Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 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 22:06, 30 November 2014 [1].

---

Justin Timberlake discography

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) & — Status (talk · contribs) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies the FLC criteria. Timberlake's discography was pretty much in a good shape thanks to Status (talk · contribs) and his regular updates; additionally I added more information, formatted well the references, added some sales and sourced throughout the article. With this shape at the moment I really think it has a very good potential in earning a bronze star. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• Five external links to correct.

• I fixed the dead ones, and only the Warn are left, although I tried to fix them too, I don't know what's the problem with 'em. However, the links are opening :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think that Justin can be called a singer-songwriter in the first paragraph because he writes all of his music, although if this creates some kind of conflict with other editors, feel free to ignore this point.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter is for folk singer ("the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition"), Timberlake is a singer and a songwriter but I wouldn't consider him folk-acoustic. I would reconsider this or just change it to be "singer and songwriter". I say this because there was a huge discussion about it at Miley Cyrus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I like to see US and UK written out as the United States and the United Kingdom when it is used as a noun (as opposed to an adjective for charts.)

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is common practice to write US as U.S. (with the punctuation) when it is used as an adjective.

• I think that's a personal choice whatever you choose to use, only it has to be consistent through the whole article. I kinda prefer US instead of U.S. tbh hehe :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't spot any issues in the article, it looks well-developed and nicely written in my view! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you @WikiRedactor: ;) ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SnapSnap

• I think the abbreviation for Netherlands should be "NL", as "NLD" seems to refer to the country's original Dutch-language name (Nederland);
• In the As guest artist subsection, there's a link (ref 22) to the NZ chart source under "NLD";
• You should remove the "...which acts as a 25-song extension to the Hot 100" sentence from this note per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.

• All three done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine in my eyes. :) SN▲P • SN▲P 18:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks you @SnapSnap: so much :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

It might help including time ranges for when Timberlake worked with NSYNC Done — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) As much as I understand WikiRedactor's statement on "singer-songwriter", there was a huge debate about the use of that term on Mariah Carey's article which lead to an RFC at WP:WikiProject Music. Consensus was that the term is used to describe folk/acoustic singers like James Taylor and Joni Mitchell who write/compose/etc. their own material. It's best to describe Timberlake as a singer and songwriter or just simply singer. Whatever. I made it singer and songwriter — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) In the lead, there's no need to state the number of singles each album produced- that detail instead belongs on their respective album articles It doesn't hurt nobody though, just make the prose read better — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Rather than a number of years Timberlake's music hiatus was, it would be better to give year ranges. Tried but the prose became poor, it's better like this... people can't count 2006-2013 = 7 years — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I understand citing release dates for material that doesn't have separate articles, but any particular reason why the albums with articles have sourced release dates when songs with own articles don't? There was one user in one discussion who wanted to see release dates for the albums in the tables, nothing mentioned for the single. Personally, I don't prefer them. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) In that case, may as well remove the refs from those with articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Done, I removed them. @SNUGGUMS: — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) For the release date citations, I'd see what else is available aside from iTunes/Amazon.com. While definitely not bad to use for citing release dates, secondary sources tend to be preferred when available. New York Post isn't exactly the best of sources and shouldn't be used The release is so rare so that's the only source in found it with a release date in it. @SNUGGUMS: — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC) This list is in decent shape, just needs a bit of touching up before it becomes FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support very good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Erick

Hello Tomica! I will go ahead and have a look at the list and give my input. First thing I want to point out before I do is that I noticed you have a "as of sales" for UK but not the US, why? Erick (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hey @Magiciandude: (Erick) thanks for the note... I fixed them and there are 'as of sales' for all the references that provide clear date. For all the others that only have accessdate I left them just with a reference by themselves. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tomica: Having looked at the list extensively twice, I can see no further issues with it. Given that you've already addressed everyone else's comments, I will give my support. The only small suggestion I have is to remove Discogs from the external links since it's a user-generated site and Allmusic is probably sufficient enough. Erick (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Status already removed it, thank you Erick, I really appreciate your input here :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ

Support A comprehensive list with detailed information. Nicely done! Simon (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Appreciate your vote Simon. Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:33, 13 November 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) 20:16, 1 December 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 23:19, 25 November 2014 [2].

---

Works of John Betjeman

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

John Betjeman was a rather unique figure in 20th century English literature. A popular poet—probably the most popular since Lord Byron, a writer on matters architectural—mostly railing against the destruction of Victorian and Edwardian architecture for concrete monstrosities of the 60s and 70s, and a broadcaster who highlighted some of the aspects of forgotten corners of Britain—or forgotten corners of high-profile parts of Britain. This list has undergone a major renovation recently to the point it is FL compliant. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support – I'm madly envious that I haven't written this article, and I'd like to find reasons for opposing, but I can't, so am contenting myself with some petty sniping:

• Lead
  • "he attended Oxford University, although left without qualifying" – for what? You want "graduating" here, I think.
  • "shortly after the BBC began regular broadcasts" – the BBC began regular broadcasts in the 1920s: strictly, you mean regular television broadcasts, though I admit this makes an unwelcome repetition of television necessary. I do not press the point.
    • I've tweaked to mention "regular screen broadcasts"; it's slightly inelegant, but covers the point, I hope. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Good! I'd not have thought of that, which works very well, and is by no means inelegant. Tim riley talk 23:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and his output was prolific, according to Michael Brooke, writing for the British Film Institute": this is genuinely ambiguous: it reads at first glance as though it was JB who was writing for the BFI. I think, as we have the citation, you could just lose the last ten words of the sentence.
  • not sure why you link CBE but not his knighthood
  • Clarke quote: I'd drop the square bracketed [Lord] competely.
• Editor
  • Rupert Hart-Davis has an article you could link to, though it is about the man rather than the firm, and again I don't press the point.

I boggle at the width and depth of the research SchroCat has put in for this article, and I support its promotion, without the slightest reservation. Superb stuff! – Tim riley talk 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• As always, many thanks for your thoughts, Mr R. I've covered all except the RHD one: I looked at his article, and thought it was a little too much about him, rather than the company, to be of use. I suspect someone will link it at some point, and I'll leave it in if they do, as I have no real feelings either way. Thanks as always – and keep me abreast of any reviews (or revues) you have coming up. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• His obituarist. Who?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Doc, Thanks for looking in. The obituarist for The Times isn't named, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Great looking list, looks super comprehensive, good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers Doc, much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "In 1932 Betjeman began a career in broadcasting, with a radio programme about the proposed destruction of Waterloo Bridge; he continued with regular radio programmes for the rest of his life, appearing in a wide range of genres, from panel and game shows, interviews, news programmes, documentaries and poetry readings" - programmes in this sentence appears three times. It's not wildly vexing me, but it's a humungous sentence with massive repetition....

• Yeah, not good! Tweaked down to one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "his output was prolific" is worth expanding on this, or even explaining who claimed his oeuvre to be "prolific"? One man's "prolific" is another's "long weekend on the sauce", after all...

• I've citedd this to the BFI, by way of explanation - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "made a CBE" perhaps expand this first (for our esteemed non-Brit readers)?

• Yep, now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why is Companion of Literature linked to anything? Not even piped to Royal Society of Literature?

• Good idea: now linked - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Garden City N.Y." can we just say "New York" or is that the actual title of the publisher?

• Garden City is this town in NY state, rather than just a part of NY city. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not a biggie, but consider expanding SPCK to Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, some may not get it.

• Now lengthened - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Two blank cells for "Author" in the "Editor" section, never keen on blank cells...

• I've dashed them up - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wouldn't his role in Pity About the Abbey be "co-writer"?

• Yep, added (and note tweaked) - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 160 seems to have an odd hyphen, probably should be a spaced en-dash...

• Good spot! - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, a substantial and excellently presented body of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers RM, Many thanks for your time and thoughts here, and I think I've covered them all properly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Support subject to a few minor points:

• ODNB entry gives 1930 as the year he became Assistant Ed. of the Architectural Review

• Added a footnote to cover the discrepancy. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Lead, end second paragraph: the attribution to the BFI seems barely necessary. They are not the recognised authorities on JB's output.

• Attribution removed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• CBEs are appointed, not "made". And Companions of Literature are "elected"

• Tweaked. -SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• (How did John Clarke get into the act?)

• Thankfully not that John Clarke!

• With regard to Collected Poems (1958) it might be worth noting that this title is slightly misleading. It implies a collection of all published work to that date. In fact, Sir John Piers and St. Katherine's Church are omitted altogether; of the 20-odd poems in Poems of the Porch, only "Diary of a Church Mouse" made it into the collection. Sixteen poems that had not previously appeared in book form were included. So it was something of a mish-mash. The Collected Poems have been updated and republished several times, most recently I believe in 2006; should not these later expanded editions be at least noted?

• I'll dig out something on this, either as a short note in the table or, more likely, a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Now clarified in the table, and information about the reprints in both table and footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any relevance to the "Save Lewisham Town Hall" image, or is it merely decorative?

• Only there as a pretty picture! - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A most impressive list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks indeed Brian, it is much appreciated. Betj is one of those who I want to have a go at the main article sometime, but I have a few others I want to do first. Thanks again, - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 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) 14:32, 26 November 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 08:57, 22 November 2014 [3].

---

List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A cricket list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — NickGibson3900 Talk

;Comments from NickGibson3900 Talk "In cricket, a five-wicket haul (also known..." - Link five-wicket haul Reference 2: Inconsistent date formatting with rest of article, publishing date is wrong it was published on 16th not the 17th Key needs a note on what "result" means Although not part of the criteria, please add {{International cricket five-wicket hauls}} to the article as this article is on that template Very good article a will support once those minor quibbles have been fixed. Waiting for you at my nom - NickGibson3900 Talk 04:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Fixed all. Thanks for your comments. I'll comment on your nom soon. —Vensatry (ping) 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) More comments from NickGibson3900 Talk As ref 1 is the first ESPN ref it should link to ESPNcricinfo not ref 4 For the FLC delegates consider this a Support if my above comment has been addressed. Sorry Vensatry for the delay. - NickGibson3900 Talk 05:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks NickGibson3900 for your comments. —Vensatry (ping) 17:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Another great cricket list by Vensatry - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments— I think the prose should be in past tense since the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy was the last edition of the tournament. Can you be a little more specific on what needs to be changed. —Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) For example ".. a total of 10 fifers have been taken by as many players." may be ... a total of 10 players took as many fifers. or else --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I don't see a reason to change the tense when the ICC has not put an end to the tournament. —Vensatry (ping) 11:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) See this, this and this --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC) See [4] and [5] —Vensatry (ping) 17:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "...while Bangladesh, England and Zimbabwe are yet to see a player taking a fifer in the tournament." reword the sentence accordingly (per above) Per above —Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) By this statement you mean they still have chances to take fifers in the tournament?! --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, why not? —Vensatry (ping) 11:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Per above. --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Add a little more about Maharoof's bowling figures Apart from the fact that this is the best analysis by a bowler in the tournament's history, I don't find any special about the same. —Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Have a look at this and this!? --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Added —Vensatry (ping) 11:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) No need of 'doing so' in the last sentence --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's redundant. Is it? —Vensatry (ping) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I still think this is redundant, the statement is clearly understandable without this. --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (ping) 11:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Link 'ICC Champions Trophy' at first use. --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC) link runs. --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Both done —Vensatry (ping) 17:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support – meets the standards. Good work! --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "in the ICC Champions Trophy tournaments" not sure you need "the" here.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• "a fifer in the ICC Champions Trophy tournaments. The ICC Champions Trophy" repetitive.
  • Since I jumped into explaining the meaning of a fifer before the tournament, I have to repeat the tournament's name while defining it. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• " is considered the second most significant" you use a single source for this claim, could so arguably just the opinion of one writer.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• "As of 2013, the latest edition," why not "As of the 2013 tournament, ..."?
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• "a total of 10 fifers have" you've said this already in the previous para.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would avoid "edition" altogether when referring to a specific tournament, why not just mention "the xxxx tournament" (where xxxx is a year)?
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• " to take a fifer; he took 5 " take ... took... repetitive prose.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Econ should be given to the same accuracy.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Younis Khan should be Younus Khan apparently.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Well-referenced list and it meets the FLC criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:26, 19 November 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) 08:51, 22 November 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 00:09, 17 November 2014 [6].

---

Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. This list was created after all the comments and suggestions for the Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year, which is already a Featured List. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Very well formatted and referenced. Great Job. — DivaKnockouts 12:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any major issues that need to be addressed. Erick (talk) 22:26, 15 November 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) 00:28, 17 November 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 User Giants2008 00:34, 17 November 2014 [7].

---

List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval

Nominator(s): NG39 (talk)

After the recent success of List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson here, I decided to start a new cricket-related project. I, therefore, give you List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval, a comprehensive and well-written list. Living in Tasmania, I have been to Bellerive Oval many times and have a great interest in the ground and this article seemed like a great one to work on. I thank anyone who comments on this FLC in advance. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) Images needs alt text Done Image captions need citations Done Secondary sort needed for runs (based on balls) Done Not done. You have reversed the sort in ODI table. Also "Not outs" should be give top priority irrespective of balls faced. —Vensatry (ping) 13:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Done Result column for the first table is labelled as "Winning team" while the second column it's "Result" Done You need to explain what kind team Hobart Hurricanes is. Done You might want to pipe link "third innings of the first Test match" to Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1989–90 Done I've made a minor c/e to make thing understand better. Feel free to further modify/revert if you disagree. —Vensatry (ping) 13:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Lead says 29 centuries till date while the table lists only 28 Done "As of ..." needed for certain facts per WP:DATED Done "In the second ODI at the Bellerive Oval" seems unclear. Second ODI played at the groud or second of some series? Done "101 from 112 balls against Pakistan in 1988." Table says 101 balls Done —Vensatry (ping) 13:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: Thanks a lot for this I have Done everything you suggested - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: Done - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 06:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Nice list! —Vensatry _(ping) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Looks mostly good, but all except for three of the citations are from "ESPNcriticinfo". That's rather excessive. Try replacing some of these instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: This is considered normal for cricket lists. See here, here and here for three examples of cricket related FLs that have only three non ESPNcricinfo refs. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • While I would encourage having more diversity in refs in general for articles, I'll support in this case then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I understand your concern SNUGGUMS and I'll have a little look around the web. Thanks for the support. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments— The image caption is incorrect, 28 Test centuries have been scored there not 11! "The first Test century (100 or more runs in a single innings) scored at the ground was by Australian Mark Taylor in the third innings of the first Test match against Sri Lanka in 1989.[1]" the ref confuses the reader, needs more accurate ref. "double century" needs explanation, in the same as you have explained century earlier "...a score of 101 from 112 balls..." → a score of 101 runs from 112 balls In the Key: Inns. should be "denotes the number of the innings in which the century was scored" or something like that No need of "top" in Sangakkara's caption In the 'References' ESPNcricinfo should be linked at first use --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) @Sahara4u: All done - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Additional comments "The top scoring non-Australian is Sri Lankan Tillakaratne Dilshan, whose top score is 160." → The top scoring non-Australian is Sri Lankan Tillakaratne Dilshan, who scored 160 runs. "Inns. denotes the number of the innings in which the century was scored" should end with a dot, for consistency "(1/3) Parentheses next to the player's name denotes his century number at the Bellerive Oval." → Parentheses i.e (1/3) Parentheses next to the player's name denotes his century number at the Bellerive Oval. --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) @Sahara4u: Thanks for the review. I have implemented all your changes. -NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 04:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support – meets the standards. Good work! --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• "As of October 2014, two T20Is has been played" --> "have been played"
• The first was in 2010 when Australia beat the West Indies by 38 runs. The second T20I was in 2014, — I think it'd be more cohesive to say ...by 38 runs; the second was in 2014...
• I think it's better to link to [[Innings (cricket)]] than to [[Innings#Cricket]] ("100 or more runs in a single innings")
• Add a link to [[Innings (cricket)]] to the word "innings" in the key (as is done with "balls").
• I originally didn't realize that "(1/2)", "(1/3)" etc. were mentioned in the key with the line "Parentheses next to the player's name denotes his century number at the Bellerive Oval.". Is it worth including an example, or at least a pair of parentheses to show visually what it means? The symbol * is used instead of "An asterisk" in the key.

Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bilorv: All done - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 00:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Support — Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 08:39, 9 November 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) 00:34, 17 November 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 03:30, 15 November 2014 [8].

---

List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a variety of ways of viewing and sorting the 58 scheduled monuments in Bath and North East Somerset by age, geography, type etc. — Rod ^talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "The current legislation supporting this is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979" This is not quite right. 'current' is recentism, and the Act surely governs rather than supporting (although I see that the NE page uses the word 'support'). The reference for this paragraph only supports the first half.
  • I'm not sure of the best way to say it. The Act referred to replaced previous legislation, and, although from 1979, is still the one which applies. The "supports" refers to the process of scheduling in the previous sentence. I will look at the references.
• "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury); it is considered to be one of the largest Neolithic monuments to have been built." I would prefer "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is one of the largest Neolithic monuments ever built, and the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury)."
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "There are also several Iron Age hillforts such as the one at Maes Knoll" Why not "such as Maes Knoll"?
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "which is connected to the Wansdyke a medieval defensive earthwork" It is a bit confusing to say that it is connected to a later structure. Perhaps "which was later incorporated into the medieval Wansdyke, a defensive earthwork.
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "More recent sites include several bridges which date from the Middle Ages to the Palladian bridge in Prior Park Landscape Garden[10][11] and Dundas Aqueduct which was built in 1805" This seems to say that an aquaduct is a bridge. I would make it two sentences.
  • The Dundas Aqueduct is a bridge (carries the K&A canal over the river and railway) so I don't quite see what is wrong with that one.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Ucucha's Harv error script shows note 53 as an error.
  • Thanks - I wasn't aware of that tool now installed & error hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• I ought to know, but what is the point of Wikidata?
  • I'm sure there are better explanations somewhere, but to me it links together all references to an entity across all wiki projects (commons and foreign languages as well as en). I think it is useful here as the same site can be a Scheduled Monument and a listed building, so may have entries on several lists (and EH reference numbers) but only one article. User:Pigsonthewing added it to the template which is used on hundreds of these sorts of lists so I have been adding it where the object has one. I have been thinking of making it hidden (as the date scheduled column is) so that machines can still find it but people don't see it - not sure about this at present.
    • Interesting comment by SchroCat on Wikidata at User talk:Tim riley#DYK and POV. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I've hidden the wikidata from view. It is still present for machines to read but removes one column.— Rod ^talk 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• A good list, but shouldn't it have a column for a brief description? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm never sure whether a description is needed or not, as most of the data you might put in it is listed in the other columns.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which I will continue to work on.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've now added a notes column as suggested. This is very wide on my screen compared to the other columns. Do you think this is helpful?— Rod ^talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Nice looking page - and I can only echo the previous reviewer: first rate! - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I have had a read of the lead knowing little about this subject and I feel that it gives a very useful and well-written summary of the topic which is very well-referenced. The table is clearly ordered and referenced throughout and I do believe this meets the FL criteria. I will echo the reviews above - well done! Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 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) 03:19, 15 November 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 20:01, 11 November 2014 [9].

---

Leonardo DiCaprio filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another filmography article from me. This time for actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, star of many films including Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and Inception. As always welcome all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

;Some comments about the introduction "Leonardo DiCaprio is an American actor who started his acting career on television as a child actor." — "Leonardo DiCaprio is an American actor who started his career performing as a child on television." (Since you have established that he is an actor there is no need to state that his career involves acting.) "and sitcom Growing Pains (1991) before his film debut in 1991's direct-to-video release Critters 3." — "and the sitcom Growing Pains (1991) before his film debut in the 1991 direct-to-video release Critters 3." "Two years later he played opposite Robert De Niro as Tobias Wolff in This Boy's Life (1993). — "Two years later he played Tobias Wolff opposite Robert De Niro in This Boy's Life (1993). (The way you have it now makes it seem that De Niro played Wolff and not Leo.) "In 1995, he played American author Jim Carroll in The Basketball Diaries and French poet Arthur Rimbaud in Total Eclipse". — No need for the comma after 1995. "The following year he played Romeo Montague in the Baz Luhrmann-directed adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Romeo + Juliet (1996)." — "The following year he played Romeo Montague in the Baz Luhrmann-directed film Romeo + Juliet (1996)." (I think most people reading this will know that it is adapted from Shakespeare's play.) "DiCaprio starred opposite Kate Winslet as Jack Dawson in the James Cameron-directed film Titanic (1997)." — "DiCaprio starred opposite Kate Winslet in the James Cameron-directed film Titanic (1997)." (The way you have it makes it seem like Kate played Jack Dawson and not Leo. I suggest taking at the Dawson reference since his not a famous fictional character; at least not as famous as somebody like Sherlock Holmes or Superman.) "a Howard Hughes biopic, The Aviator (2004)" — "the Howard Hughes biopic, The Aviator (2004)" (After all, Hughes is quite famous and the picture was one of the biggest releases of 2004.) Jimknut (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Jimknut: Fixed all above comments I think. Cowlibob (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Support — I made some other adjustments for you. It looks good now. Jimknut (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Your FLC for Sandra Bullock filmography has not closed yet. Before I review this, are you confident there's not too much work left to do for that before taking this to FL? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: To be honest I'm not sure. Five people have looked at it of which 4 have given support. Crisco has struck his oppose so I don't know what else is barring the list. Cowlibob (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Very well. Now for the review..... "He made appearances on shows" → "He appeared on shows" For Titanic, I think it's worth mentioning DiCaprio won an MTV Movie Award for Best Male Performance as well as a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor, considering it is among his best-known roles and highly acclaimed. It is mentioned that Titanic became the highest-grossing film of all time. Since this is no longer the case with Avatar now having that title, I'd indicate that Titanic is no longer the highest. Maybe mention how much it initially grossed as well. FN13: This should be the only ref that links Roger Ebert FN16: "Review: ‘William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet’" → "Review: 'William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet'" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS Overall, this looks quite good, especially after addressing Jim's points. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Fixed all above points I think. I don't think we need to include the gross, the film article will inform readers of that. Cowlibob (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support everything looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

• I have made some copyedits to the article to tighten the prose. Feel free to discuss if you disagree with any of those.
• This statement "The film became the highest grossing at the worldwide box-office (it has since been surpassed by Cameron-directed Avatar (2009) which holds the record as of 2014)" is a bit problematic. The Avatar fact appears more of a trivia and is especially jarring in the filmography of an actor who has no connection with the film. I would advice on deleting this fact. You can change it to: "Titanic emerged as the highest grossing film at the worldwide box-office at the time".
• The Basketball Diaries does not link to the film.

That's all. Good work! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I've converted the Avatar reference into a note so it's not jarring. Skr has corrected the wikilink for Basketball Diaries ahead of me. I only changed back one of your ce. Global star ==> famous globally as I didn't want to say star twice as I've already said he starred in the film. Cowlibob (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: All good! Best of luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, meets the Featured List criteria.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments.

• The sort needs looking at in the filmog – some films are sorting on "The"
• Why are some publications linked in the refs and others not? This should be consistent
• For published books you need to include their locations as well

– SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Sorted point 1 and 3. All publications are linked in the refs at the first mention as per SNUGGUMS' advice presumably so that it's not a WP:OVERLINK issue. Cowlibob (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... OVERLINKING doesn't really apply to captions, leads and the other ephemera, such as notes and references. I'd suggest either linking all or none of them, as the inconsistency looks odd. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I've linked all publishers wherever possible now. Cowlibob (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The article is brilliant. Excellent work. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:40, 9 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 20:09, 11 November 2014 [10].

---

Pakistan national women's cricket team record by opponent

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This list is based on similar list, South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent. I have worked on the list a few month back and now I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment looks really light on prose to me. I'd love to see some more detail ahead of each table. I know the SA list was promoted 18 months ago, but I don't think it meets what I would expect from a featured list any more. More discussion over the games, the significant results etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I have expanded the lede a little. Please have a look. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Great list, especially after the lede was expanded, well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Looks really good - another job well done by Sahara4u. Just a minor comment - is "Pakistan Women" a proper noun? The photo caption uses this, but the tables say "Pakistan women". I'll have a more indepth look at the list later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — NickGibson3900 Talk

;Comments from NickGibson3900 Talk They lost to the West Indies in 13 matches. - "...they have lost..." In the 2009 addition, they advanced to the Super Six round defeating Sri Lanka in group stage match by 57 runs - "...in a group" Pakistan women at Sydney, 2009 ICC Women's World Twenty20 - Rephrase; maybe: "Pakistan women at the 2009 ICC Women's World Twenty20 in Sydney" I Like it! Very good article and my suggested are just a bit of nitpicking - NickGibson3900 Talk 07:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC) @NickGibson3900: fixed all, thanks for the comments! --Khadar Khani (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Good list, meets the criteria . Also, I am waiting for you at my nom - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) "The Pakistan national women's cricket team represents Pakistan in international women's cricket" is verbose. Rephrased. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) The subsequent sentence is just too long. Also Ref #1 and #2 doesn't explicitly state the claim. Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) What is addition? Corrected. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Why is "S" capitalized in "Super Six"? De-capitalized. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I never meant you should de-capitalize "S". Given that we don't have a dedicated article on stages of cricket tournaments and since "Super Six" is a proper noun it should be capitalized but placed with in quotes. —Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "they advanced to the Super Six round defeating Sri Lanka in a group stage match by 57 runs" - Ref. doesn't meet WP:V Rephrased. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 5th->fifth, 4 wickets->four wickets and 3 wickets->three wickets Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) "As of 2014, Pakistan played their first Test match against Sri Lanka in April 1998" - WP:DATED is irrelevant and unnecessary here. Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Ref #8 and #9 doesn't fully meet WP:V Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I don't think there was a playoff held for the sixth place in the 2009 edition. —Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Fixed! --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "and received their first Test defeat" - awkward phrasing Rephrased. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) The subsequent sentence desperately needs a copy-edit. Given that they played just three matches it could simply be re-written in plain language. Rephrased. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) "The team have competed" -> The team has competed Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Same applies when you say "Pakistan have". Pakistan is considered a single entity in this context and should be accompanied by a singular verb. —Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "As of ..." needed for the sentence which talks about their T20Is Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) "They defeated Ireland in 11 matches, and lost to England in 5 T20Is." - Why include England here? Removed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) The list needs a fair amount of copy-edit before it gets promoted. In its current state, it clearly doesn't meet criterion #1. —Vensatry (ping) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: Thanks for your kind review, I think your concerns are now addressed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) While the first two paras have improved after your edits, the stuff which talks about T20Is still needs some touch-up. They aren't chronological and doesn't have a proper flow. —Vensatry (ping) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Rephrased and rearranged! @Vensatry: thanks for revisiting, hope this will be OK now. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) @Sahara4u: I'll definitely have a look at the list, probably by tomorrow or the day after. Cheers! —Vensatry (ping) 13:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Additional comments (re-visit) "They have competed against 10 different opponents, and their ... " Ref fails to meet WP:V The first part of the sentence is still not verifiable. Also the ref. you've added is not convincing enough to say that it was Pakistan's first ever win in the format. —Vensatry (ping) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "The team has played most frequently against the same team" - Confusing text. Desperately needs a mention of the team's name. Ref #16 and #17 are mapped to the same URL. Not done. Now they are moved to #18 and #19. —Vensatry (ping) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Fixed now! --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @Vensatry: done! --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Greatly improved since my first visit. If you have time can you review this one? —Vensatry _(ping) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: thanks for the support! I'll review your list ASAP. FYI, List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers is once again at FLC! Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:56, 8 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 20:10, 11 November 2014 [11].

---

World Fantasy Award for Best Collection

Nominator(s): PresN 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Back again with an old favorite! I've nominated this list before, but after 2 months and only one comment/support, it fell off the nominations page. I'm bringing it back now for another attempt. Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have here the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this time it will make it through! --PresN 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Very well written, organized, and cited. Usually I make a "Comments by Ɱ" section and go into depth trying to fix problems, but after reading it, I found that's not necessary. Well done.--ɱ (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Very well referenced and well written, it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 7 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) [12].

---

List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film)

Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvel's The Avengers is the third-highest grossing film of all time and the highest grossing film of 2012. Due to the film's enormous popularity, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

====Comments by Cowlibob==== For starters: Lead The film stars an ensemble cast of...  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC) For each character put the surname of who plays them e.g. Nick Fury (Jackson)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC) include when film went on wide release, box office total, production budget, Rotten Tomatoes Changed premiere date to US release date. Not sure what the other information has to do with a list of accolades. That level of technical information is better suited on the main article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) I would include those details to inform the reader what kind of film it is i.e. is it a big budget blockbuster or a small indie film? We can't assume that everyone viewing the article went to the main article first. Rotten Tomatoes is optional though. Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Infobox awards & nominations -> accolades, total number of wins and... --> total number of awards and... Not exactly sure what you mean here. Please be more specific.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Change the words "awards & nominations" to "accolades" and change the words "total number of wins and nominations" to "total number of awards and nominations" Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Table Add Detroit film critics award nom, Motion Picture Sound Editor award nom, National film society nom, Online film & television noms, Phoenix film critics noms, SFX awards, Bradbury award nom, St. Louis and World Stunt awards.  Done. Except for National Film Society and SFX awards. NFS doesn't appear to be a notable award. This is the ceremony for the National Film Society and I can't find a suitable source for the SFX award. Also the Motion Picture Sound Editor (Golden Reel) nomination was already present.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Good catch on that, I had misread that as this National Society of Film Critics which have been giving out awards since the 60s. SFX is minor enough to not be included, I guess. Cowlibob (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Recipient --> Recipient(s) and nominee(s), This column is sortable so all nominees should be wikilinked at every occasion leaving red links for people who have won or been nominated for a notable award.  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Add sorting for recipient column so that it sorts by surname Do you mean the recipient should be listed last name first (e.g. Johansson, Scarlett)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) No, you should use the sort template e.g. Scarlett Johansson (see my edit to see the code) so that when someone sorts the list by alphabetical order the recipient is sorted by their surname. You only have to do it for the first recipient of each accolade. Cowlibob (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Wikilink the film itself as well in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) References MTV News, BBC News, Deadline.com shouldn't have italics.Cowlibob (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Need source for People's Choice Awards wins, VES wins. You can avoid needing to use an archive for these sites which were always going to change by using these alternates: for Annie awards [[13]] and for Oscars [[14]] Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Made changes to lead. Added refs for the plot and cast. Added scopes rows and cols to the table. Formatted the refs. Good job. Cowlibob (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lady Lotus

• Remove duplicate wikilinks in the table per WP:OVERLINK
  • See the comments above by Cowlibob: The table is sortable so they should all wikilinked.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In tables you can link more than once if it's useful which it is in a sortable table. Cowlibob (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can the infobox image be something other than Downey? I first thought it was his awards page, so something of the cast maybe? Or film poster?
  • The rationale for Downey's image is explained in the caption and the film poster is WP:NFC, so no.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all I really got, so fix that and I'll support. Good job Triiiple :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Title should be standardized between this article and the main The Avengers article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried hard to find as many errors as possible: I was losing heart in my struggle until I got to the refs and finally found something to comment on: FN17 has an inconsistent date format. That's it, nothing else to gripe about... – SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done: Sorry for the trouble. :) TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Nice piece of work, and happy to support. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support

• I was going to do the whole comments-then-support-once-fixed thing, but what I found was so minor I'm just going to support anyway.
• "Marvel's The Avengers [...] more commonly known as The Avengers" - comma before "more"
• "released theatrically in the United States on May 4, 2012 and" - comma after "2012"
• "Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation" is not a Nebula Award category- it's presented at the same ceremony as the Nebula Awards, but it's its own separate award
• References: maybe link Roger Ebert in ref 2, link Huffington Post in ref 7, and the publisher for ref 30 is "World Science Fiction Society", not "The Hugo Awards"

• If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Collection FLC up above. Completely optional. --PresN 00:10, 28 October 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) 08:05, 7 November 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 10:29, 6 November 2014 [15].

---

List of church ruins on Gotland

Nominator(s): Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has a potential of becoming a good featured list, on a topic which isn't greatly covered but which is in many ways interesting. Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Initial comment

• You have added the link to the Google and Bing maps but the maps do not show the name of each site. You need to add |type:landmark_region:GB|name=site name. See for example List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London. It can take a 2 or 3 days before the site name is shown on the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the input! I've added the names now, and look forward to being able to see the names on the map; this always annoyed me, so thanks for the input! Yakikaki (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "This is a list of church ruins on the Swedish island of Gotland" It is forbidden under Wikipedia rules to start a list article "This is a list"

• Sorry about that, I've seen it in so many lists I thought it was almost required... I agree it looks much better without it.

• "For a list of still functioning churches on Gotland, see the article on churches on Gotland." I do not think this should be in the first paragraph. It could go at the end of the lead or in a See also section.

• I moved it to a See also section.

• Your figures seem confusing. You say in para 3 that 7 are in the countryside, which agrees with the list, but in the first para you say that 13 out of 19 are in Visby, but you only list 12. Then you say that at least 12 were built within the city walls, which presumably includes surviving churches, and later that all but one were ruined. It is not clear how many were outside the walls and whether they are classed as Visby churches.

• It should be right now: nineteen in total, twelve in Visby and of these, ten inside the walls.

• "Following the Battle of Visby in 1361, building activity declined." Presumably the battle was a disaster for Gotland, but worth explaining.

• Very good point; I've tried to elaborate the section about the decline a bit.

• "The abbey was disbanded" - I don't think disbanded is the right word for an abbey.

• Changed it to "dissolved", which I hope is more appropriate.

• The pictures and descriptions are first class. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and these excellent comments! Yakikaki (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. A very good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. Jim Carter 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Complete and comprehensive. w.carter-Talk 09:25, 5 November 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) 10:34, 6 November 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 03:06, 3 November 2014 [16].

---

Sandra Bullock filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it gives a good summary of Sandra Bullock's career thus far. As always look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work. Though not mandatory, I have added the films portal template in the External links section and moved it to the end of the page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut The list looks fine but the introduction needs some work: "She played the lead role in both the television film, Bionic Showdown: The Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman (1989) and shortlived sitcom Working Girl (1990) before making her breakthrough when she starred opposite Keanu Reeves, in the action film, Speed (1994)." — "She played the lead role in both the television film Bionic Showdown: The Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman (1989) and the short lived sitcom Working Girl (1990) before making her breakthrough when she starred opposite Keanu Reeves in the action film Speed (1994)." "In the same year, she starred in romantic comedy, While You Were Sleeping" — "In the same year she starred in the romantic comedy While You Were Sleeping" "The following year, Bullock starred in the drama film adaptation of John Grisham's novel of the same name, A Time to Kill, opposite Matthew McConaughey." — "The following year, Bullock starred opposite Matthew McConaughey in the film adaptation of John Grisham's novel A Time to Kill." "The following year, Bullock starred in romantic comedy, Practical Magic" — "The following year Bullock starred in the romantic comedy Practical Magic" "and also executive produced her first film, romantic drama, Hope Floats." — "and also executive produced her first film, the romantic drama Hope Floats." "In 2002, she executive produced George Lopez" — "In 2002 she executive produced the television series George Lopez" "and starred opposite Hugh Grant, in romantic comedy, Two Weeks Notice." — "and starred opposite Hugh Grant in the romantic comedy Two Weeks Notice." "In 2004, Bullock starred in crime drama, Crash" — "In 2004 Bullock starred in the crime drama Crash" "In 2006, Bullock reunited with Reeves in romantic drama, The Lake House" — "In 2006 Bullock reunited with Reeves in the romantic drama The Lake House" "In 2009, she starred in romantic comedy: The Proposal, comedy All About Steve, and the semi-autobiographical sports drama The Blind Side." — "In 2009 she starred in the romantic comedy The Proposal, the comedy All About Steve, and the semi-autobiographical sports drama The Blind Side." "In 2013, Bullock starred in buddy cop comedy, The Heat" — "In 2013 Bullock starred in the buddy cop comedy The Heat" Jimknut (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Jimknut: I think I've made all changes you asked for. Thanks for the review. Cowlibob (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Support — I made a few corrections to the text of the introduction. It looks fine now. Jimknut (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Great work, and the lede is excellent, very well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: It is poor writing to have every second sentence start with "In (Year)". See WP:PROSELINE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I take your point. Reworked the lead so it's less like that. Cowlibob (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now..... "founded her own production company, Fortis Films and starred"..... add a comma after "films" "In 2009 she starred"..... needs comma after "2009" "She was also nominated at the Academy Awards, British Academy Film Awards, and Golden Globe Awards"..... If these are all for Gravity, state so more explicitly. "Gravity is her highest grossing"..... I'd add "film" after "grossing" FN10 (2014 Oscars) is dead Publisher for The New York Times is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. The "M" should be capitalized in AllMovie TV Guide should be italicized Work/publisher fields only need to be linked in first ref used Something tells me "television films" should be in the "film" section Not too bad, but needs a bit of work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Fixed all above points except one. Thanks for the review. I figure television film roles should be in television section as they are first a television role they just happen to be feature length. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I have no remaining concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I see where the confusion was. I'm using that ref to support the first part of the sentence not the breakthrough bit and have moved it up to reflect that. Cowlibob (talk) 08:35, 29 October 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) 03:30, 3 November 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 03:11, 3 November 2014 [17].

---

Mayor of San Diego

Nominator(s): mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it substantially matches the quality of currently the featured list Mayor of San Francisco. mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, article appears to easily meet requirements set forth in WP:FL?, commendation to those who have worked on it to get it there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

• The lead looks too short. More info should be added to it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Why is the party of presidents of boards of trustees not mentioned?
• Link a few of the publishers in the cite templates.
• Joshua Bean was the first mayor. Please add his image.

I haven't read the article completely.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead to more closely match Mayor of San Francisco, but I can add more information as necessary.
• As far as I can tell, the party of the presidents of boards of trustees is not documented in any accessible source, though I've tried to add it where known.
• Publisher links are now included in the citations where available.
• This is the only picture of Josh Bean that I've been able to find, though I haven't found any photographs. It can be added if that is the desire: [18] mcd51 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I have read the article again. No more issues found. Nice work.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles

• "The previous mayor, Bob Filner, resigned" Confusing as the previous sentence is about the 1880s.
• "Due to an 1852 bankruptcy, the State of California dissolved the government" Presumably the city went bankrupt only two years after it was incorporated, but it would be helpful to spell this out.
• "The mayor currently earns" - recentism. The applicable date should be given.
• Party column in the table. When a table is sortable, all the terms should be linked, not just the first one.
• A good list - these points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the article to address these four concerns. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed mcd51 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 2 November 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) 03:36, 3 November 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 03:11, 3 November 2014 [19].

---

List of works by John Buchan

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

John Buchan was one of the most prolific and high-profile British writers of the 20th century. In between writing he was a barrister, a publisher, a lieutenant colonel in the Intelligence Corps, the Director of Information—reporting directly to prime minister David Lloyd George—during the First World War and a Unionist MP who served as Governor General of Canada. He had written five books before he left university, and was a historian—including an impressive set of works on military history—biographer and poet, although nowadays he is probably best known as the author of thrillers, which include The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle.

This is a fresh bibliography, made partly from a limited one on the main Buchan article, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. – SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A lovely list. A few thoughts -

• Why are edited works first? It feels like they'd be a more natural fit at the end, even if the first thing he published was an edited work.

• I appreciate exactly what you are saying, and it's something I mulled over for a while, but instead plumped for chronological as being the most neutral way to approach this. All the tables on the page are in chronological order, so novels to poetry all start with the sequential 1894 to 1898. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• "List of works..." sounds very comprehensive, but there are presumably a number of uncollected short pieces in magazines etc (compare the various pieces collected in The Far Islands and Other Tales of Fantasy). I think omitting these is reasonable, but would it be worth explicitly addressing this somewhere?

• Yes, I think so: leave it with me and I'll dig out something suitable from the sources to cover it with a citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a line within the lead to cover this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Fifteenth-Scottish-Division 1914-1919" (1926) is probably an artefact of strange old British Museum cataloguing not liking brackets, and I am almost completely confident the title is actually "The Fifteenth (Scottish) Division 1914-1919".

• Yes - although on checking the BL sources, they have one volume as shown here and one in brackets! I've swapped over to the bracketed version. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Nelson's History of the War 24 volumes" - perhaps "Nelson's History of the War [24 volumes]"? I also think this is itself an error in the cataloguing - he surely didn't author all 24 volumes! Three of the 1916/17 volumes appear to be his individual contributions to this, and either he was listed because he was an overall editor or because he was individually prominent.

• Let me go back to the sources for this and see if I can bring a little more clarity to this point, although I think you're probably right - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• The BL source seems to suggest all of this was written by Buchan (as does this and this. David Danieel (in the Book and Magazine Collector) calls it "a mammoth project encompassing a million-and-a-quarter words, written between 1915 and 1919 as events unfolded". Gale's Contemporary Authors confirms he wrote this himself: "On the eve of World War I, Buchan became ill with a duodenal ulcer and was confined to his bed. He spent this time productively, however, writing the hefty Nelson's History of the War and the popular shocker The Thirty-Nine Steps". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many of these must by now be on (eg) archive.org - is it worth linking to copies of first editions where available? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I shall ponder the last point: I'm not a big fan of external links within an article (or table) body, but it may be a worthwhile step in this case.

• A quick look at the MoS suggests this may not be a good idea, per WP:ELPOINTS. We have the following links at the bottom of the page, pointing to the main sources where the works can be accessed, and I think we may have to leave it at that:

• Works by or about John Buchan at Wikisource
• Works by John Buchan at Open Library
• Works by John Buchan at Project Gutenberg
• Works by John Buchan at Internet Archive

• I'll be back shortly with the needed corrections for your points above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts: I've added a tweak already, and will sort the rest shortly, reporting back when all done. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, All now covered. Thanks very much for all the time and effort you've taken on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, along with a few unimportant quibbles:

• We have variants of the name of the publisher Thomas Nelson/ T. Nelson Publishers and plain Nelson.

• All now consistent - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not on my screen they ain't: there are twelve Thomas Nelsons, six T. Nelson Publishers and four plain Nelsons. Tim riley talk 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Harrumph! Now completed, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• William Blackwood & Sons – at one point is William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, but mostly just William Blackwood & Sons.

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• P. Davies is Peter Davies – one of Barrie's lost boys, who became a publisher. His firm seems to have been based in both Edinburgh (Massacre of Glencoe) and London (Men and Deeds).

• Linked and sorted - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blackwell Publishing or Blackwell Publishing, Oxford?

• Oxford - foolish of me to forget one of my favourite shops - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Boston, MA – I think the usual abbreviation for Massachusetts is Mass, rather than MA, though I may be quite wrong.

• Both are correct, I think, with the US Post Office preferring the two character approach; I've tweaked to Mass, which is more traditional - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Clarendon Press (Nine Brasenose Worthies) – based in Oxford, not London, according to this.

• Yes, it certainly is! - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a beautfully constructed and painstakingly researched page, and I don't see how it could be done better. Meets all the FL criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for all your observations here: I've hope I've tweaked and plucked correctly on this lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there an article worth linking with "Director of Information"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can find, unfortunately. There is one for the department, but not the position. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support A pristine list, excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

• There were only a couple issues, listed below, but I went ahead and fixed them myself.
• "The following year he was awarded a scholarship to Brasenose College, Oxford; shortly after his arrival he also published his first novel, Sir Quixote of the Moors, which he dedicated to Gilbert Murray, his university tutor;[5] by the time he left the university he had published five books,[1] including Scholar-Gipsies, the first work of non-fiction he wrote" - wow, and I thought I made really long sentences. That second(!) semicolon should really be a period, after "tutor".
• "The Moon Endureth: Tales and Fancies" in the poetry section is sorting under "T"
• Completely optional, but if you found this review helpful, consider reviewing World Fantasy Award for Best Collection up above. --PresN 17:52, 29 October 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) 03:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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