Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2019

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Indian Nobel laureates

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

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

Comments

• These links should be fixed.
• You need to mention somewhere in the first para that the awards are given by the Swedish and Norwegian institutions.
• Make sure all the images have alt text.
• Most of the links are not properly formatted. Provide the title and the publisher.

Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Publisher added in all links and access date updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Geir Lundestad quote on Gandhi seems redundant to me. You can simplify in a sentence.

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

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Alt texts for the table entries were kept as such but !scope is used in the table to provide blue links to the corresponding articles. Also I've added empty alt fields per MOS. Thanks The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• All tables need scope rows and scope cols. You're good on scope rows in the first table
• I think the lead image of Tagore should be replaced with a regular infobox but that's just my opinion. You can wait to see what other editors say about it.
• All images need alt text
• Care if I center the year column?
• Use plainrowheaders in the tables
• If it was jointly awarded to Malala in 2014 shouldn't she be in the table?

• Quick correction, I meant shouldn't her image be in the table together with Satyarthi? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That would again be redundant since the article is specifically about Indians. Her name in the brackets would serve better than to add an entire image, IMO. It would be like blue sea, instead of links, its pictures...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oh I see now and because she's not Indian. My bad, all good. :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Lead: "Committee.They" – space
• Lead: 5 and 7 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
• Ref 4 & 15 doesn't have the correct dating style

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

@BeatlesLedTV: All done save infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To add one into a list article like this where already all the information is pretty much summed up as three tables (each containing only their Nobel Prize subject, rationale and year) would be superfluous, IMO. Thanks for the review.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah as I was writing my comments I realized an infobox really isn't needed in this type of list since it's just listing Indians who have won the Nobel Prize, not the Nobel Prize itself. Anyways, looks much better, happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments: Quite a few here, but most of them should be relatively minor. Don't place Nobel Prize and Indians in boldface, per MOS:BOLDAVOID. I don't think the Swedish and the Norwegian translations are that useful here – if any, the Hindi translation should be given. "laureate" should be instead formatted in italics and without quotation marks. the Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature; and the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee: it would be better if this were reworded to "… awards the Nobel Prize in …", in parallel with the two preceding phrases. honors should be "honours" (British/Indian English spelling). Include an {{As of}} template to the beginning of the second paragraph (before the total number of laureates), indicating the year to which this data is valid (e.g. {{As of|2018}}). The total number of laureates need to be referenced. Explain briefly why Sri Aurobindo is "notable", considering that he isn't even in the list. 1937–39 doesn't count as one nomination; the Nobel Prize website clearly indicates that Gandhi was nominated five times. Link Geir Lundestad. Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee: missing "the". "The greatest omission in our 106 year history": "The" doesn't need to be capitalised (see MOS:CONFORM) and there should ideally be a hyphen between "106 year" (although it mightn't be in the original source). Refs 7 and 9 are identical. Note A: "The" in The Passports Act probably shouldn't be capitalised, unless that's how it's spelled officially. The word "article" should be capitalised, "the" should be added before Indian Constitution, which should be linked and jus sanguinis doesn't need to be preceded by "the". This note could also be moved to the end of the sentence. Subject in all table headers should instead read "Field". The Rationale column should be limited to just that – other extraneous comments or words (e.g. other laureates with whom the prize was shared) should be explained in footnotes. (Awarded in Tagore's rationale should also be removed.) It would be desirable if there were a separate column at the end of each row for references, which currently occupy the Rationale column. It would possibly be better if notes made under laureates' names (e.g. for Mother Teresa) were instead formatted with footnotes. Amartya Sen: Economic studies should be "Economic Sciences". those foreigners who were born in India: omit "those". List of Indians in the See also section should be changed to avoid a redirect. If possible, you should link e.g. Nobel Foundation in the refs. Otherwise, the list's quite good as it is. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Ravenpuff, thank you for the review. I've done almost all the points. The Passports Act is spelled as such in caps officially and hence kept as such. Per WP:CHALLENGE, inline citation should be used to "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", but the total number of laureates listed directly below in a table (which is also serial numbered) is not something to verified using and inline cite, IMO (like WP:BLUE). For the number of winners, I could find this page but highly doubt its verifiability as much of the information points it to be a tertiary source derived from Wikipedia itself. Adding a Hindi translation seemed too superflous for me and hence avoided it. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC) What I meant by "total number of laureates" was in regard to a total of 835 individuals (791 men and 44 women) and 21 organizations, to which a reference should be added, for example, to the Nobel Prize website. Reference in the table headers could be shortened to "Ref." (with an {{Abbr}} template). I think that Aurobindo's significance should also be expounded more: why is he notable in his own right to merit a mention, even though there are certainly more Indians who were nominated but never received the Prize? Otherwise, it seems to be outside the scope of this list. Comment no. 21 also doesn't seem to have been acted on. Moreover, the remaining comments on places of birth in the Overseas citizens of Indian origin and Other sections should also be hidden in footnotes, as above. An alternative to this could be to add another column in the table for such data, keeping it out of the column for laureates' names. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC) All done. Comment 21 was piped yesterday itself. Another cite from Nobel nomination archive was added on to Ghosh. Comments on the places of birth were moved into country field rather than a footnote to aid in readability. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Seems reasonable. I've also performed few minor cosmetic edits in the lead, to tidy things up a bit. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Support; comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• It's worth mentioning the year in which the prize was instituted/first awarded.
• "The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed on "those who conferred the greatest benefit on humankind" in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences.[1][2], instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will, which specified that part of his fortune be used to create a series of prizes." - A punctuation error after Economic Sciences?

• This is still unclear. The latter half of the sentence doesn't follow from the first part. —Vensatry _(talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• "some more than once." - Seems like a comma splice error.
• "... the only woman among the list" -> the only woman among the list of recipients/laureates
• Any reason for highlighting Sri Aurobindo's nomination(s) before Mahatma Gandhi's? We usually follow chronological ordering in these lists.
• "... in 1937–39" - This should either be "in 1937, 1938, 1939 ..." or "from 1937 to 1939".

• from 19xx–xx is incorrect per MOS:DATERANGE. —Vensatry _(talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi -> Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME
• "In 2006, Geir Lundestad, the Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee, cited it as "the greatest omission in our 106-year history" - The first ref. doesn't have the quote. The second one (book) seems to be first published in 2001 - five years before Lundestad made the claim.

• Can you find some non-Indian sources? —Vensatry _(talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• "first Asian to be awarded with the Nobel Prize" - The claim is not sourced.
• One-line descriptions (of tables) are often discouraged. It's better to use them as captions.
• Use plainrowheaders in tables.
• This one is a suggestion - you could include the life spans of the recipients in the table (preferably under each of the names).
• What makes history.com a reliable source?
• Correct the publisher parameter (you've used the author name) for ref#6.
• Include the names of the books in refs #8 and #10. [2] and [3].
• Add "publisher" for ref #12.

• 'the Ministries/Departments in the Government of India' is not a single body. —Vensatry _(talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Done. Aurobindo is mentioned first disregarding the chronology because Gandhi invokes a special mentioning and deserves a whole paragraph. Adding it before would make it less catchy to the lead as a whole and thus losing the emphasis it requires. Hence it is placed second. Thank you for your valuable review and comments. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about including R. K. Narayan? —Vensatry _(talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

All done. R K Narayan is notable but so is Nehru and multiple other personalities. Aurobindo received multiple nominations (for two different fields) and is indeed a bigger notable figure. Hence he is added. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, never knew that Nehru was nominated eleven times. IMO, this is all set once the opening sentence of the lead is reworked a bit. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources and with over a quarter million annual readership, I'm sure the article is valid in its existence. Please go though the AfD discussion for more details. All the citations are verified and from relaible sources and all the criterion from WP:WIAA are clearly fulfilled. Within the past 13 years from its creation, the article was very much near to perfection. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see anything in the AfD, the article itself, or on the talk page thereof which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. By contrast, List of Jewish Nobel laureates notes in its WP:LEAD that the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average. Various theories have been made to explain this phenomenon, which has received considerable attention. Prominent late Israeli academics Dr. Elay Ben-Gal and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, curious about the phenomenon, started to form an encyclopedia of Jewish Nobel laureates and interview as many as possible about their life and work. Could something similar be added to this list? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the current lead is in compliance with WP:LEAD as well as the comments and reviews per this nom page. Or would you like to suggest another change? For example, what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article Well, that would be information which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I am certainly not sure how to put the culturally significant part in words or to support it using references. IMHO, it would be redundant and superfluous given the number of references (Indian as well as foreign) indicating the title's existence and the number of views the article is getting. Adding a line in the lead stating 'so and so reason is the presence of this percent of Indians in the Nobel Laureate list' would certainly be redundant. If you are still not satisfied with the existence of the article, you may go for an AfD. Thank you. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Director comment – Anybody else have any thoughts on whether this is a valid stand-alone article? This FLC has been open for a couple of months and has three supporters, and I need to know whether it's time for a source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment if there's reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. If there is insufficient third party coverage of this intersection to substantiate notability, then it should probably go to AFD. Arguments related to other lists have pretty much no bearing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as IK, there is pretty much very good third party coverage on the title as clearly evident from the references and the number of hits the article is getting. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think the references on List of Indian Nobel laureates support the notion that the the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT, and the number of hits the article is getting is irrelevant to its validity as a WP:Stand-alone list. I also have to say that I find its adherence to WP:LISTCRITERIA (Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.) dubious – the first list (Indian citizens) seems like it would obviously pass, but it becomes tricky when one considers that the modern state of India didn't exist until several decades after the first of these Nobel Prizes were awarded (Rabindranath Tagore was born and died in British India, and was therefore as far as I can tell a subject of the British Empire his entire life), and the other two (Indian origin and Indian linkages) are also highly questionable (ultimately, it becomes a question of what it means to be "Indian", which doesn't really have a self-evident and clear-cut answer, and I'm not sure that the amalgamation of different definitions used by this list is in compliance with WP:NPOV). In short, I don't think it has been demonstrated that this is a valid WP:CFORK of List of Nobel laureates by country. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The Herald, this seems to be intractable unless you can provide evidence in the contrary to TompaDompa's position. As I noted, if you can provide reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. Just saying it's ok or saying "as far as IK", is not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the third party coverage, here are some references"

• [4] - A highly reliable cite by Indian government
• [5] - Scientific India Journal
• [6] - Free Press Journal
• Also, cites such as NDTV, the Hindu, etc also are highly relevant. Plus, the inclusion of the current members in the list is under the category of persons who are either born in India (citizens) or have Indian ancestry. And the inclusion of Tagore is due to the factor that he posses the citizenship of the country and regarded as the national poet of India. It's really surprising to find that the addition of Tagore as an Indian is disputed here. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is a valid list. There is reasonable coverage of Nobel laureates with Indian connections in third party sources as the nominator shows and the topic is of considerable interest to Wikipedia readers. I came to this page from 'Nominations urgently needing reviews' and I think the question of validity needs a decision from the director and delegates before anyone comments further on the content. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• My opinion stands. If there's a consensus that sufficient third party coverage of this intersection exists in verifiable reliable sources, then it's just fine. It's not down to the director or his delegates to make a unilateral decision on that one, in my opinion, we act in accordance with the community's wishes, which, so far, seem to be very much in favour of the existence of this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dudley, TRM is right in that we don't have the power to decide by ourselves that something is notable enough for its own article. We can provide our own opinions in the role of a reviewer, but that's all. If I was to give my opinion, I'd say that the potential sources listed above are enough to show significant coverage of the topic of Indian Nobel laureates. If I was to provide a suggestion for the nominator, I'd recommend reviewing the five references up there with the aim of incorporating them as sources in the article; the only one I see in the citations is the Hindu page. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review – All of the references are sufficiently reliable, and the link-checker shows no dead links. I also did spot-checks of refs 3, 16, and 24, with a couple issues identified below. There are also several formatting issues that I found: What is meant to be citing the award rationales? I checked the ones for Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama, and neither quote is supported by the sources provided. Are they part of another page you read that needs to be added as a source here? I wouldn't feel comfortable promoting this article if these direct quotations can't be backed by sourcing. Ref 1 should have the author decapitalized, and The Telegraph India should be italicized as a print publication. The publisher of ref 2 (Encyclopedia Brittanica) should also be italicized. Also in ref 2, the title could use an en dash to replace the hyphen. If Science and Culture is a print publication, that publisher also needs italics. Ref 8 could use an ISBN number. Ref 12 has the author with first name first, unlike the other citations. I'd change this one to be consistent with the others. Ref 4's title is different than the one provided in the article. Not sure if it changed since it was added, but it wouldn't be the worst idea to update it while making these other fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Fixed..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure that I made this clear enough in my original source review, but I wanted all of the sources for the rationales checked to make sure they match what the article lists as the reason. The Dalai Lama source wasn't changed and doesn't contain the rationale, while the new Mother Teresa source doesn't have the exact wording from the quote. The article says "For her selfless work", while the source says "in recognition of Mother Teresa's work" and doesn't use the phrase "selflessly" until later. Please double-check all of the sources and add new ones for the rationales if necessary. I looked at a few other entries and they had the rationales, but as I said earlier I wouldn't want to promote this article with content that is unverified. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Also, the new refs (4 and 17) have date formatting that is inconsistent with the other sources. They should be edited to match the style of the other references. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Fixed. All the sources now match with the rationales provided. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, a new source was added for the one rationale I didn't find earlier and checks of a couple others showed the rationales properly supported; also, the date formatting has been made consistent. I'd say the source review has been passed now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences,[2] instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will" Nobel did not institute the economics prize and it is not strictly a Nobel prize.
• "They are widely recognized as one of the most prestigious honours awarded in the aforementioned fields." Unreferenced POV - and probably an understatement!
• "Notably, Sri Aurobindo, the Indian poet, philosopher, nationalist and developer of integral yoga, was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1943 and for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950." I would delete "Notably" as POV and you should say that the nominations were unsuccessful on both occasions.
• Ditto spell out that the nominations of Gandhi were unsuccessful.
• "who were Indian citizens at the time they were awarded the Nobel Prize". This is not correct for the first two laureates - as an editor points out above. They were legally British subjects. I suggest "Indians living in India". This would (correctly in my view) exclude Mother Teresa.
• The heading 'Country' in the second and third lists should be 'Country of residence.
• The middle list is indented, presumably because the lists are centred, but I think they would look better left justified. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. The indentation is left as such to maintain the consistency. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - although I think the lists should be left aligned, not centred. If they were all left aligned that would maintain the consistency. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I also am not seeing something to pull this list to AfD, which leaves it eligible for FL status. The consensus otherwise being pretty clear, and source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:12, 30 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1992

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

I am nominating this for featured list because 19 of these lists have been promoted to FL in recent months. Here's the proposed #20...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good as always. Keep it up! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Great, like all the other ones.--Lirim | Talk 00:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Up to standard, great job!--NØ 13:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not much need for lengthy reviews anymore for this series! Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:13, 30 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Emily Blunt performances

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text to the infobox image. Same goes for the 2015 Cannes Film Festival image.
• This is more of a clarification question, as I am not entirely certain myself. For this part (She began her career as a teenager in the British stage), should it be “on the British stage” rather than “in the British stage”?
• For this part (Her first screen appearance was in the television film Boudica (2003) and), I would add a comma after “(2003)”.
• For this part (homosexuality in Paweł Pawlikowski's drama My Summer of Love (2004)), is there any particular reason for naming the director? For a majority of the other films, you do not mention the director. I understand mentioning Krasinski for A Quiet Place given that they are married, though this one seems a little random to me. Apologies if I am missing something.

Well, Pawlikowski is a revered European film director and I thought mentioning that she made her film debut with a film directed by him will stand out in the prose. I hope that makes sense? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (In 2014 she starred), I would add a comma after “2014”, and for this part (In 2018 she starred), I would add a comma after “2018”.
• For this part (and sung songs for the soundtrack), I would say something like “recorded songs” as something about the current wording sounds odd to me.

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

Excellent suggestions as usual, Aoba47. All done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Suggest merging the third paragraph with the second, as it's only one sentence and shouldn't really be a para in its own right

So that line would break chronology and it makes more sense to have it in a separate paragraph, if that's okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest amending it to "Alongside her screen work, Blunt has provided her voice to several animated (change that word - I only just noticed this - "animation films" is not natural English) films, including Gnomeo & Juliet and its sequel Sherlock Gnomes. She has also narrated......" so at least it's two sentences rather than just one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Capital E on English against The Wind Rises
  • Baker's wife has a capital W in the table but not in the lead
  • For Henry VIII and Empire, do sources not say which episode(s) she was in? Or is it that she was in all of them so there's no need to specify?

They are both limited series and I guess she was in all the episodes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• • For her Simpsons role, suggest moving "voice" into the Notes column to be consistent with the movie table
• Think that's it from me, other than to note the oddity that she has played three different characters called Juliet. If you ever want to cast a part called Juliet, ring Emily! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that's such an interesting observation. ;) Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I support this nomination. Can you imagine that? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• The lead image looks weird. It's like extra zoomed in on her face; not even her whole head is showing. I'd much prefer this image from 2018.

I know it's a bit too zoomed in, but I really do prefer this image over the other, more so because this one is from a film-related event and more apt for her filmography page. I'm not sure at what event the other image was clicked. Is that alright? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• In a couple tables the year col is centered and some it isn't. Make sure they're all centered
• Make sure all date formats are consistent (Day Month Year). Some are YYYY-MM-DD. In fact, I got a button I'll do it for ya.

Thanks for that! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Little picky but make sure in the discography section, songs that start with "A, An, The, etc." are sorted by the first word, so "A Very Nice Prince" sorted as "Very Nice Prince"
• Make sure above comment applies to film table as well, notably on A Quiet Place

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

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

• Support – Looks good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:26, 30 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [9].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Alessia Cara

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

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

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

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

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

Thanks. All done!--NØ 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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

ChrisTheDude, done.--NØ 08:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Four Pink Walls still sorts at the bottom........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z

• I would definitely remove style="width:99%;. It looks awful on big monitors and the there's so much white space, which is completely useless.
• It's obvious that the year is the year of the ceremony. I would scrap of ceremony.
• --Lirim | Talk 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Did both. Thanks a lot for commenting!--NØ 07:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Lirim | Talk 13:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:26, 30 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [10].

---

List of MLS Cup finals

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

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

• I think for accessibility there should be a symbol for the related wins rather than bold or italics.
• I read "major U.S. expansion team" and was wondering what a minor expansion team was. After looking at the source this should specify this is for across all the major sports, not just MLS.
• I don't see any other issues, looks great! Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude: Added symbols and colors for the remaining key elements. I'm having trouble deciding what to label a dual Supporters Shield-USOC winner as (in terms of color), but feel that the Supporters Shield should take precedent. The expansion team bit has also been fixed. SounderBruce 02:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think indicating them with font, symbol, and color is overkill and a little cluttered, but you can do as you like here and I support Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The league also awards the Supporters' Shield to regular season winners." - needs rewording, as it could be interpreted that a Shield is given to all teams that win matches during the regular seasons
  • "Eight teams have also won "the double", claiming the MLS Cup and either the Supporters' Shield or U.S. Open Cup" - need to mention the Canadian Championship as well as the US Cup?
  • "Sixteen of the league's 23 teams" - aren't there 24 teams in MLS?
  • "The New England Revolution have appeared......but has" - bit of a grammar disconnect here
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I have fixed the inconsistencies and omissions that you mentioned. As MLS had 23 teams during the 2018 season (increasing to 24 in 2019 and 26 in 2020), I've added an "as of" to the statement. SounderBruce 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @SounderBruce: - nice one. I didn't bother re-stating them, but I also endorse Reywas92's two points, so as and when those are addressed I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments – The Red Bulls fan in me wants to cry at the sight of this list. Oh well, here goes... The photo in the lead needs a period at the end, as it qualifies as a full sentence. Fixed. Bolding for emphasis is discouraged by the Manual of Style, so you'll have to find another way to emphasize those entries. I'd recommend italics, but you're already using them. You could try removing the italics from the cup winners and just going with the color and symbol for those. Seeing as other sports lists don't use the symbol-and-formatting combination, I've removed the bolding entirely. I've also made Italics only for teams that have won the Treble, which could be switched over for an eventual CCL winner. Results by team: Is there any reason that the Galaxy have "has" after their name when the other teams have the plural "have"? Fixed. MLS Cup 2018 isn't linked in the Portland cell of this table, unlike the other losses. Fixed. Stadiums: As an abbreviation, NFL should probably be spelled out. Fixed. Minor point, but ref 24 needs an en dash in the title to replace the hyphen. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Fixed, though I might replace this one with a higher-quality source if one can be found. @Giants2008: Thanks for the review. For what it's worth, I like you guys far more than NYCFC, or DC for that matter. SounderBruce 06:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC) One more item to report upon checking the fixes: the symbol for the U.S. Open Cup and Canadian Championship winners is now gigantic. I know it wasn't like this when I first reviewed the article, so it's possible somebody edited that template, but either way it needs to be shrunken to normal size. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Looks like it was a template issue, as someone replaced the raster symbol with an SVG, but forgot to account for size. I've fixed the template, so we should be good to go. SounderBruce 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – The symbol is back to normal size, and all of my concerns have now been resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comments Support - queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The playoffs tournament is organized by the league at the conclusion of the regular season in a format similar to other professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada... - why not just say "end of the regular season" (alot of "conclusion"s in this bit...)

Second para: The MLS Cup was established in 1996 and originally hosted by a predetermined neutral site selected ... - be better to diversify the starts of the paras - this one can be: "Established in 1996, the MLS cup was originally hosted by a predetermined neutral site selected... "

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

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

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 23 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Category 2 Pacific hurricanes

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 02:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC), Cooper 02:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Object - Let's start by updating the 2018 to 2019 in the third sentence, and that hurricane season is over. Minor error

  Has been changed to 2019. The article discusses when hurricane season begins and ends in the climatology section, so I don't feel that the second part of the objection would be a necessary addition. Noah^Talk 01:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
* Comment - Very nice typing by you and cooper, I am bad. Efficient information and sources. Comment I feel that the numbers in the paragraphs should be in word-form, not, well, number form (except pressure, winds, and categories). Isn't necessary per WP:MOS as numbers over nine may be written numerically or in words. NoahTalk 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Since all problems/typos have been fixed or updated, that the article provides sufficient information and sources, and all lists have enough information, dates, pressure, and wind speed, I hereby support this offer to transform this article into an FA. DerpieDerpie:D 01:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - List article is nearly the same quality as the List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes. Could stand to have a plot of cumulative hurricane tracks like the category 3 article, but that could be made easily. Supportstorm (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Extended content

*Watch out for the redundant links; there are a lot of them. I removed ones that I saw, but I did not see a lot of them. As far as I could tell, each section only had 1 link per item. NoahTalk 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC) For the opening image of Calvin, I question whether "one of the most impactful Category 2 Pacific hurricanes, at peak intensity on July 6" is a good description. Surely Paul in 1982 was more impactful (even if it was a TD). Find a better way of wording it, or perhaps just have a satellite image of the most recent C2 storm (Miriam 18). I changed it to Paul and adjusted the wording a bit. NoahTalk 20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Fix link to landfall (meteorology) Fixed NoahTalk 20:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Perhaps link to Pacific hurricane instead of Tropical cyclone basins#Eastern Pacific? I kept the link for the basin and added a link for Pacific hurricane to "hurricane". NoahTalk 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC) I'd like some sort of summary of the storms in the lead, such as "Category 2 hurricanes collectively caused X damage and Y deaths". I have added in death statistics, but damage would simply be inaccurate and confusing due to inflation "A Category 2 hurricane is defined as having winds at least 83 knots (96 mph; 154 km/h; 43 m/s), but not greater than 95 knots (109 mph; 176 km/h; 49 m/s) on the Saffir-Simpson Scale." - defined by whom? This might be a good place to mention when the SSHS was developed Changed to include Cat 2 is defined by the NHC. Also added ", which was developed in 1971" after the mention of the SSHWS. NoahTalk 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Tropical cyclones occur much more infrequently in the central Pacific than in the east Pacific, with only four to five systems forming or crossing into the central Pacific compared to about 15 for the east Pacific." - this wording is a bit bloated. Could you simplify it? "Tropical cyclones occur less frequently in the central Pacific than in the east Pacific, with some years featuring no systems forming or crossing into the basin." How does this sound? Cooper 21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Add a citation to the end of the first paragraph in "Climatology" (HURDAT will do fine) Done NoahTalk 20:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC) I think the article is a little heavy on the climatology side. I'm not complaining or saying it's a huge issue, just something I noticed. Acknowledged, but I think it will be okay as is. It may be a bit much, but it doesn't seem to dominate the article. NoahTalk 23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Fix the sorting for the damage. Sorting has been fixed. NoahTalk 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Are you sure Paul 82's damage total is correct? Appears the damages from Nicaragua were not from the storm. Since YE has fixed the article, the total here has been adjusted to reflect that. NoahTalk 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Where in the source for Vance 90 does it say it caused $10 million in damage? Removed the damages NoahTalk 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Likewise for Ignacio 03, where in the source does it say $21 million in damage? Grabbed the wrong source for that one. I fixed it. NoahTalk 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC) @Hurricanehink: As far as I can tell, all the issues you presented have been addressed. For the links thing, I didn't see a lot of redundant linkage. Let me know on that. NoahTalk 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

  The issue you presented in the climatology section has been fixed. Noah^Talk 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Comment - changing to support - Thank you. It seems pretty good as of now, the large mistakes have been rectified. I left the Connie section as is because it would be interesting to see what the consensus will be for it. Now, I support this article being on the featured list -Oof-off (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 23 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Albania international footballers

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

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

• Comments
  • "As of October 2018, Albania have played 324 international fixtures, winning 79, drawing 68 and losing 177" - we're now in November, are these figures up to date?
  • Why are all the player names in bold?
• Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. The figures are up to date (although only until tomorrow). I put October to avoid confusion with their two upcoming fixtures this month. Removed the bolding. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I don't think I have anything else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments "The Albanian Football Association (Federata Shqiptare e Futbollit; FSHF) was founded in 1930..." not seeing where this is referenced? "which encompasses the countries of Europe and Israel." ditto. Key table needs MOS:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review, I've added refs for the two lines now. I've added some extra formatting to the table that was missing, let me know of it needs anything else. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Regarding note a: Why is the second part ("and are, subsequently, eligible to be called up.") necessary? Could they be called up to this team or some other team? (This is from the point-of-view of someone who has very little knowledge of association football, so it may be very clear to the general audience of this list.)

    Although some players retirement from playing international football is covered by news sources, the majority of players may retire with no mention or simply never formally retire and will just eventually stop being picked. As club careers typically go on longer than international careers, players will continue playing at club level for years after they stop playing international football. The still active here refers that the player is still active playing football, just not necessarily at international level, so they are technically therefore still eligible for selection. Kosack (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove the period from the alt text on the first image. - Done
  • The titles of references 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 16 are rendered in sentence case instead of title case. These should be formatted consistently with the other sources. - Done
• Other than these small issues, the list looks good. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @NatureBoyMD: Thanks for the review, I've addressed two points and answered the first. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support ... Well done! NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 23 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1995

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

Apologies to FLC regulars bored with country music by now, but 18 of these lists have now been promoted, so here's #19. Don't worry, I only have another 55 potentially ready to bring here ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Any reason the second paragraph has no refs?
• Ref → ref abbreviation

Looks good as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph now has one ref. Nothing else in the paragraph needs a reference, because it is summarising info in the table (i.e. there is no need for a ref to show that only Alan Jackson had three number ones, as the table clearly shows that......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – As always, great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments This is kind of a big deal for me: exactly how many Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1995 are there? I count 30 songs in the table, but the lead says 29. I'm guessing that this question all hangs on whether or not "Pickup Man" is a Hot Country Singles & Tracks number one of 1995. If it is, then the lead needs to be edited to reflect this. But if it isn't a Hot Country Singles & Tracks number one of 1995, then it falls outside the scope of the article, and shouldn't be in the table at all. @A Thousand Doors: There are definitely 29 songs in the table, not 30, so the lead and the table do match. Are you maybe counting "I Can Love You Like That" (which had two spells at number one) twice......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) How embarrassing. That is exactly what I was doing. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC) "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter" needs to sort under H. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Allmusic isn't italicised, as far as I can tell. AllMusic is italicised because the {{cite web}} template automatically italicises anything put in the "website" field...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Add double apostrophes around AllMusic in the Cite web template to deitalicise it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't spot anything to complain about when I reviewed the list. Nice job, as I've come to expect from this series. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:49, 15 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC) [14].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Margaret

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a complete list of Margaret's accolades and I think it meets the FL criteria. All the sources are reliable and the lead now includes all the relevant awards/info I think. ArturSik (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "She has won several accolades during her career" => "She has won various accolades during her career"
  • "which she was presented with at the 2014 Sopot " => "with which she was presented at the 2014 Sopot"
  • "The song's controversial music video which received substantial media coverage for nudity was" => "The song's controversial music video, which received substantial media coverage for nudity, was"
  • "Margaret was also awarded twice" => "Margaret has also received two awards"
  • "was honoured with 2016 Róże Gali" => "was honoured with the 2016 Róże Gali"
  • There seems to be a stray apostrophe after "Joy" in the title of that award - is that meant to be there?
  • " In few circumstances Margaret did not win the main prize, however received an award for coming second, third or fourth" => " In some cases Margaret did not win the main prize, but received an award for coming second, third or fourth"
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude all comments addressed. ArturSik (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan

• I think the names of the respective award ceremonies should be in a separate column. In the current state, the order gets completely messed up if any of the sortable headers are clicked, and the awards appear under the wrong ceremony. You could use List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox as a reference while fixing this problem.
• Is "Mediafm.net" really a reliable source? I would be iffy about whether its reputed enough to be used on an FL.

All around, good job with this list. Its comprehensive and there's only one format issue.--NØ 09:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan Done. My only concern is the name in the header of the first column. Since there are not only awards but also contests and festivals eg. Baltic Song Contest, I've named it 'Ceremony' instead of 'Award' but not sure if that's okay. ArturSik (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• 'Ceremony' is fine. This list has my support for promotion. Great job!--NØ 17:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• In this part (including five Eska Music Awards out of 11 nominations including Best Female Artist), I would try to avoid using “including” twice in the same sentence.
• In this part (with which she was presented at the 2014 Sopot TOPtrendy Festival.), I do not believe that “with” is necessary.
• For this sentence (She was recognised by Polish Glamour magazine as Glamour Woman of the Year and Fashion Icon in 2014 and 2015 respectively, and was honoured with the 2016 Róże Gali (Gala's Roses) award in the Music category for her collaborative jazz album with Matt Dusk, titled Just the Two of Us.), I would make this into two sentences. The first about the Glamour parts, and the second about the Roze Gali stuff. Currently, it is running a little long.
• For reference 30, “Top Ten” should not be in all caps.

Great work with the list. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful new year so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Hi, thank you. You too. I believe I addressed all your comments. Thank you for taking your time to review the list. I will take a look at your list asap and review it the best I can. Take care:) ArturSik (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed (well, assuming google translate isn't leading me astray), promoting. --PresN 03:48, 15 January 2019 (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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC) [15].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This listing of Jessica Chastain's awards and nominations will help me complete my Chastain trilogy. As usual, I'm looking forward to lots of constructive inputs. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• Make sure titles in the work section aren't sorted by "a, An, The, etc..."

Looks great. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, BeatlesLedTV. :) I've sorted the titles correctly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Looks great! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (The supporting role of an aspiring socialite in the latter earned her nominations for the Academy Award, BAFTA Award, and Golden Globe.), I have only seen “the latter” used when referring to two objects (i.e. the former and the latter) and the previous sentence mentions three films. I think that it would be better to just name the film here to avoid any potential confusion.

This is my only comment/suggestion for the FLC. Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Aoba47. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing this. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments – In the Result column, the one 4th place finish is sorting in front of the two 3rd place results. I'm not sure if that was the intention, but it seems like 3rd should sort before 4th. Are you sure? Because for me, 3rd is sorting before 4th in ascending order. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC) For me, they are sorting in the following (descending) order: Won, Runner-up, Nominated, 4th place, 3rd place. My thought is that 3rd and 4th place are reversed under this system. In the past, I've used a sorting template in similar situations to force the desired order. It's a pain in the butt to implement, but might be one option for you if necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC) The publisher of ref 6 (Vogue) should be italicized since that is a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Corrected, and thanks for the comments, Giants2008. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Giants2008, I see. I've tried something. Does that help? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Now they're sorting for me in this order: 4th place, 3rd place, Won, Runner-up, Nominated. Still doesn't seem like what is intended. WP:SORT has some good content about specifying sort keys that may help fix this issue, though please note that I haven't tried the methods listed there myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Umm... I've rarely been this confused about something out here, but I've given this another go. Is it okay now, Giants2008? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – The last fix to the sorting looks good and I don't have any other complaints. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no dead links. Spot-checks of refs 51, 92, and 101 revealed no issues. Overall, I'd say this source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:49, 15 January 2019 (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.

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