. The article seems very thorough and well referenced throughout - great work. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:11, 21 September 2014 [12].

---

Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states (illustrated, 1876)

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... The nominated list briefly discusses U.S. state coats of arms, distinctions between arms and seals, and some of the notable people involved with design (and some of the mistakes that were made). The authority and regulation of arms/seals are described. The illustrative center-point of the nomination are the restored full color illustrations from State Arms of the Union, by Henry Mitchell, published by Louis Prang in 1876. Sources indicate that only 20 copies of this book (of less than 10 pages) are reported to exist in libraries across the United States. The illustrations are matched with Bureau of Engraving and Printing proofs of the State arms. Godot13 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• I noticed the article's title has been changed; I would suggest just Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states, as the article is about the coats of arms in general, not just those specifically in the book.
• Heraldic, coat, and jousting in the first section should be lowercase, though most of that paragraph isn't exactly relevant. Reywas92^Talk 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reywas92- I've edited the paragraph to remove less relevant information (and correct the caps issues). I am concerned that removing the date from the title would create a scope far broader than intended. Thanks for your comments. They are, as always, appreciated.-Godot13 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Alrightly then, and I've already done my copyediting. Support. Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Many thanks Reywas92!-Godot13 (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Assorted comments. I don't spend much time at FLC so if anything is way off base just say so.

• Given both the length of the article, I would suggest expanding the lead
• The last sentence of Arms versus seal is not a complete sentence - corrected
• First sentence of design should not have mid-sentence caps, those aren't proper nouns in this context. There are several other instances of inappropriate capitalization - corrected, along with several others
• Why use DMY for a US topic? MDY is more common in the US - I agree, however I hope that this list will be part of a Featured Topic in the near future. Three other FLs I have written/contributed to (that would be in the same proposed topic) are all in the DMY format. Trying to be consistent.--Godot13 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Generally I think a bit more copyediting is in order - the prose could flow better and be clearer at times. The Instances... section in particular needs some massaging. See also "a similar copy of this book was described by the Antiquarian Booksellers Association described" and other issues
• Why do you have complete legal citations inline when all other citations are footnoted? - corrected
• Suggest using {{convert}} to translate measurements - done
• "20 copies exist in all libraries across the United States" - any non-US?
• Don't include links in See also that were already included in the article. - corrected Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria for the comments, I will work on it over the next few days. Could you clarify two things please: "Given both the length of the article," was there something else also? You suggest more copyediting in a particular section, but don't mention which... Thanks again.-Godot13 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I was going to mention the amount of "readable prose" (which differs from byte count), but then noticed that this article has proportionately more readable prose than most lists I see. The section in question is Instances of design inaccuracies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Edits in progress.--Godot13 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Nikkimaria- I think I've addressed most of your comments in italics above. I could not find any comprehensive library tools for searching outside the US so I'm not sure about that figure. I've done some copyediting and rewriting. I added two or three sentences to the lead (not enough?) If there are more specifics, or I haven't been clear above, please let me know. Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Hey Godot, I wonder if you could expand the second para of the lead a bit more? As to non-US holdings...I'm kind of torn. I realize that finding such holdings can be quite difficult; however, since Worldcat does show at least one non-US holding, I don't think we can just ignore the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Hi Nikkimaria- I tweaked the lead a bit, and removed the Worldcat fact/ref. I feel less confidant making statements about the entire world's library system and their holdings... And honestly, I don't even know what "20 copies" means (i.e., where does that rank in terms of scarce, rare, extremely rare, etc.)--Godot13 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Okay, that seems reasonable. The lead looks better now, thanks for your work on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus

A lot of my work is film related, but from what I could tell everything was very nicely sourced, the only things that I would mention is that maybe the images be the same size for consistency. One table's images are 125px and another table is 200px. Also, the names from the sentence "A few of those involved in the design of state arms and seals include (but is not limited to):" I would narrow down some of the names just so it doesn't borderline WP:LISTCRUFT. And then add alt text to File:Great Seal of Ohio actual view.jpg, after that, I support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus-I changed the image size as much as possible to be a uniform 200px, but I had to alter the Colonial Rhode Island size a bit so as not to throw off the spacing of the table. I re-enlarged the lead image only because at 220px the title was not clearly visible (there is some discretion over image size). Added the alt text, and reduced the list of state seal/arms contributors to the most historically notable. I hope these changes meet with your approval. Thank you again for reviewing this list.--Godot13 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Looks very nice, I just have one concern: If this is a US-related topic, why is the article using Day-Month-Year format when US standards are Month-Day-Year? I see Nikkimaria also asked this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Snuggums- Thanks for taking a look. I understand the concern and I tried to address it above in my response above. I have written/re-written three featured lists on U.S. currency and they each use the DMY format. It has always been my intention to create a featured topic on U.S. Banknotes. While not directly about currency, this list does include (for comparison) the engraved arms found on the reverse of the first three series of U.S. National Bank Notes. I would like to include it in the featured topic in the future and it is strongly encouraged that the formatting be consistent throughout. I am not saying that I absolutely opposed to changing this, but I fear it will create issues down the road. I hope that answers your question. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Understood. In that case, I support the nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Snuggums- You made my day, thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus for promotion has been reached. I did a little tweaking; please check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492-Tweaking seen and appreciated.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:10, 15 September 2014 [13].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richie Benaud

Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Former Australian captain, Richie Benaud, was one of the best cricket all-rounder of his time—the first to take 200 wickets and make 2,000 runs at Test level. He took 248 wickets in Test cricket, including five-wickets hauls on 16 different occasions. This list of the leg-spinner's fifers is constructed according to the FL criteria, so I'm nominating this here at FLC. Comments and suggestions appreciated, as always. Regards, —Zia Khan 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments qualify the fact that 41 bowlers have done it e.g. as of 2014 "Australia never lost any of the game whenever he took a five-wicket haul" Sounds awkward, consider reword "he took ten or more wickets..." Is this a repeat of the already mentioned career best performance? Cowlibob ([[Us er talk:Cowlibob|talk]]) 22:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob: fixed all. Thanks for the review! —Zia Khan 23:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Support All good now. Cowlibob (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! —Zia Khan 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Made some minor changes, mainly to mirror the Bob Willis FL. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, very well-sourced list, excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) Link cricket in the opening sentence Linked. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Add month alongside year (in as of 2014) as the year is not yet over Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "at an average of over 27". The sentence is unclear – 28 and 29 are above 27, and so on. Fixed. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Wisden naming him "one of their Cricketers of the Century". This is blunder. The list had just five cricketers and Benaud was just a panel member that elected the cricketers. No, there were 100 cricketers in the list and the top 5 were announced. Benaud was at 20 along with George Headley and Kapil Dev. Please have a look once more. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Not at all. Do some research. —Vensatry (ping) 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Removed. Khadar Khani (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "once described". I don't know why you aren't interested in having the year when it's clearly known. Added. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Link the first occurrence of run Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "first to take 200 wickets and make 2,000 runs at Test level" is clearly a fact. I don't know why you have included that in quotes. Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Benaud took his solitary pair of five-wicket hauls ..." The sentence just looks too long. Consider splitting it Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) A the should come before Corporation Stadium in FN #1. Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "he is thirty-first overall among all-time combined". With "overall" and "all-time" this looks too superfluous. Removed "overall". Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) The copyright status of the image is not very sure as the date of creation is unknown. The image has a "conflict of license" tag right now. So what's your suggestion? Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Get a copyright expert! —Vensatry (ping) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Changed the image. Khadar Khani (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: thanks for the comments! Khadar Khani (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:10, 15 September 2014 [14].

---

Iggy Azalea discography

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is fully comprehensive and is ready for the gold star. I will appreciate any comments/suggestions in order to help improving this list. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

* Comments Can an album have "three first singles"? "The first three singles..." sounds better. Fixed. Simon (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC) There are 15 videos in the music videos table, but only 11 mentioned in the lead and infobox. Fixed. Simon (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC) This is missing from the singles section. Added. Thanks for the information! Simon (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I don't think forum posts on the australian-charts.com website can be cited as a reliable source; I'd suggest replacing them with the actual ARIA pages themselves (found here; just cite the necessary issues by looking at the chart issue dates). I have replaced the "Work" reference, but still finding the "Black Widow" one. Anyway, your comments are really appreciated! Simon (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC) I have found a Pandora Archive source for "Black Widow". Simon (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Some addendum: Apparently "Impossible Is Nothing" was released as a digital single in Canada, so perhaps you may want to incorporate that in the article somewhere (won't go into any specifics regarding singles/promotional singles/whatever here, so feel free to do what you will). Holiday56 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Probably I'll add this to the "Promotional singles" section. Simon (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Other than that, looks good. Will support when my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great work! Holiday56 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WikiRedactor. Simon (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

;Comments from WikiRedactor The picture needs an alternate text description. Done. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The first line could be simplified as "Australian recording artist Iggy Azalea..." But I think that the old one is alright. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) When you mention Ignorant Art, it can just be considered her first mixtape, since labeling it her first record seems redundant. Reomved. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) It is worth noting the record-breaking success that "Fancy" has experienced on the Billboard Hot 100 (something like longest-running female rapper at #1). When you mention "Problem" later on, it is also worth commenting on the significance of Iggy holding the top-two positions of the Hot 100. Those are quite redundant for a discography list. That milestone can be mentioned in the song article itself. Simon (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of major concern here, and I trust that you will address my comments as needed, so I will give my support to this well-developed list. Nicely done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Have you considered moving the EP/mixtape sources to be next to the release dates instead of the titles? It makes it a little neater.

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Think about rounding the sales figure to the nearest thousand. Even though the bulk of sales in 2014 are digital and can be tallied directly, Nielsen SoundScan only tracks a sub-set of stores instead of all of them, so statistically this figure can't be 100% accurate (plus she's quite popular and it's a new album, so the figure will change frequently and that degree of accuracy is unlikely).

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• What regions do the release dates refer to? In other discographies, next to the date is often listed (US), (AU), (UK), etc.

• Done. Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Following the release, Azalea aligned herself with rapper T.I.,". I'm not sure what align means here. Could you clarify the sentence a bit? --Prosperosity (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Removed "align". Simon (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, Support. Good luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 1 September 2014 [15].

---

List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC), Bruce Campbell

Here it is, the largest film accolades list on Wikipedia. The list contains nearly 400 accolades. Bruce Campbell created and did much of the compiling of this list. To recognise that I've added him as a co-nominator. In terms of my contribution I've made the necessary adjustments to meet FLC. As always, look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• De link Washington D.C, MoS advises against linking big cities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support An excellent list, which covers a lot of award wins and nominations. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) I don't think the film being an adaptation of the novel is mentioned anywhere in the source and so is the producer. Added additional sources. Brad Pitt is the co-producer right? He was a producer according to the New York Times source. Ref #1 needs author Added author. WP:ALT doesn't encourage same text for "Alt" and caption. Changed alt text to something that's hopefully better. Would welcome a suggestion if not. Tweaked a bit. —Vensatry (ping) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: I've made the changes you suggested. Anything else you'd like to comment on? Cowlibob (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work! —Vensatry _(ping) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent list. Well done. Very well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support! Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 1 September 2014 [16].

---

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
CR4ZE (nominator), Rhain1999, Tezero, SNUGGUMS, Cowlibob, PresN
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
None

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria and comprehensively covers GTA V's many year-end accolades. I had a peer review open prior to this nomination that got no comments and went stale, so I can only assume that this list is good to go all the way. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Support as nominator. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also support, as a major contributor. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

It's close. My concerns are only stylistic/organizational:

• Keep consistent whether you link all instances of a publication or just the first one in the sources. For example, Metacritic uses the former style, and Destructoid the latter.
• I'm concerned about the allocation of information into the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the lead. Why is the Best Xbox Game accolade in the third paragraph but the Best British Game in the fifth? Why are some graphics/technical-related awards in the fifth and others in the fourth? I mean, maybe there's some hidden rationale I'm not seeing, but to me it looks kind of haphazard. Why not try an organizational style like this?

• First paragraph as normal: anticipation and release.
• Second paragraph as normal: reviews. (God, it sickens me to even look at this because I dislike Western open-world games and the general "we're so edgy and jackass-ish" GTA style so much, but whatever. Most people don't.)
• Third paragraph: All awards for the game in general, whether among all games or among all Xbox 360 or British games.
• Fourth paragraph: All awards for specific aspects of the product.

• "GameTrailers' Game of the Year Awards ... Top Three" - Ambiguous. Were they unable to decide beyond their three favorites, is it traditional that they only narrow it down to three, or did it only make it up to the top three before being knocked out? You might want to include a footnote to elaborate on which of the first two it is, or if it's the third, just say "3rd Place" or something. "Top Three" in that context makes me cringe like I do when my dad touts UIUC as having a "top 3" Computer Science program (he contrasts this with "just" having a Top 5 one) when it is unequivocally in third place.

Tezero (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Okay Tezero, I think I've taken care of everything. Take a look and bask in the glory of the world's greatest Western open world game. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like your attitude, so I'm oppo- Nah, just kidding. Support. Great job; maybe I should try this game sometime. (I actually have the GTA collection from Steam, although I've only played a couple hours each of GTAIV and San Andreas and haven't touched the rest. This one wasn't included.) Tezero (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• As if you weren't hooked after San Andreas. Go pick up GTA V when it finds its way into Steam's discount bin and I very much doubt you'll regret it. Thanks for the support. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment This looks like the first of its kind. So it's a great opportunity to create a prototype for others. My main issues are structure and some content changes. The lead In the intro first paragraph, include what the game is about briefly for laymen and keep when it was announced and the awards it won in anticipation. Second paragraph should be when the game was released, briefly sales of the games/records it broke etc. Gamerankings and Metacritic are review aggregators so the sentences about them should be something like: Gamerankings, a review aggregator, surveyed x number of reviews and assigned an average review score of.... No need for choice quotes Third paragraph should start something like Grand Theft Auto V received awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.... Then talk about how it did at major award ceremonies. Fourth paragraph should start with any other important to mention minor awards/nominations for aspects of the game or the game itself not included in the third para. This paragraph should finish with what end of year awards it won or generation awards. Also don't include community or general public awards as they're basically internet polls. Infobox wins and nominations --> awards and nominations include the number of each award won and nominations received at each award ceremony as a dropdown Main table Awards and nominations --> Accolades No need for title "List of ...." Instead of year have the date of the ceremony, have the award as simply the name of the awards rather than 5th or 20th. If an article exists for that years award link the date to it. Recipient --> Recipient(s) and Nominee(s) You can choose whether to alphabetise the list by the name of the award or to list it chronologically by date of ceremony Curate the list to ensure only reputable awards are listed so that the list is not a laundry list as per WP:LAUNDRY. That's my two cents. I know it seems like a lot to do but I'm only trying to make the list the best it can be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the review, and I know you're coming from a good place. There is plenty to get through here, which will take some time, so I'll ping you when I get everything done. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Again, I'll be looking at this in the near future, but I'm not sure how you want me to go about curating the list. The awards are taken from high-quality sources as identified by WP:VG/RS, or otherwise by other projects/ prior consensus (ie Tom Chick being notable enough for inclusion per his legacy in the field). This actually came up at the main article's FAC (before this table was split), where I used this source in context with the RS guidelines to include awards I thought would be reliable/ notable for inclusion. I think "reputable awards" is too vague, so I can only treat RS's as reputable enough, and in that case, the table is comprehensive. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) That was too vague. I've looked through and I think it's ok. It was Tom Chick which I questioned as I've never seen an individual's list being considered an award. If there has been prior consensus in WikiProject:Videogames to accept that than fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, I haven't seen consensus that his awards should be included in articles, just that he's a reliable source. This list, if passed, will be an unprecedented VG award list, so there's no strong case for his inclusion either way. I'm just as happy to remove his award than keep it. Your call. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer it not to be included. It's a minor thing though compared to all the other stuff. Look forward to seeing this list after the modifications. Cowlibob (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob: I think I've tended to your comments on the lead and infobox. Now, as for the main table, I've been working on my sandbox and the results are so far pretty ugly. I'm not great with tables, but is there some way I can increase the scope of the date column to stop it running onto a new line? CR4ZE (t • c) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Good work on the infobox. One thing why does ars technica have a different background colour? In terms of the lead, move the release dates to before the review aggregator stuff and the end of year/generation to end of fourth para so that it's chronological. I don't know how to stop it running maybe it would look better with awards as first column then date? Additional comments- for references make sure if it is a news/magazine source use cite news work= so it italicizes it. You shouldn't need to add your own italics. Cowlibob (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob:, I think I've covered everything. I moved release dates as you suggested, but I didn't reshuffle the other paragraphs. The end of year awards were handed out alongside all the other awards so I thought the way it was arranged was fine. I'm happy to hear thoughts to the contrary. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE:If it was same awards ceremony it's fine. Made a few fixes on ref formatting and changing some sources. Good Games most memorable moment according to the source was "Looking out over Los Santos as Trevor" not Friends reunited mission so please change that.

• I can now Support this list. Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Looking pretty good so far, here's my 2¢:

• "scheduled to be released in Q3/Q4 2014"..... just say late 2014 for simplicity sake
• "Two characters, Trevor Philips and Lamar Davis, received numerous nominations for Best Character, and Lamar won such an award from Giant Bomb"..... I think multiple nominations would be better, and try with Giant Bomb deeming Lamar the game's best character
• For some of the awards this didn't win, maybe include in the lead who the winners were.
• Metacritic should not be italicized (it's a website)
• IGN should not be italicized either (same reasons as Metacritic)
• Digital Spy should also not be italicized for previously stated reasons
• Publisher for The Daily Telegraph is Telegraph Media Group
• Game Revolution owner/publisher is Net Revolution
• Publisher for Wired (magazine) and Ars Technica is Advance Publications
• GameSpot and Giant Bomb are owned by CBS Interactive
• Publisher for The Escapist (magazine) is Defy Media
• Publisher for Entertainment Weekly and Time (magazine) is Time Inc.
• Publisher for Electronic Gaming Monthly is EGM Media
• I think you meant to link to Polygon (website), and publisher is Vox Media

Not much to do here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks SNUGGUMS, I've tended to everything here. Metacritic/IGN etc. are italicised by default because they're using the work= field. I'm not aware of any policy that says they can't be italicised, and I'd rather keep it consistent with other video game websites like Polygon and Edge, which are normally italicised. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• My pleasure. I now support this for FL. For the record, a way to un-italicize terms would be by putting them in "publisher field". For example: "publisher=Digital Spy. Hearst Corporation". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from PresN

• "the Spike VGX"? Shouldn't that be "the Spike VGX Awards"?
• Link Inside Gaming Awards, since you do in the table
• The Platinum PlayStation Award is given out by Sony entirely based on sales- it's like an album being certified Platinum, except it's only for PlayStation games. Your call if you want to mention that.
• "from Spike VGX" - well, you dropped the "the" this time, so be consistent
• When sorting by result, some of the places (fourth, fifth, eighth) are sorting below nominated
• Yeah... you can't just link the first instance of a term in a sortable table. You will need to link each instance of Spike VGX 2013, etc. - the one you linked may or may not be first in the table anymore once you sort on a column.
• You have the award for "GamesRadar's Game of the year 2013" down as "Game of the YEar"
• Sorting for recipient is messed up- the songs are sorting by ", and names are sorting by first name instead of last. To solve: put the songs down as {{sort|song name|"song name"}} and the people down as {{sortname|first|last|optional article title if different}}
• If a source doesn't have a specific author you leave the field out, rather than putting "GameSpot staff" or "Staff" etc. - it's taken as given.
• Snuggums missed one - GamesRadar is published by Future plc
• Slant Magazine, as an online magazine, should be italicized in references- stick in "work=".

--PresN 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• @PresN:, I think I've taken care of everything. Please take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 17:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cowlibob/PresN, I think I've tended to most of your points but I'll be back later to do more. Let me know if there's any problems with my changes insofar. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero

• 18. Canada.com should be linked in the source
• 23./67. Same with Edge

Spotchecks:

• 9. good, but you could probably get as specific as $817 million
• 17. good
• 20. good
• 13. good

Tezero (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• All done. Canada.com redirects to Postmedia News, which is already linked in the publisher field. Do you think it needs linking anyway? CR4ZE (t • c) 08:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Tezero: I know you're probably busy playing the world's greatest sandbox game, but please look at my changes when you have a moment. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hadn't noticed that about Postmedia; that's fine. Continue to support; source review passes. And yes, I've had a great time with Terraria; thanks for asking! :D Tezero (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:12, 1 September 2014 [17].

---

List of Bleach video games

Nominator(s): Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. The issues from DragonZero's peer review has been resolved. Thank you for your time and patience. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC))

Resolved comments

Comment by an IP, just read from /* Bleach: Blade Battlers */ to /* Bleach: Soul Carniva */ There should no <br> tag between {{vgrelease}}, see template's document. You might notice, but in Bleach: Blade Battlers (Bleach~ブレイド・バトラーズ~), "~" should be "〜". (Japanese have two kinds of wave line "〜" and "～") "Released under The Best label on October 18, 2007 in Japan" - should be Oct. 25, and source is another game's official page. "Includes 36 playable characters" - where is it in source? "Bleach Wii　白刃きらめく輪舞曲（ロンド）" - "（ロンド）" seems not a part of Japanese title, I didn't find "Rondo" in your source page (except web's HTML title) and Sega's official page. "[Bleach: Heat the Soul 2 was r]eleased under The Best label on November 23, 2006 in Japan" - Ref 38 said its released is Nov. 30, is there some reasons for wrote it in a week ago? PlayStation Store release of Bleach: Heat the Soul 6 is just for 2010's "the best" title, also wrote as 2009 is good? Do not differentiate Bleach: Soul Carnival and it's best version like above titles? --222.82.228.174 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Hi there. I solved most of the issues! Also, I removed a line for "36 playable characters" cause I couldn't find an appropriate source. Cheers! (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC))

    Thanks for your contribution!--222.82.228.174 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. It's been awhile since I've been around here! Give me a ping on my talk page once these issues have been addressed and I'll revisit this page. I might miss it on my watchlist. The "developed by" and "published by" parts inside the templates should be consistent across all of the games instead of using a different style for each release. The link for ref 53 is dead [18] [19] The spacing at the beginning of each sub-heading seems rather large and awkward; this should be fixed. The source Blade Battlers 2nd just says that you can play with four players, not that there's a versus mode. Is there another source that specifies this? For ref 63, the source specifies that "the initial shipment" came with the three episodes, not all of the releases. It should be clarified. That's all I have for now. Great work on this. Nomader (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Hi again mate! I fixed all stated issues. I replaced some sources and added a new ones. Also, I checked all links and they all work fine now. Cheers! (Nightwolf87 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

• Support. Great work, Nightwolf! My comments have all been addressed. I hope you keep on writing these video game FLs! Nomader (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PresN 22:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments "localized the first Wii game, and the first three Nintendo DS games" - no comma Use the full name of Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, otherwise it looks strange that you're capitalizing it. Don't link Wi-Fi Connection in Bleach: Dark Souls, since you linked it in the game before It's a bit strange to say that Bleach DS is a series of fighting games when only 2 of the 4 are fighting games. I'd just say it's a series of games by Treasure Co. Ltd, and list the game type for the first two like you do the second two Italicize all of Bleach Nintendo Home Console in its header (and the title of the linked article is horrendous, why are there parentheses?) In Bleach: Heat the Soul 5, I don't see why the presence of a teaser clip is the first (and therefore most important) detail about the game From here on down- when you have multiple releases in different years, put a <br> between each release, not a comma In Bleach: Soul Carnival 2, italicize Bleach: Heat the Soul 6, but better yet just drop it- you already mentioned this in Heat the Soul 6 and you don't have a backlink like this in Soul Carnival 1. In both Heat the Soul 6 and Soul Carnival 2, why do you say (Japanese version)? There aren't any other versions. In the "single releases" section, say what type of game each one is Same with "other games" You can't use GameSpot game pages as references for release dates- they share the database with GameFAQs, which is user editable. It's a pain. This is references 6, 10, 13, 24, 31, 44, 68, 72, and 76 Your Nintendo GameCube, PlayStation Store, Aspect, and Namco Bandai Games links are redirecting (the last because its name is Bandai Namco worldwide since January) --PresN 20:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your time, mate. I have done everything you suggested except renaming article - Bleach (Nintendo home consoles series). Cheers, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC))

Support, good job. My only remaining comment would be that I would have preferred if the template format was the one used in List of Mystery Dungeon video games, since the one you used puts more emphasis on which systems the games came out for even though most of them only came out for one, but that's well outside the scope of an FLC review since it's an aesthetic judgement and the one you used works just fine. Just something to consider if you make another list like this in the future. --PresN

Just chipping in here to say that when I put those templates in at the time the List was being based off List of One Piece video games and List of Harvest Moon video games. Both of which were fairly new Featured Lists at the time. The template you showed had only just recently been created and due to the focus of that template appearing to be on the release dates in different regions and with PAL being combined as one instead of separated into it's own regions (as seen in EU and AUS in the list with differing release dates), as a result I decided to stick with the ones currently in place. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support after a few small edits to the lead. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support this nomination given I was the nominator from the previous archive. Nightwolf you've done an amazing job updating the article with new games, fixing all the templates and bringing the article up to the current guidelines and cleaning up the references. I'm so happy to finally see this list looking like it'll reach featured status, it was really disheartening to get only one support back then, and since, life has happened. I have two points of recommendation though, it may be worth mentioning that certain online surfaces have been discontinued, such as in the Heat the Soul games and those that require the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, which was discontinued earlier this year (I know all Pokemon games were affected, I assume Bleach was the same) I'd do this in the same line as the online mobility was announced something along the line of "Multiplayer functionality was available, however as of <date> have been discontinued.". I also feel that any pre-order purchase goods should be mentioned if a reference can be found. I noticed the one for the Kon 'purse' I put up the website died, but for Bleach GC: Tasogare ni Mamieru Shinigami I know there was a Gamecube skin released in the reference used. I'd also like to point out that the mentioning of specific character counts is odd for me. I'm not sure if that was me, you or someone else, I initially only did this for the Jump games since they were not set within the Bleach universe. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightlowemon: I'd say that, given all the work Nightwolf has done since the last nomination (five years ago!), there shouldn't be any problem with you supporting. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightlowemon: Hi mate and thank you for stopping by. Well, its your choice to support or not :) I must also give you the credits if this list pass because you were a first nominator and things that you have done are still visible. As you suggested, I added notes about termination of online services for Nintendo Wi-Fi and Heat the Soul series. Cheers (Nightwolf87 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC))

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:13, 8 September 2014 [20].

---

List of heads of government of Russia

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A list of heads of government of Russia. Tomcat (7) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Too many redlinks. One assumes the head of government of Russia is sufficiently notable that everyone in it should have an article.
    • If I get the time I will create them. Articles about Russian politics before 1917 are underexposed in enwiki, but I try to do the best to create at least stubs
      • Thanks
  • Why so few pictures during the Soviet era?
    • There are several reasons, one is the traditional copyright issues
      • Perhaps, but three random ones I picked from the Soviet era all had photos in their own articles. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The pictures are non-free, so they should be used sparsely in articles--Tomcat (7) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
          • If they qualify to go in the individual articles, it seems that they qualify for the list article. They aren't being used under fair use, presumably, since none of the articles are about the pictures. But I admit to not being an image copyright expert. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Delegate comment: No, inclusion in another article does not give an image a "free pass" to be used in a list. There is a need for contextual significance for all non-free images. @Crisco 1492: will be able to clarify or correct on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Russian Soviet Republic" is a term used several times in this article, yet so far as I can tell is not in common usage. It redirects to the article on the Russian SFSR, where the phrase "Russian Soviet Republic" never appears.
    • Changed to Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR)
      • Thanks
  • I don't think we should rely on a line in the intro to explain the date change; they should be specified by stating which states are old style. Likewise, the treatment of old style dates in the intro can be improved.
    • I added in-line clarifications.--Tomcat (7) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are there gaps from 1801 to 1810, and 1917 to 1923? Just because these gaps might be explained in the intro, there still needs to be in-line explanations about them. Don't expect the user to have to jump back and forth within the table.
    • How about now.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why include a political party column in the first table? This might make sense if it was actually linked to the other tables, but it's not, so the column goes entirely unused.
    • Because it will look too odd and small. I would keep it consistent. Secondly, the Russian Provisional Republic was a temporary republic which chronologically neither belongs to the Russian Empire, nor the Soviet Union
      • Except it's not consistent; none of the earlier tables have a Cabinet column. I would say remove unused columns, or combine everything into one table. There's no need to create a false consistency.
        • See below.
  • Inconsistent date styles, for example in the 'Cabinet' column for Silayev.
    • Overlooked that
      • Thanks
  • Why are some acting?
    • The answer would be the same as for all acting politicians. Acting politicians come to office after a tragic event, after resignation, etc. Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov was acting after the assassination of Stolypin
      • In the lists of U.S. governors I've made, I made sure to be very clear why a position changed hands, if not through normal electoral means. So if someone was acting, the list should inform us if it was because the previous person resigned, or died, or what not. This should not just be a simple list of the people who held the office; it must also educate the reader as to how they came to occupy it.
        • Added notes. Not sure why Kokovtsov became acting on 2 September 1911, probably ten assassination attempts of Stolypin by socialists was the reason to change the chairman. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about scope. The Russian Empire, Russian Federation, and Russian Republic were independent countries, as was the Russian SFSR for five years. But then it became part of a larger country, and thus its head of government was not analogous to the head of government of a country. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Please clarify what you exactly mean. Especially the last sentence is not quite understandable. But I try to answer of what I understood. This article does not list secretaries of the Soviet Union, we have a separate article. The Russian SFSR with the future Soviet Union is the successor state of the Russian Empire, as is the Russian Federation of RSFSR.
      • I mean... the Russian SFSR was not an independent country. So its head of government had a much different definition than that of a country. Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR or the Russian Federation? My point is, you're jumping between independent nation and subunit. I know the Russian Federation was the successor state to the Soviet Union but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying, the offices are not analogous. One is the head of government of a country, one is the head of government a part of a country. No one would combine a governor and president into the same list with a U.S. state, even though they're both chief executives of their respective areas. However, I don't think this is quite a huge issue. After all, the only solution would be to split it out, which I might recommend, but there are enough other issues with the list that that can be tabled for now. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "Did the head of government of the Soviet Union have different responsibilities than the head of government of the Russian SFSR" - probably yes; since Rykov the chairmen of USSR and RSFSR varied. Lenin, Rykov, Molotov, Stalin, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Tikhonov, Ryzhkov, Pavlov and Silayev. [21] lists heads of government of RSFSR as Russian heads of government.--Tomcat (7) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm withdrawing this objection. The offices are not purely analogous, but the only other option is to split out the list. And, this isn't a list of prime ministers of Russia, or or chief ministers... it's a list of the heads of government of Russia, which means it's less concerned about the actual office or title. I mean, heck, the office of Prime Minister of Russia probably has less in common with being a member of the Supreme Privy Council than the office of chairman of the RSFSR had to do with the head of government of the Soviet Union, yet they still belong on this list. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• A new one to add: There's a difference between "Independent" (like Zubkov) and "No parties" (like in the imperial era). All the more reason to remove party from the imperial era, and be specific what a dash means in the modern era, perhaps simply replacing it with "Independent". --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed the column. I think the dash should stay, as it may confuse the reader.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying remove the dash, I'm saying replace it with either "Independent" or "No parties". --Golbez (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I know, but I changed it anyway. --Tomcat (7) 10:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Did I miss something, or why has the review become staled? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope, switching to support. Oh, one more thing - the left color bar by Chernomyrdin's acting term isn't the right color. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I changed the colour. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The list itself looks OK, although Kerensky's resignation date is wrong and there is no explanation for the additonal column 'Cabinet' for later governments, but the lead is badly written, and in parts I find it incomprehensible.

• "Since its official commencement, around 57 people had governed the Russian government, one of the country's highest organs, which is composed of ministries, such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Culture." "had governed the Russian government" does not make sense and "one of the country's highest organs" is superfluous. Perhaps "Approximately 57 people have been head of the Russian government since its establishment in 1726. The government is composed of ministries such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture."
  • Fixed the date. Reworded the sentence
• "The virtual chairman of government was a member of the Supreme Privy Council" What is a virtual chairman and what is the difference between the government and the Supreme Privy Council as according the table below they were the same.
  • Changed to factual
    • "The factual chairman of government" I still do not understand what a factual chairman is. Why not just "The chairman of government"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done
• It would be better to settle on one date format with an explanation in a note rather than showing both as e.g. 8 (20).
  • I don't agree, as it would be confusing, especially when using one style. Will resume later.--Tomcat (7) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• "created on 8 (19) February 1726 by Empress Catherine, but usual ministry duties were implemented into the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802 in accordance with the manifest of Emperor Alexander II." This is worded as if duties were 'implemented' in 1726 into a body which was not created until 1802. What do 'implemented into' and 'manifest' mean? Perhaps created 1726, but from 1802 ministerial duties were delegated to a Committee of Ministers.
  • They were introduced in 1802, but the office was created in 1726. In several sources the document is called "manifest". Changed implemented to introduced.
    • "but usual ministry duties were introduced in the Committee of Ministers, which was established on 8 (20) September 1802" This still does not sound right. Suggest "and from 8 (20) September 1802 ministerial duties were allocated by the Committee of Ministers" Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Done
• the word 'count' as part of title should be capitalised.
  • Done. It was changed by a copyeditor, so I thought it was correct.
• "Eight years since the inauguration of the manifest" What does this mean? Eight years after?
  • Done.
• Entity is an odd word in this context. Body would be better.
  • Done.
• "The Council of Ministers consisted of chairmen of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers" What these bodies were and their relation to the government is not explained.
  • I did not include that as it would be off-topic. --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after insufficient number of files" I do not understand this.
  • Reworded, added English source.
    • "The first session ended on 11 (23) December 1882, after the number of files to the Council greatly decreased." I still do not understand. Why is the ending of one of the sessions worth mentioning in the lead? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The source at the end of the sentence says "From 1863 the number of files received by the Council significantly reduced, it assembled more and more rarely, and after December 11 (23), 1882 its sessions stopped to take place." It means that the Council became stagnant, so another session was opened. I think it is important to mention the two sessions.--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• "the liquidation of the committee" Were they murdered? If not, abolition would be a better word.
  • Done.
• "the two Minister-Chairmen became Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party" This is ungrammatical. Perhaps "Georgy Lvov from the Constitutional Democratic Party and Alexander Kerensky from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party became joint Minister-Chairmen."
  • Done.
• " Latter entity took the previous name "Council of Ministers" This is ungrammatical.
  • I changed to "The latter".
• "and non-partisans and acting office holders followed next." What does this mean?
  • Reworded.
• " Since 8 May 2012, Dmitry Medvedev governs the office." Governs the office does not sound right. Perhaps "Dmitry Medvedev has been the prime minister since 8 May 2012."

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, but avoided the formulation prime minister--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is now better but I still have a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - My concerns from the last FLC were addressed, with the exception of the optional one- well over half of the wikilinks are redirecting to alternate spellings or with/without the middle name. Remaining concern is that you don't list a publisher/work for your rusempire.ru cites. Additionally, if you insert "deadurl=no" into an archived citation, the main link changes to the live page, not the archived one. --PresN 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - on pose. Good work! Khadar Khani (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we do something with the two one-sentence paragraphs? Looks unprofessional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I added a hatnote and removed the definition of a government.--Tomcat (7) 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:19, 8 September 2014 [22].

---

59th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1987 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments –

• Winners and nominees: Paul Newman's character was Fast Eddie Felson, not Nelson.
• Presenters and Performers: Last word of this heading should be decapitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Done: I fixed both errors mentioned above.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments Combine the Marlee Matlin sentences together. e.g. "...was the first deaf performer to win an Oscar as well as the youngest winner in ..." Also the attached Chicago tribune source doesn't support this, from what I read all it says is that she is deaf and was nominated. Nothing about winning or being the first or the youngest. Paul Newman needs a link at the first mention. Link his sentences together. "same character in two different films, having previously earned a nomination..." Ratings don't match the source. 37.19 million is what I see in the source. Replace this in the infobox and the article text. "The following individuals presented awards for performed musical numbers" I think you mean or. Presenters of the award for Best Animated Short Film Is Sing Me the Song not from a film? or was it just the introductory thing talked about in the article? Despite the Chase --> Despite Chase In the review section I would avoid terms like complained, lamented and bemoaned. Try to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content. Cowlibob (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC) @Cowlibob:*Done:I fixed everything you mentioned above. The Bernadette Peters intro song is mentioned in the article so I changed it to "Sang introdcutions..." as generic role. Changed Matlin references to books (an I'm sure the Illinois book is credible). --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support With all that taken care of, great list. If you want non-book sources for the Marlee Matlin facts: you could use these: youngest [[23]], first deaf [[24]]. Another minor thing, the article is tagged as having a citation with an accessdate but no url, look through your references to find the culprit.

Cowlibob (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Nicely done, once again.--Jagarin 18:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support: I don't have any major concerns. Well done as usual. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:20, 15 September 2014 [25].

---

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well illustrated, referenced and comprehensive list of the properties of English Heritage in the English county of Somerset. The format is based on the recently promoted List of National Trust properties in Somerset. — Rod ^talk 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - Nominator will have no internet access from 29 July to 10 Aug.— Rod ^talk 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PresN 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

:*The below comments are the regular review, but I'm now strong opposing. I thought some of the phrases were phrased oddly, so I googled them, and found that you lifted them verbatim off of http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk - for example, Muchelney Abbey has the exact phrase "with well-preserved architectural features including external stonework and inside a great chamber with ornate fireplace, carved settle and stained glass, and timber roof", as you do in this list. That site's page was last update in 2011, while you wrote this list in June. That site says their text is copyright CC-by-nc-nd, which means to use it you have to attribute it to the site, you can't change anything, and you can't use it for commercial purposes- none of which are true here. As it stands, it looks like a good chunk of this list is a copyright violation. --PresN 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC) I will look at the specific comments below asap but I strongly refute the acusation of plagiarism. I have never looked at the photographers resource. I used the text in the wp articles (most of which I'd written or added to) The specific text about Muchelney Abbey was added to the wp article in 2006 (diff) - they took it from wp rather than the other way around.— Rod talk 19:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC) I apologize profusely for posting before looking deeper and for accusing you of plagiarism; you are correct that it was only that WP article prior to that site existing. --PresN 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Edit Conflict: I actually strong opposed this as a copyvio due to some phrases being lifted from [www.photographers-resource.co.uk], but it appears that the phrase I looked for you had written almost 6 years ago in Muchelney Abbey itself. You should probably note on the talk page of the list that that site is copying WP phrases without attribution, and maybe let them know that that's not actually allowed, since they're claiming it as their own. The phrase I looked for was "and inside a great chamber with ornate fireplace, carved settle and stained glass, and timber roof"- if you google that the photographers-resource page for the abbey is one of the first hits. OK apology accepted. I can certainly add the "copied-multi" template saying that some of the text in the descriptions is taken from the various wp articles, but I have seen other similar lists which use text (often from the lead) of the articles clearly linked to in the list and this has been accepted as sufficient attribution.— Rod talk 19:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC) No, that's fine, I meant something that notes that photographers-resource had copied text from WP, and the list had not copied from them. It's fine if you don't want to. --PresN 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC) I've added the copied template (still a slight problem with formatting). This discussion will be linked from the talk page so people can see it, however just about every wp page has been copied by another (often many) web sites, so I'm not sure a special note is needed - but if you'd like to add it fine by me.— Rod talk 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Comments "to the most recent Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument" - unless there were prior Sir Bevil Grenville's Monuments, the name should be set off by commas Commas added.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) You capitalize Scheduled Monuments at the end of paragraph 3, but didn't a few sentences prior in the paragraph when you linked the term I've made monument lower case but I would welcome advice as it could be considered a "special term" as the official name of these sites.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "on the edge of the village possibly in 1825, however a drawing" - either replace however with "though" or make it "; however," Changed to though.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "two phases: the inner court was constructed between 1377 and 1383 by Sir Thomas Hungerford" - and... what was the second phase? If you're not trying to list the phases, replace the colon with a semicolon. I've removed the "two phases". There was an original manor house before the castle but there were in fact several stages of construction and change so this is just confusing the issue.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "in 1642, the castle, was held by Sir Edward Hungerford" - drop the comma after castle. Changed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "In the 1915" - no the Removed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "and timber roof" - "a" timber roof Added.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "On his execution in 1552 it reverted to The Crown" - no need to capitalize the the Changed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "It is an example of the Severn-Cotswold tomb" - of "a" Severn-Cotswold tomb Changed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "The barrow is about 30 metres (98 ft) in length... at the south-east end, it stands nearly 3 metres (10 ft) high" - semicolon before it instead of a comma Changed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "The Tribunal in Glastonbury, was built" - no comma Removed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "Around 1600 George Luttrell, of the Luttrell family constructed" - no comma Removed.— Rod talk 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) The Abbot's Fish House, Meare is sorting under "The" when you sort the name column; fix it by replacing the name with {{sort|Abbot's Fish House, Meare|The Abbot's Fish House, Meare}} Thanks for the advice here - I think it has worked.— Rod talk 20:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC) c. 1590 for Yarn Market isn't sorting correctly when you sort on Constructed, unlike the other circas Hopefully sorted.— Rod talk 20:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Redirecting links that seem odd: British Government (piped to Her Majesty's Government), scheduled ancient monuments (piped to scheduled ancient monument), listed buildings (piped to Listed building (United Kingdom), JMW Turner, Royalist (piped to Cavaliers), Tudor (piped to Tudor Style architecture), architectural, Hundred Years War Hopefully dealt with these apart from architectural which seems OK to me.— Rod talk 21:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Consider archiving your online references via a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content in the future don't affect your citations --PresN 19:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for all your comments which have definately helped to improve the article. If there are other issues please let me know.— Rod talk 21:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Support --PresN 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "It has a broad remit of managing the historic environment of England and advises the relevant Secretary of State on policy and in individual cases such as registering listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. " This sentence seems to get lost in the middle. Presumably EH advises on policy and acts executively on listing, but this is not clear.

• EH advises both on policy and individual cases. It has no power to list buildings it is the secretary of state that does this (although EH advises and then records the decision). I've added "both" is this clearer?— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Cleeve - could conventual be linked?

• I'm not sure what to link it to. Have changed to ancillary buildings - as these were accommodation and refectory buildings etc.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dunster. "The base and shaft which probably date from the 15th century remain, however the head of the cross has been lost." This does not sound grammatically correct to me - maybe change "however" to "but" (or semi-colon after "remain"). I would also put a comma after shaft and century.

• Changed to "but" and commas added.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Farleigh. I suggest linking anthropomorphic

• Linked to Anthropomorphism.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The Gallox Bridge in Dunster dates from the 15th century. In the 14th century it was known as Doddebrigge." Known before it existed?

• The site with a previous crossing was known... Changed - is this better?— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Stanton Drew. A bit curious to say the Cove is 1000 years older than the circles without giving the age of either. I think this is vital information.

• I agree this would be really nice to know but none of the sources I have looked at are specific about dates. Neolithic is the term generally used. This BBC report and this from the local council based on this study give the 1,000 year figure.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This report p. 63 says "The three stone circles at Stanton Drew are thought to have been constructed during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age between 3000 and 2000 BC."

• Thanks. Although I'd included that report I'd not spotted that date. Now added.— Rod ^talk 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Stoney Littleton. As above. Presumably the bones have been carbon dated?

• Again Neolithic sems to be as accurate as we get.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Tribunal. "Iron Age possessions" I think artefacts would be a better word.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yarn. "It is in the guardianship of English Heritage but is managed by the National Trust." I am not sure what guardianship means here. Does EH own it?

• I think the nation owns it & I am also unsure exactly what the relationship between EH and NT is.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• A first class list. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support – A most impressive piece of work. The layout, the map and the images are a pleasure to look at, and the prose in the lead and the table is equally pleasing. One tiny quibble: in the refs to printed books the location of the publisher is sometimes given and sometimes not – e.g. refs 51 and 52. I think this should be tidied up before the page is promoted, as it certainly deserves to be, IMO. – Tim riley talk 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've removed a couple of "place of publication" for consistency. In the case of Ref 52 "Nempnett Books" is the name of the publisher.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:21, 15 September 2014 [26].

---

List of cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This list covers all of the cruisers built by Germany, from the early 1880s to 1945, and spanning three navies. This list is the capstone for this monster Good Topic. This list is based heavily on the sub-lists it summarizes, and it was reviewed at MILHIST's A-class review process in May (see here). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• no dablinksY
• checklinks okY
• alt text is needed for all images
• reflinks okY
• redir checker okY
• no copyvios according to earwigY
• no overlinkingY
• dashes are okY
• while redlinks are obviously acceptable on a work in progress like WP, I have been chipped for them in FLs myself, and think there are a total of nine redlinked guns, as well as the "list of avisos" redlink. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide if that is too many redlinks for a list of this size, but I'd suggest creating the gun articles, even if they are stubs.
• no citation for the propulsion for Mainz
  • Oops, good catch.
• not clear why some terms are linked in some cells of tables, and others are not. The types of engines in the light cruisers section, for example. I suggest that these are terms people are familiar with, and don't need linking. But given they are not sortable tables, if you are going to link, just link the first mention in each table.
  • I doubt most readers know what a steam turbine is - I always link engine types on first use. There was some overlinking in some of the tables, but I've removed those now.
• "were intended to break Versailles" needs rewording, "were intended to break the Versailles restrictions"? Perhaps a little more explanation?
  • See how it reads now.
• I'm unsure of whether the tables meet accessibility requirements, but will also leave that for the moderators or reviewers with better knowledge of what that looks like.
  • I'd assume they're fine - I cribbed them from the already-FL sublists.
• given the long reference list, I suggest you use the refbegin and refend templates to reduce text size
  • Fair enough
• I don't think you need ISBN and OCLC for Conway's 1922-46, Gröner, Halpern, Staff or Tarrant, one book identifier is all that is needed.
  • Good point
• Lenton German Warships of the Second World War (1975) pp. 65–66 mentions three "scout cruisers" Sp.1-3. Only one was laid down, and the other two cancelled, but I think they should be included for completeness? The rationale for their design is described in some detail on p. 29, they were originally planned as 1936A (Mob) destroyers Z.40–42.
  • They're really more like large destroyers -and Groener and Conway's include them with the destroyers, not the cruisers, so I followed their lead.
• Lenton (p. 55) states Emden (the latter one) was scuttled Heikendorfer Bight 3 May 1945 after being bombed by RAF Kiel 14 April 1945
• Lenton (p. 57) states Karlsruhe sunk 10 April 1940 (by HMS Truant), Köln bombed by USAAF Wilhemshaven 30 March 1945 and scrapped 1946, Königsberg bombed RN aircraft Bergen 10 January 1940, salved 1943, capsized 22 September 1944 and abandoned
• Lenton (p. 58) states Leipzig scuttled southwest of Lister 20 July 1946
• Lenton (p. 60) states Admiral Hipper scrapped 1946
• Lenton (p. 64) states Prinz Eugen expended as target Kwajalein 15 November 1947, and Seydlitz scuttled incomplete Königsberg 10 April 1945, salved as Russian Poltava, construction abandoned 1950, also Lützow sold to Russians 1940, completion abandoned May 1941, bombed German aircraft Leningrad April 1942, floating battery Tallin 1942, Petropavlovsk 1944, construction abandoned 1950
  • I don't know what you want me to do with the several points above - this info (though from other sources) is present in all of the individual ship articles and in the relevant sublists, but it seems all too detailed to be in this one. And there are several errors: in the case of Karlsruhe, Lenton is wrong - it was the 9th, not the 10th, Koenigsberg was sunk on 10 April, not 10 January (and was raised in Jan. 1942, not 1943), etc.
• Lenton (p. 65) states light cruisers "M", "N" and "O" were scrapped on slip 1941–43, last three cancelled.
  • According to Groener, O was never laid down and the other two were broken up in 1939 after the start of the war.
• Lenton (pp. 381–384) lists 11 auxiliary cruisers, including the Kormoran that famously accounted for the HMAS Sydney (D48) in a battle of mutual destruction. They were Orion, Atlantis, Pinguin, Widder, Thor, Stier, Komet, Kormoran, Michel, Coronel, and Hansa. If they are not to be included in this list, it needs to be explained in the lead in terms of defining the scope.
  • Those are only the WWII raiders - they are nonetheless not proper cruisers, which is to say they're not purpose-built warships. I've added a note explaining that.

That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure, I am happy all my points have been covered/addressed except the alt text on the images. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked that - I've added some, but don't really know what's helpful and what's not. Let me know if anything needs work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, supporting now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph comments

• The first sentence has about twice as many words as it needs to be.
• Why start these sorts of sentences with the dates? "By the 1910s, the protected and unprotected cruisers had been withdrawn from active service, though some continued on in secondary roles."
  • Moved to the end of the sentence
• "Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action during World War I in all of the major theaters of the conflict, ..." Again, too wordy. "Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action in the major theaters of World War I ..."
  • Good suggestion
• "The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to surrender most of its remaining vessels and to retain only six old pre-dreadnought battleships and six old light cruisers on active duty." "to ... to", etc
  • See how it reads now.
• You're using "most" and "many" a lot
  • Switched one of the "most"s to "the majority"
• "twenty years of age" is stilted. Why not "after twenty years of service"?
  • Well, the 20-year timer started at the launching, not the commissioning, so counting years of service isn't accurate.
• "It began with the first new light cruiser, Emden, in 1921 ..." began and first are redundant
  • Removed the "first"
• "Mid-1935s" ... really?
  • That's embarrassing :(
• Are the naval name changes needed in the lead?
  • I figured it was worth noting
• "... and cancelled before the end of the year following the outbreak of World War II." why "and"? Shouldn't you be using "but"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Support! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• development of ships suited to each task wouldn't "optimized" be better than "suited"?
  • Sounds fine to me
• Link mine
  • Added
• Add a bit about the FK design studies.
  • Added a line on them
• after sustaining two nuclear detonations howabout "enduring" rather than "sustaining"? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 comments
• Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action in all of the major theaters of World War I - so at least 51% of the cruisers saw action in 100% of the theaters (i.e. each ship never missed a theater), or ...?
  • See how it reads now.
• only two survived the war intact. - what does "intact" add here? We could probably lose it
  • Sounds fine to me
• Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903, - article is at Venezuela crisis of 1902–1903. Which is the correct capitalization?
  • Apparently lower case, though I'll point out that the article was moved there just a couple of weeks ago.
• Otherwise nothing to pick at. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.