Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2017

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) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

Robot Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I discovered it in a good state thanks to the great work of Holiday56 a few years back, and suggested we co-nom because it's an interesting list and a niche topic. It's been brought up to current standards (that didn't take much) and looks good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - TRM, are you aware that currently you have two nominations (apart from this one)? —Vensatry (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Yep, no outstanding comments, support on them both, and this one is a co-nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, one cannot run more than two nominations (main) at the same time in FLCs. As for this list, you are the main nominator. —Vensatry (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC) WP:IAR and no, Holiday56 is the main nominator here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Plus, you and I both know that Walter Lawrence Trophy (with four supports) is simply waiting for someone to promote it. Sadly, this kind of opening dialogue curtails commentary, so I'd be grateful if you would move it to the talk page or elsewhere to allow this nom a clean slate once you're ok with it being live. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Alright, I'm not hellbent on it. Just wanted to point out. —Vensatry (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC) And you have. Now can we move on to the list itself? Perhaps you could collapse your comments to prevent people being dissuaded from reviewing? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Sure, you could do it by yourself. I don't mind. —Vensatry (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:Hi Holiday56 and TRM, please find my comments below: Lead: The Robot Hall of Fame is an American hall of fame fix link to List of halls and walks of fame Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania link Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania Not done, this would fall foul of WP:SEAOFBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Ok. I have linked to directly to Pittsburgh – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Can an infobox be added? I don't see any obvious benefit in that really, most other HoF articles (including FLs) don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Fair enough – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) The obvious question to me that remains outstanding, and which I see has been asked on the talk page, is why has there no more inductees since 2012? It's a little like trying to prove a negative, I don't know, there doesn't seem to be any obvious answer, at least not that I can find. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I figured as much. – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Table: Lego Mindstorms row – fix link to Robot kit Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) da Vinci Surgical System row – fix link to Robot-assisted surgery Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) BigDog row – fix link to Quadrupedalism#Quadrupedal robots Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Ianblair23 thanks, comments addressed and/or responded to inline. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Interesting list. Great job TRM and Holiday56. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - all looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• I mean, I'll be honest, I'm disappointed not to see Chaos 2 or Razer in there...
• "..were selected by a selected panel of jurists.." – not keen on the repetition of "selected".

Other than that, there is little to fault, so to be honest, I'm happy to support. Harrias ^talk 14:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Harrias thanks, I've replaced the first "selected" with "chosen" so that's nice. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw This is an interesting list on a topic I know very little about.

• I had to think about the meaning of "existent" in "both existent and fictional". Would "real" be an alternative term?

  Yes, I don't see why not, so I've swapped per your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The image File:Robot 501585 fh000026.jpg seems to have two different CC licences (one specific to France) - I have not seen this before and I'm not expert enough to know whether that is OK.

  I think it should be one or the other personally, but since they're both CC, it's not an issue to use the image here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I thought we were supposed to add "+" & give a title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.

  Yes, we often do, especially if it's not directly following a section heading (as in this case) but it does little harm and adds benefit to our ACCESS-readers, so I've added one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• George Lucas is credited as creator of the Star Wars franchise, but didn't Ralph McQuarrie get credit for a lot of the design work?

  That's most certainly true, but the information here is following the citations provided by the HoF website which only mentions Lucas in each case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than those queries, I'm finding it difficult to raise any issues.— Rod ^talk 18:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rodw, thanks for getting the time to do this, much appreciated. I've responded to your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses & edits. I can now Support this lst as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rodw. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008, PresN, here's another off the production line, needs a source review I think but otherwise good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that the lead talks about the 2012 rules change as if it's an on-going affair, when in fact that was the only year like that and no robots have been entered into the Hall in the 5 years since. Can you find a way to work into it that 2012 is the latest year to add robots? --PresN 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

PresN fair point, I've adjusted the tense a little and added a note regarding the last entry being 2012. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:27, 31 October 2017 (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) 23:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [2].

---

Val Barker Trophy

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This one was a little out of my comfort zone, and while it's been declared as of "high" importance to the Olympics project, surprisingly little information is available about it. Everything I could reasonably gather is in the list. Let me know how you feel about it, with thanks in advance for time spent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Some random thoughts: seems slightly premature to say that two trophies have been presented at every Olympics since 2016, when there's only been the 2016 Olympics; a mention of when women's boxing was introduced into the Olympics might not go amiss in this context (to show that there was a gap between its introduction and the second trophy being awarded); any redirect or piped link possibilities for the redlinked 1972 to 1984 Olympics e.g. Boxing at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Heavyweight (+ 81 kg)?; should Gold Silver Bronze sort in that order, rather than alphabetical? Nothing immediately jumps out otherwise. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed - I would say something like "In 2016, two Val Barker Trophies were presented for the first time......" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Done. Also, done medal sorting. As for redlinks, no problem with them at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree about the piping, the redlinks to nonexistent stats pages is ugly and unnecessary. Not convinced the content and subject warrent Featured List status. The level of information is minimal.PRehse (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

    Do you have any more information you can provide? Featured lists aren't prevented because there's not much information available on a topic. I'd be delighted to see you provide more "information". Also, redlinks are perfectly permissible per WP:REDLINK, just because someone hasn't written the topic on specific boxing weights at specific Olympic Games yet, it shouldn't stop us from linking to them. Also, please use an edit summary when making drastic content changes to an article, it helps the rest of us understand why you've made such edtis. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, please find my comments below: Infobox: link AIBA and 1936 Body: Val Barker who won the Amateur Boxing Association of England heavyweight title in 1891 link List of ABA heavyweight champions In 2016, two Val Barker Trophies link 2016 Summer Olympics To give further context on the women's award could you please add the women's boxing was first contested at the 2012 London Games. images need alt text Table: In the nationality column, could you replace with the {{flagIOC}}. Eg {{Flag|USA|1912}} with {{flagIOC|USA|1936 Summer}} which will produce a flag, the country name and a link to the nation at year Summer Olympics article. References: Ref 1 – link ESPN Ref 3 – first = Bryan Armen | last = Graham Ref 13 – replace with this English language ref Ref 18 – link BBC Sport Ref 19 – link Reuters Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Ianblair23 all done bar the ref 13 switch, that's blocked by my firewall. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks TRM. I have changed the ref. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Supoort – Another great job TRM, keep 'em coming! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Just one from me: in the Claressa Shields photo caption, "the" should probably be placed before "trophy". Everything else looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  Giants2008 done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Question - Looks good, but it seems awfully short for your average FL. Is this really all we can cover on the subject? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  I agree, but please see the response I gave to the right honourable gentleman at the top of the article some moments ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are well-formatted and appear reliable. Spot-checks of refs 4, 6, 7, and 15 revealed no problems. This is a pass from my vantage point. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

PresN I guess you're the only available FLCer to deal with this now, any comments need addressing or are we good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm good to go, lets sneak this one in this month. --PresN 01:07, 30 October 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) [3].

---

Vera Farmiga on screen and stage

Nominator(s): RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the necessary criteria as a comprehensive list of Vera Farmiga's film, television and stage credits, in the same vein as other filmographies that have been given featured list status. RedLiquorice (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Slightlymad

• I made a non-controversial move of the article's title to "Vera Farmiga on screen and stage" since Farmiga has had theatre credits in Broadway. Further, I don't see any coverage of her theatre appearances in the lede. You know the deal.
• Please fill in those blanks with reliable, high-quality sources.

• User-generated sites like IMDb (refs. 5, 18) and TV.com (refs. 59, 61) are generally not accepted as reliable sources per WP:UGC and WP:IMDBREF. Please change.

• Photo is great, but is missing an alt text.
• There are a decent amount of dead refs or refs that redirect to different links for you to fix.
• What makes ref. 33 a reliable, high-quality source?
• Add the |publisher = parameter inline but be vigilant in avoiding overlinking.
• WL to Understudy

Fixed all. Thanks. RedLiquorice (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• See above. SLIGHTLY^mad 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. RedLiquorice (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good, support. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
;Comment from Jimknut Sorting needs to be fixed. Title that begin with "A", "An", or "The" should sort under the second word in the title. Names should sort under last name. Jimknut (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Done. RedLiquorice (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Support — All concerns addressed. Jimknut (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment this is very good indeed, all I can find at a quick glance is to reduce the SHOUTING in the ref title (see ref 63) and a malformed template (see ref 56), otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support no more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review –

• All of the references are sufficiently reliable, and the only formatting issue I see is that reference 13 still has some all caps.
• Spot-checks of refs 27, 39, and 47 revealed that the latter two citations don't mention her characters' names. This isn't the first time I've seen this in filmography FLCs, and examples such as these should be fixed before this list gets the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• While I'm here, the link-checker now shows no dead links, so no work is needed on that front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Swapped out all references for ones including character names. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the replacement source for Closer to the Moon, and that doesn't give the character's last name, which I'm not thrilled with. Checks of a couple other refs (the ones for Source Code and The Judge, and the replacement for Up in the Air) revealed no problems, so I'd be inclined to consider this a pass if something with the last name can be found for Closer to the Moon (or if the last name was removed until a better source can be found). Please keep this issue in the back of your mind if you do other filmographies in the future, though, as being able to verify article content is always vital. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed source for Closer to the Moon. RedLiquorice (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new source. As that was my only outstanding comment, the source review can be considered a pass. I'll go ahead and promote the article in a minute. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 29 October 2017 (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) 21:14, 29 October 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC) [4].

---

1924 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I present the medal table from the first Winter Olympics. The table is modelled off similar such lists from other games. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Drive By Comment: I would add something about Anders Haugen's bronze medal not being awarded until 50 years later due to a scoring error in the lede as well. See his obituary from the NY Times as one potential source. Ravendrop 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Ravendrop, I have incorporated that information now. Harrias ^talk 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - Overall, a very well-written list. I have a couple of minor comments to make:

• In the first paragraph when it says "were a winter multi-sport event...", shouldn't it be "was a winter multi-sport event" because the article is talking about a singular event (the 1924 Winter Olympics)? Correct if me I'm wrong.
• Change the last sentence of the second paragraph to "After Haug died in 1934, his daughter presented Haugen, aged 83, with his medal". It just flows better in my opinion because on first read, I got a bit lost.

Again, this is a really good list and definitely deserving of FL status. The points above are very minor, but I believe it would make the list even better. Also, if you wouldn't mind looking at one of my two FLCs (List of Metra stations and List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks), that would be much appreciated. Cheers, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Sportsguy17: Your suggested second change gave the wrong impression; I've changed it to "As Haug had died in 1934, his daughter presented Haugen, aged 83, with his medal." I favoured this because the presentation was made in 1974, and your suggestion might have implied it was in or around 1934. Agree with the first change though, which I've done. Will take a look at your noms. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
30em. Done. Harrias talk 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "International Olympic Committee - Chamonix 1924 Medal Table" en-dash, not spaced hyphen. Done. Harrias talk 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC) New York Times is The New York Times. Done. Harrias talk 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just looked at that Sports Ref reference to work out how on earth 115 athletes received medals (with only 49 given out)...
• ... just to discover that while the lead currently says "A total of 258 athletes from 16 nations participated in 16 events across 9 sports.[1]", Sports ref says "313 (300 men and 13 women) from 19 countries" and "17 events" in "10 sports". It lists 115 medal winners and includes a reference to a "mixed team". I suggest this is at the very least noted and explained... My guess is that it's down to this so that could be used to explain things.

• I need to untangle this a bit more, but thanks for spotting it! Harrias ^talk 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards withdrawing this nomination. From what I can tell, you're absolutely right, but I can't find sufficient sources to back this up for featured content. It would be pretty much WP:SYNTH at this stage. I'm going to keep looking for a bit; hopefully I can find a book in the library that gives a bit more detail, I'll try and pop in there next week. Harrias ^talk 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, no worries, sorry to have blown a hole in the nom... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I've gone for a very different approach; let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's great. I really like it when we find something like this which is a little bit unusual but cover it nicely with a number of angles. It gets my support but I would think that such a radical overhaul would require a polite nudge of those who reviewed before me, just to check they're satisfied with the new approach. Good work, much applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Sportsguy17 and ChrisTheDude: As noted here, I've made a reasonably significant change, and would appreciate if you could confirm whether you're happy with the changes made. Harrias ^talk 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

:Hi Harrias, please find my comments below: Lead was a winter multi-sport event link winter sport Norway topped the table link Norway at the 1924 Winter Olympics by Thorleif Haug in the nordic combined and cross-country skiing events sharper links to Nordic combined at the 1924 Winter Olympics and Cross-country skiing at the 1924 Winter Olympics winning all three medals in both the 50 km cross-country skiing link Cross-country skiing at the 1924 Winter Olympics – Men's 50 km This remained a record at the Winter Olympics until 2014 link 2014 Winter Olympics Finland placed second on the table link Finland at the 1924 Winter Olympics achieving a medal in each of the speed skating events he took part in sharper link to Speed skating at the 1924 Winter Olympics with only Belgium and the hosts, France add links to France at the 1924 Winter Olympics and Belgium at the 1924 Winter Olympics Thorleif Haug of Norway had been awarded the bronze medal in the ski jumping sharper link to Ski jumping at the 1924 Winter Olympics and an American add link to United States at the 1924 Winter Olympics Due to this, Czechoslovakia were included in the table link Czechoslovakia at the 1924 Winter Olympics Italy were also present link Italy at the 1924 Winter Olympics All done. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Images WP:Alt text is required for the two images First caption – Publicity poster for the tournament change tournament to event Second caption – Clas Thunberg won five speed skating medals at the games for Finland sharper link to Speed skating at the 1924 Winter Olympics and add link to Finland at the 1924 Winter Olympics All done. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Medal table Use {{RankedMedalTable}} Not done; that template does not feature row scopes, and so is not MOS compliant. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Good pick up! I have fixed the template and added to the list. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Notes No country achieved more than two podium sweeps until the Netherlands in 2014, but the record was tied prior to that; by Norway themselves in 1928 and 1932, the Soviet Union in 1964, East Germany in 1972 and 1984, and Germany in 1998. move ref 4 to here and link the medal winner lists for 2014, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1972, 1984 and 1998 Done. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) References General ref – Never been a real fan of "general references" and this link is redirecting to https://www.olympic.org/olympic-games. Found this link archived from 4 December 2008. Suggest removal altogether or turn this into an inline citation Ref 1 – add archive link and archive date=25 August 2017 Ref 2 – add archive link and archive date=1 October 2017 Ref 3 – add dead-url=yes Ref 4 – add archive link and archive date=25 August 2017 Ref 5 – link Sports Reference, add archive link and archive date=25 August 2017 Ref 6 – link Scarecrow Press Ref 7 – add link to page 662 of the report Ref 8 – correct link to Norsk biografisk leksikon, link Kunnskapsforlaget, add archive link and archive date=21 September 2017. Ref 9 – add archive link and archive date=21 September 2017 Ref 10 – add agency=AP, accessdate=22 October 2017, archive link and archive date=19 October 2017 Ref 11 – add link to page 661 of the report Ref 12 – add archive link and archive date=25 August 2017 Done all but the archiving of live links – I can't see an MOS requirement for it, and in my opinion, reference sections tend to get overly messy when using them. Unless there is a pressing reason for this to be done, I don't plan on archiving working links. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) It's not strictly a FL requirement but in order to prevent WP:LINKROT we are encouraged to add archived links to references. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC) I let the IABot do this for me. It might not match up exactly with what you've put above, but it's a damn sight easier! Harrias talk 13:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23: thanks for the review; most done, have responded to each section above. Harrias talk 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Another excellent job Harrias! I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the list. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (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) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [5].

---

List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've put a lot of work into this list, bringing it to where it is now, and believe it meets the criteria for it to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

*"approximately 107 songs" - seems an oddly precise figure to be linked to the word "approximately" "Beginning in late 1968 under the name "The Yardbirds"" - I would be tempted to change this to something like "Beginning in late 1968 as an incarnation of the band The Yardbirds" "Plant would receive writing credits in later editions of the album" => "Plant would receive writing credits on later editions of the album" "selling over one million copies and helped cement the group's popularity" => "selling over one million copies and helping to cement the group's popularity" "released a year later in October 1970," => sentence currently ends with a comma "some of the band's most well-known songs" => "some of the band's best-known songs" "continued the band's array of critical and commercial success" => "continued the band's run of critical and commercial success" "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, were released on 2 June 2014" => "The first wave of albums, Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II, and Led Zeppelin III, was released on 2 June 2014" (the subject of the sentence is "wave", which is singular). The same applies to subsequent sentences. In the key, "box set" does not need a capital B "Name of song, Writer(s), Original release, and year of release." - no need for capital on writer or original, and should not have a full stop at the end as it is not a complete sentence. "Ian Stewart (center) of The Rolling Stones" (in photo caption) - UK subject so UK spelling should be used as per WP:TIES More to come when I have some more time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks very much for your help I've fixed everything you commented on. However, in terms of the Yardbirds sentence, every source I find say the group was not an "incarnation" of the Yardbirds; after the Yardbirds disbanded, Jimmy Page wanted to create another group – what would eventually become Led Zeppelin. However, he kept their name as "The Yardbirds" and "The New Yardbirds" to gain footing in the industry as the Yardbirds were well-known at that time. Before they released their first album, they changed their name officially. So going back to your comment, I think it should be kept the way it is, "under the name "The Yardbirds"" just because that how I find it described in sources. But other than that, I've fixed everything. Feel free to comment on anything else. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC) You still need to fix the spelling of "centre" in the Ian Stewart photo caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Done. Must have missed it by accident. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I have to say I don't like the wording of the notes relating to the bonus tracks on the re-issued albums. The "and so...." bit doesn't really read right. I would change each note to read simply "Bonus track on re-issue of [x]". And change the "Here is the track listing......" link to a proper reference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC) A few more issues with the refs...... What makes albumlinernotes.com a reliable source? Refs 35-37 don't list a publisher/work Ref 38 - Rolling Stone is not wikilinked whereas other works are Ref 39 - Rhino is not wikilinked. Also, show the name as Rhino Entertainment (as per the title of our article) as just putting Rhino is a bit unclear Ref 40 - what makes turnmeondeadman.com a reliable source? The fact that it's published via WordPress doesn't look too promising..... Ref 43 - Pitchfork not wikilinked Ref 47 - Rolling Stone not wikilinked again Discogs and AllMusic are also not wikilinked in various places It's very close to being there, just needs a few tweaks.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I used album liner notes when first making references for the page. At the time I didn't know the site was unreliable. I replaced all of them with refs from Discogs and AllMusic. I also removed the turnmeondeadman ref and got 2 reliable book sources. Finally, I put wikilinks into the references you mentioned. Thanks very much for your help. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Comments - sorry, I have some further comments on the latest version..... "In late 1968, they began to record their first album[3] and signed with Atlantic Records that afforded them considerable artistic freedom.[4] After changing their name officially to "Led Zeppelin",[5][6] their first album" - I don't think any of the text I have put in italics is needed. If the bit about changing their name is deemed important (I don't think it is personally) then you need to add back in what they changed it from or it doesn't make sense "The next two albums [...] was released on 27 October 2014" - were, not was Same with the equivalent sentence about the final three re-issues Original Release column heading should not have a capital R Nearly there :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Done. I left in the sentence you mentioned above but just removed the part about them changing their name. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - don't think I can see any outstanding issues.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

;Comment from Jimknut References: Numbers 1, 50, 54, 58, 60, and 62 are not references at all, but footnotes displaying extra information. These need to be moved into a "Notes" section and have their own references. Jimknut (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I'll get that done as soon as possible. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Fixed most of them. I made all of them into notes and not references but am still searching for references for a couple of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Done. All notes now have references. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ojorojo (talk)

*Discogs is used for refs for many songs. Where is the information being taken from? The user-generated text on the linked page or the actual image of the album? The two aren't always the same and sometimes show discrepancies from release to release. Also, AllMusic is considered a RS for its reviews, but other info (e.g., genres, songwriters) is not necessarily accurate. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Sometimes I found that AllMusic doesn't have the correct writers on original release as well as writers at all which is why I used Discogs. Should I redo all of them to AllMusic instead? Also AllMusic doesn't have pages for the deluxe editions. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Depends on where you're getting the Discogs info from. The user submitted text is not consistently accurate and not considered a RS (see WP:UGC). Images of the actual release are much better (looking at photos of the album sleeve in "More Images"), but, since credits change over time, it's important to use only an image of the latest authorized release. You've noted the problems with AllMusic (it's difficult to know which edition they're using), so that's out. Performance rights organisation are sources, but where there are differences with the latest release image, both should be noted. Bios and sheet music vary in quality and usually don't reflect the latest updates. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC) I'm checking out the Presence Discogs reference I used and it does have images of the the album that has the actual liner notes themselves. Should I use these images for references instead of just the page itself? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC) The Discogs link to the original LP has images that show the credits, however, the one to the expanded reissue doesn't. Perhaps it would be simpler to use a Discogs link that shows both (e.g., R1-547434). This is a problem with using Discogs – many releases must be sifted through to find the right one. Also, since the actual liner notes are being used, it seems that the better citation format would be Template:Cite AV media notes with a link to the right Discogs release in the |URL= (if this is linked, the album title cannot be Wiki-linked though). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) So is something like this () what you mean? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Yes! Template:Cite AV media notes#Parameters states: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)". "Apple Records" is one of the template examples, so "Swan Song Records", may be better than "Discogs".() —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Awesome. I’ll get to work on fixing these refs as soon as possible. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Done. All Discogs references should be linked to images. If there are more I'm missing let me know. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Looks good. A couple of comments: "Bathroom Sound" – the List has Page, while the link shows "Page - Plant - Bonham". "Boogie with Stu" – the List includes Mrs. Valens, while the link doesn't (she is on the orig. album). "The Girl I Love ..." – the List includes Dixon & Johnson, while the link doesn't. "I Can't Quit You Baby" (live) – LZ released many live versions of their songs, but the List only includes ICQYB. If a live recording has the same name, it probably shouldn't be here (adding all the "Communication Breakdown"s, etc., would bloat the List). "Key to the Highway/Trouble in Mind" – the link doesn't show Richard M. Jones (he wrote TIM). Is he listed on another release? "Living Loving Maid" – the link shows "Livin' Lovin' Wreck" (must be very 1st pressing). Oddities probably should be left to the song articles. "Sunshine Woman" – The Complete BBC Sessions should sort on "C". I'll add a couple more later. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I added the "I Can't Quit You Baby" live version because it was officially released on Coda. I'll remove it. Also, after looking at many pictures of the deluxe edition, I found the vinyl itself only credits Broonzy and Segar while the gatefold sleeve credits includes Jones as a writer. I don't know why this is the case but I fixed the reference. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC) OK, the referencing has been addressed. "Indicates cover version" – "cover version" means different things to different people. For "I Can't Quit You Baby", "We're Gonna Groove", etc., it's clear. But "Gallows Pole", "Travelling Riverside Blues", etc., are more properly adaptations/arrangements and "Nobody's Fault but Mine" "In My Time of Dying" is credited solely to LZ. "Covers" aren't specifically mentioned in the refs. Since each song entry includes the writer(s), the reader can see which are credited to others besides LZ. If the highlighting really is that important, perhaps change the key to something similar to "Indicates songs with writers other than LZ members". "Indicates Deluxe Edition track only/box set track only" – the song titles also have footnotes, which say about the same thing (not sure that both are needed). Are you trying to point out that they are the only LZ songs that are exclusive to specific releases? (BTW, BritEng prefers "boxed sets") Choice of colors – I find the colors jarring and, together with the images, makes the page look busy (and somewhat distracting at first). Are others available or may just symbols be used? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC) When I was first creating the page I saw that other featured lists used color coding to help out with specific things so I thought I'd do the same for this one. I used color coding for covers because Zeppelin has recorded covers and have been somewhat notorious for that & for the box sets I used colors to distinguish which tracks were exclusive to those only. Should I change specific ones? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Similar colors are used in other FLs for different types of singles, etc. (I'm not sure how the color scheme was arrived at – one person's garish is another's ...). LZ is an album-oriented group, but as you explain it, certain releases are worth highlighting. However, because of past problems on LZ WP articles, it's better to take a cautious approach to "covers". Except for songs solely credited to others, citations should be added for other songs identified as covers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah I agree. I didn't put in colors for single because Zeppelin hated singles. I can put colors on the writer column and put "songs co-written or written by others". BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Adding on, how should I handle "Gallows Pole", as the song is traditional and has been recorded by many artists but is only credited as "Trad. arr by Page & Plant. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC) That would work and tie in with the images of the other writers. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Maybe add another color for "Indicates traditional songs arranged by Page and/or Plant" or add this to "Indicates songs written or co-written by others and traditional songs". "Hats Off ..." is also identified as "Traditional" (borrows from "Shake 'Em On Down"). The first appearance of arr. should use arr. & same with a.k.a.. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC) That takes care of the table. I'll look through the lead later. Rather than trying to list, I can make the changes there and you may revert/change as you see fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Alright no problem. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) The lead doesn't contain POV, OR, etc., and is well-referenced to RS. Since ChrisTheDude has already made a number of specific suggestions, I didn't change anything. Some more general comments: Uses of {{Cite web}} should be more consistent throughout (|title=, |last=, |first=, etc.). Also, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)" (Template:Cite web). "The" in band names is not capitalized mid-sentence (MOS:THEMUSIC). A consistent ref format throughout the article is preferred (use sfn for Lewis 1994, Cite AV media notes for Super Deluxe Edition Box, don't add sfn for Erlewine bio[25]). The page number dash for "Courtright 2009, p.288–" isn't needed. Gigwise.com notes "poll conducted by radio station Absolute Classic Rock". Is this noteworthy? The HOH ref doesn't specifically say no cover versions. The "Fool in the Rain" chart ref seems limited to 1–10 (Shadwick 2005, p. 287 has the info). Maybe review some of the wording: "over their twelve-year career. During their career as a band ..." "In the decades following their dissolution..." After their breakup? "Beginning in late 1968 ...they began" "Plant would receive ..." Plant received? "Going against the band's ..." Against the band's? "The single was, however, a commercial success, selling over one million copies ..." However, the single sold over one million copies? "The album would prove to be their last ..." The album was their last? "In the years since their dissolution ..." Start new paragraph? "Wave" seems over used. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Done. When I was researching about the band I found out that Page and Bonham were planning to make another hard-hitting album (LZ4 style) after they toured In Through the Out Door but they weren't able to make it as Bonham died in 1980, which is why I kept it as "The album would prove to be their last". I changed the HotH sentence to more about songs rather than covers. Other than that I changed refs, removed and added a couple more. Does everything look better? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Yes and I like the addition of the styles (although check sp "ballad"). The AM bio uses "title=Allmusic > Led Zeppelin > Biography", while subsequent reviews use "title=Led Zeppelin (II//III/etc) - Led Zeppelin". Maybe "title=Led Zeppelin – Biography" (note: endash rather than hyphen). The first occurrence of Erlewine should use "authorlink=". Also, I guess I wasn't very clear on avoiding duplication of words/phrases. How about: "English rock band Led Zeppelin recorded 108 songs during their career. Between 1969 and 1980, they released ... After their breakup, a final studio album ..." "In late 1968, while still known as "the Yardbirds",[3] they began to ..." "Since 1980, the surviving members have sporadically collaborated ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Done. After looking into it they were known as "the New Yardbirds" during their first tour and then changed their name to "Led Zeppelin" so I changed that. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC) In When Giants Walked the Earth, Wall uses "New Yardbirds" (which is used for the refs in the LZ article). However, Dave Lewis, in Led Zeppelin: The Concert File, discusses each early gig and provides copies of posters, handbills, print ads, etc. He comments, "Still billed as the Yardbirds, the group that would become Led Zeppelin made their stage debut on September 7, in Denmark. It's worth noting that there is little evidence of the group being dubbed New Yardbirds – this may have been a myth due to press coverage of the time." (p. 20) Four posters and ads for Sept. 7 through Oct. 19 show the group was billed as the Yardbirds. (pp. 21–25) A poster for Oct. 25 includes "New Yardbirds", although other reports, including Wall (p. 74), claim this was the first time they used Led Zeppelin. Lewis notes "this is the only record of the group being billed New Yardbirds" and suggests it may have been designed before the change to LZ. (p. 25). Wall does not provide copies of posters or mention the source for the New Yardbirds. Shadwick notes in an Oct. interview for Melody Maker, Page comments "the formation of 'a New Yardbirds'" (p. 33), which Lewis says the journal identified as Led Zeppelin in the Oct. 26 issue. (p. 24) Page's comment may be the source of the confusion – "a New Yardbirds" became "the New Yardbirds". —Ojorojo (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC) So should I change it back to just "the Yardbirds" or leave it as "the New Yardbirds"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Since this is a list of songs, many bio (and discographical) details are unneeded. Perhaps leave it out: "In late 1968, the group began to record their first album ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC) In the "External links" section: the BMI link doesn't work and Now & Zen appears to be user generated (and not currently maintained). Maybe add discography.led zeppelin.com[6] (from their official website). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The images and captions are relevant. Except as noted below, they have PD or ShareAlike tags: Stewart caption – "the Rolling Stones" Memphis Minnie – FUR indicates that the image is copyrighted and therefore may only be justified for use in her bio article (may want to get a 2nd opinion on this). Also, caption might be shorter. Perhaps: "Memphis Minnie received a writing credit for Led Zeppelin's adaptation of her 1929 song "When the Levee Breaks"." Broonzy – Similar FUR concern as for Memphis Minnie. The caption may be misinterpreted as Broonzy also being the writer of "Trouble in Mind". —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Done. I could've sworn when I was looking up pictures that none of the pictures I chose said Fair use. I'll remove them so it's not copyright infringement. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Looks good. My concerns/comments have all been addressed. I'll wait to see what ChrisTheDude and Jimknut have to say about the changes, before commenting on meeting the overall Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Awesome thanks so much for your help. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It meets the six FL criteria – it is comprehensive with RSs that check out (including the lead), is well organized/formatted, follows MOS, and is stable. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments You have two links to their first album in two consecutive sentences. Link Robert Plant. "against the band's wishes." this phrase is repeated verbatim, not great prose. "The band's following ... continued the band's " again, repetitive prose. Link "father" to John Bonham. Key table is not MOS:ACCESS compliant. Main table is sortable so all linkable items should be linked every time. Jake Holmes caption needs a ref for the legal action claim. "Led Zeppelin Discography" D->d. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Done. Everything look good? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support all done for me, this is good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:01, 19 October 2017 (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) 23:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [7].

---

List of number-one country singles of 2000 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated this list twice before, but each time it failed on the basis that some editors did not agree with single-year lists for number ones. As such lists have continued to be promoted (eg List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011 in 2015), this clearly isn't consensus and therefore I thought it was worth another punt..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I was a little confused by the title of the list as it was not made immediately clear what was meant by "country singles". Would it be more clear to rename this list as "List of Billboard number-one country singles of 2000" to make it a little more clear that you are referencing a Billboard chart?
  • The problem there is that the other 75 articles in Category:Lists of number-one country songs in the United States would presumably also need changing to be consistent............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I will say that it is fine for now then; I will leave this matter up to other more experienced users/reviewers. The title just reads as ambiguous/a little unclear to me, but I will not make an issue of it during my review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• The image requires ALT text.
  • Upon further examination, I am not entirely sure about the quality of the image as there is a little bit of "noise" (a lot of the image is taken up by other people/actions during the red carpet). Do you think it would better to simply put two separate images of the singers so that way the reader has a clearer image of the two? Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Changed the image, added alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• In the infobox image's caption, I think "scored" is a little informal and should be replaced with a better word choice.
  • Changed to "achieved" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• In the sentence (Published by Billboard magazine, until 2012 the data was compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based on each song's weekly airplay.), I think that the "until 2012" could be better integrated/placed in the sentence as it stands out rather awkwardly in the current phrasing.
  • Changed to something which is hopefully better. On reflection, the fact that the methodology changed in 2012 isn't really relevant to a list relating to 2000...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• In the phrase (until it was knocked off the top spot by "Cowboy Take Me Away",), I think the phrase "knocked off" is a little too informal and should be revised.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• In the phrase (performed by girl group the Dixie Chicks,), it should read as (the girl group the Dixie Chicks).
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this list; my review primarily focuses on the lead's prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing all of my comments; you have done an excellent job with the list and it is an interesting read. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments "airplay" is piped to a redirect, no need. Changed "overthrown" emotive, why not just replaced? Changed Table needs to comply with MOS:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) I will get to the access issue when I can figure out what actually needs doing :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I can't figure out where the row scopes need to go, can you help......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC) See this, you also don't need all those "left aligns" as that's the default. Probably not that important for the refs either, but hey ho. I did two rows (the scope should focus on the primary data element, in this case the number one single title, by the way). Plainrowheaders just stops stupid bolding and central alignment that seems to be an HTML thing. I personally requested this be implemented a few years ago when I was going through the ACCESSWARS which ended in a creditable draw, and with benefit to all of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks! I'll get on with the rest later today.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC) All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• For accuracy, shouldn't this be called "List of Hot Country Songs number-one singles of 2000"?

Probably, but then it wouldn't match the other 75 in Category:Lists of number-one country songs in the United States and I don't fancy changing them all.....

Perhaps, but this is mildly concerning, is this the only country music chart in the United States? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm presuming it's because the chart has had a bewildering variety of different names down the years and whoever created the articles wanted consistency in the titles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's possible, but we do cater for that in other articles such as the Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction which has changed quite a few times in its relatively short history, the article is moved and redirects are made from all the old names. But my chief concern remains, is this the only country music chart in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It certainly was in 2000, as far as I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm cool with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - having looked at old issues of Billboard, which are available via Google Books, it seems there was in fact a second country songs chart back in 2000 (Top Country Singles Sales), although it seems to be super obscure. Nonetheless, for absolute clarity I have moved this article to a 100% accurate/clear title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support your diligence is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support – It looks like Chris took care of TRM's issues, and I don't have anything to add. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:09, 19 October 2017 (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) 23:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [8].

---

List of accolades received by Neerja

Nominator(s): Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by 2016 Indian film Neerja, which is one of the best films of 2016. As of now, the film has won 39 awards, which is not a less number for a film to win awards. Please kindly note that I didn't nominate the list for peer review, because I believe that the list is currently meeting at least 70% FL criteria. I will bring this percentage to 99, if issues are raised here. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same. Mr. Smart LION 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would include this in the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Awards and prizes, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Lists.
• Is there any particular reason why you are not include the typical infobox used in these types of lists? (i.e. as seen in these two lists List of accolades received by Aadukalam and List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)?
• I would recommend adding citations for everything in the last paragraph of the lead.
• The title in Reference 12 should not be in all caps.

These are a few points that jump out for me when I read through the list once. You have done an excellent job with this, and I will provide a more complete review once my comments are addressed above. My review will primarily be focused on the lead and the prose just so you know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing the list and for your comments. I have addressed your first, third and fourth comments. As for your second comment, my answer is yes. Check the Featured lists in the "Recognized content" box in Portal:Bollywood. None of them has an infobox. So I copied their style. Waiting to hear your complete review. Mr. Smart LION 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I will leave the infobox question up to other reviewers as I think it is fine without one. I support this for promotion.f possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for supporting this list for promotion. And I looked at your current FLC. Though I've not fully gone through it, but it's looking great. All the best for your FLC. Mr. Smart LION 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Kapoor was fantastic in this fantastic thriller.

• Regardless of how Bollywood accolades are, an infobox is needed to give an overview of the awards received by the film. See similar lists at WP:FL. The WP:DISINFOBOX in Bollywood lists was a result of some early discussions as it was thought to have confused the reader instead of helping. However, I disagree now.
• "served as the stunt director for the film.[5][1]" => "..the film.[1][5]" (shift the references).
• Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan - WP:OVERLINKING.
• "As of 15 July 2017, the film has won 39 awards" - I would cut the as of part since it is unlikely the film will receive more (competitive) awards in the future.
• "The film won two awards: Best Feature Film in Hindi and a Special Jury Award for Kapoor—at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards" would better work as "the film won two awards at the 64th ceremony of India's National Film Awards—Best Feature Film in Hindi and Special Jury Award for Kapoor".
• "At the 62nd Filmfare Awards ceremony" - cut ceremony to avoid repetition.
• " including Critics Award for Best film and Critics Award for Best Actress" => "including Best Film (Critics) and Best Actress (Critics)".
• "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y.
• Ref 8 and 13 - wikilink India Today in first instance and de-link in the next.
• Ref 9 and 10 - ditto.
• Ref 12 and 18 ^^
• Ref 19 is incomplete. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG:  Done I've resolved all the issues. Mr. Smart LION 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite

• Mumbai, Karachi, Pakistan still not de-linked. In addition, there is now Indian that borders on overlinking.
• "Neerja was voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016" - according to whom, by whom? Somewhat WP:WEASEL-y. I did not ask you to remove this altogether, just some explanation was needed. Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?
• Ref 18 needs accessdate. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Done except the second one. As for the second one, I searched on Google, but I could not found the answer to "Was it voted the most liked female-centric film of 2016 in a poll by a critic?". So I thought that it would be better to remove the sentence. Mr. Smart LION 05:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't need to Google. Just looking into the source for the answer would have done, but it does not seem like a relevant info anyway.

• Support FrB.TG (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mr. Smart LION 07:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose primarily on the inclusion of non-notable awards. Infobox doesn't need bold font in the title but does need a full stop at the end of the caption. "The editing for the film was done" yuck "done", maybe "The film was edited by..." "the city of Mumbai" "the city of" is nugatory. Link ₹. I do not consider that awards which aren't even recognised by English language Wikipedia should be included in these lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Your first four issues have been solved. As for your fifth comment, I will recommend you to see the Sonam Kapoor FA. Mr. Smart LION 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't really care what's in other articles, non-notable awards do not belong in a list of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Which awards are non-notable according to you so that I can remove them from this list. Mr. Smart LION 04:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC) The ones which Wikipedia doesn't consider notable enough to have an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man:  Done Mr. Smart LION 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Link Saiwyn Quadras.
• How relevant is it to mention the stunt director's name here? I don't see any such mentions in previous FL's.
• "Set in Mumbai"? But the whole film takes place inside a plane which was in Karachi.
• The alt text is quite messy.
• Ref 5 is missing the authors name.
• These links needs to be fixed.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:  Done Mr. Smart LION 06:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you so much for spending your precious time in reviewing this list and also for supporting it for FL. Have a great day ahead! Mr. Smart LION 13:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Made a couple small changes; source review passed. Promoting. --PresN 15:31, 19 October 2017 (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) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [9].

---

Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is another list of listed buildings in the English county of Somerset. It follows the format of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and the more recently promoted Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it is comprehensive including images where possible, with brief information about each entry and links to its official listing documents.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Europe's oldest known engineered roadway, the Sweet Track." This is correct according to all the sources I can find apart from the Wikipedia article Sweet Track, which says the second oldest. Strange!

• There has been some debate about this since one was discovered in London in 2009 & other sources may not have been updated since. Although Sweet Track was built over the Post Track which would also pre-date it. I have tweaked the wording.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Some churches such as Church of St Mary the Virgin are shown as Parish Church, others such as Church of St Michael, Enmore as Anglican Church, and Church of St Michael and All Angels, Rowberrow as church, but the ones I have checked all seem to have the same status, so why the different description?

• The original list was generated by a semi-automated dat download from English Heritage (now Historic England) during set up for Wiki Loves Monuments & these descriptions were included in that process. I have now standardised on "Church".— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to correct excessively vague HE titles, e.g. "No 10 and attached railings" to "10 King Square and attached railings", especially as other titles are shown as e.g. "8 and 9 King Square", and this is obviously carelessness by some people writing entries. However, I realise that may go against your practice in other FL lists.

• I have tweaked these as suggested.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• A ten figure grid reference, accurate to the metre, may be helpful for a cross but it seems too exact for buildings.

• I have shortened the grid refs & lat & long entries, but display options seem to be set by the template.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A first rate article. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peter

An excellent list, as always. Just a few thoughts you may consider to make it even better.

• Ref 1. Why not go to the "horse's mouth" and use Historic England's own site rather than that of Manchester City Council? It's at [10]

• Thanks - I don't think that was available (or I didn't find it) when I started these lists). I have also changed it on the other Somerset LB lists.— Rod ^talk 13:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 10 and 11. Why not use the NHLE reference rather than British Listed Buildings (same reasoning)?

• I thought I always used NHLE in preference to "British Listed Buildings" but must have copy & pasted these without noticing - now changed.— Rod ^talk 13:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 4–6, 12 (maybe more) Why not use the NHLE template for these as well. This will give consistency to your referencing (which I thought was a requirement for a FL).

• I've tried to do this (let me know if I have missed any) - I have been nervous about using too many templates as this can cause problems with large lists (some of the Somerset ones are extremely large), most are generated automatically from the template "EH listed building row" but hopefully now consistent.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Overlinking of "Historic England" It needs to be linked only on the first occurrence. After that it can be blocked by adding "|fewer-links=yes" at the end of the template on each occurrence. This will much reduce the unnecessary blue-linking.

• I have tried adding "|fewer-links=yes" I didn't know about this "switch" on the template.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments " Department for Culture, Media and Sport" that dept has been renamed. Thanks - updated.— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Last sentence of para 1 in lead isn't referenced explicitly, is it covered by [2] so it can be moved? Yes although Historic England isn't named in the act. Ref moved.— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) I always thought middle ages was written as Middle Ages. My error. Fixed.— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) 3-9 Chandos and 2-7 King... en-dash needed. (And in the corresponding ref titles). I have never understood this & therefore frequently miss it. I can't see any difference on my screen & don't know what to replace it with.— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Guidance is at MOS:DASH. You need a – rather than a -. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) I've read the guidance and still don't understand why, but done (hopefully correctly).— Rod talk 20:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) No-one ever said you'd every "understand why". Dem's da rulez boss. Be like me, get a "script"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC) The "Type" feels over-capitalised, e.g. Manor House, instead of Manor house. Is that simply mirroring the reliable source? These lists were originally complied from an English Heritage database download (with all the errors still in), but have tried to correct these. Not sure about "Cross Passage House" as this is a specific type (see Hall house#General description).— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Consistent date format in refs, e.g. ref 2 is ISO. Got that one. I can't see any others.— Rod talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Excellent work as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – You have to really pick nits to find things wrong with this list, but I had one question: was the publishing date in reference 3 meant to be italicized? Also, as an extension of one of TRM's comments, there are some date ranges in the Completed column that need dashes. If you need help with this one, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Looking forward to supporting this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've fixed the italicised date. Any help with dashes appreciated - as I said above I have never understood this one.— Rod ^talk 21:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Fixed the dashes myself. That had to be done manually because the script TRM refers to didn't catch these hyphens (maybe because they were in a template?). Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:00, 19 October 2017 (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) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [11].

---

Anushka Shetty filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked intensely to bring the list to its current state, and I think my efforts deserve to be fruitful. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• In the main image, I would revise the caption to include where it was taken.

The image caption at Commons reads, "Actress and TeachAIDS ambassador, Anushka Shetty, behind-the-scenes in Hyderabad, India before her live telecast at the 2013 Tech Awards Gala in Santa Clara, California". So could I write, "Anushka Shetty in Hyderabad, 2013"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• That would be appropriate to me; it would just be helpful for the reader to know where the picture was taken so identifying the city is good enough for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please provide ALT text for the main image.

Done: See what it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• In the phrase (the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which became a major commercial success,), you will need a citation to support the "major commercial success" claim.

There's this source which says "Anushka debut film was Super but she got recognition and fame with Vikramarkudu". So could I rephrase it to something like, The following year, she had four releases, the first being S. S. Rajamouli's Vikramarkudu, which helped her gain recognition? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• That would seem fine to me; you could have kept the original sentence if you just added a source supporting that the film was commercially successful through. I am fine with either way you choose to approach this however. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence (In 2008 she appeared in six films, including Okka Magaadu, Swagatam and Souryam.), put a comma between "2008" and "she".

Done as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Add the release years for Yennai Arindhaal and Baahubali: The Beginning and Rudhramadevi and Size Zero.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• In the phrase (The following year she appeared in), put a comma between "year" and "she".

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would link all instance of "cameo appearance" in the table. Since it is sortable, the first instance of the term may change. Same comments applies for "special appearance".

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful job with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Aoba47. All except one have been resolved. Would it be fine to link "Bilingual film" in each cell to "Multiple-language version"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. I have responded to your comments above, and I think that linking "Bilingual film" to "Multiple-language version" would be appropriate in this case. Please ping me when you are done addressing my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Aoba47, your comments have been addressed. Please tell me if there is anything else I can do. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me; you have done a wonderful job with this. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support: IMO the lead is somewhat long although I don't think its a hindrance in passing the FLC. Great work on this list Kailash29792.Krish | Talk 12:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I'll be travelling till 14 September. I hope someone will take care of the FLC in my absence. Ssven2, I hope I'm not putting pressure on you. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments very good, just one thing: "gained 20 kilograms of weight" convert to lbs, and I would say "in weight" rather than "of weight". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I've used Template:Convert here. Hope that is fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:00, 19 October 2017 (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) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [12].

---

Anne Hathaway on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think Anne Hathaway is a multi-talented actress and one of the most beautiful women I have seen. Her filmography is filled with solid box office hits and acclaimed gems, a rare combination. I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• "The role established her as a teen idol". Provide a source for the statement.
• The next sentence is also unsourced.
• Alt text is missing.
• Provide an mdash or 'TBA' in the table for Serenity.
• Ref for Get Smart's Bruce and Lloyd: Out of Control is missing.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done.Krish | Talk 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• In this sentence (This was followed by a string of family-oriented films, including Nicholas Nickleby (2002) and Ella Enchanted (2004), all of which were unsuccessful), I would specify that you mean “financially unsuccessful”.
• For (a recovering alcoholic in Rachel Getting Married (2008).[1][2]The role garnered several accolades), there needs to be a space between the references and “The”.
• Specify the year in which Love & Other Drugs was released.
• In the sentence (During this time, she also starred in a number of box-office hits such as Get Smart (2008), Bride Wars (2009) and Valentine's Day (2010).), I am not sure the transition “During this time” works in this context. You include two films, which were released before the subjects of the previous sentences (i.e. Alice in Wonderland, Love & Other Drugs, and the Simpsons). I would change the transition to something else.

I don't think anything is wrong with the transition. I can't just list all those seven/eight films to show that they all were hits. But if you have another way, Go ahead change it. I don't know how it can be done another way.Krish | Talk 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• For this part (she starred as a NASA scientist in Nolan's $675 million grossing science fiction film), is it really necessary to mention how much the film made? I understand the inclusion for the billion dollar making films as that is a rather large feat, but why do you include the number here? I do not think it is necessary.
• Please add the year in which she performed in Grounded.
• I am not sure of the placement of the year in parenthesis behind Twelfth Night as the play was obviously not released in that year. I would move it to the following placement in the sentence (in The Public Theater’s 2009 production of Twelfth Night).
• This is more of a clarification question, but do you think that the theatre information should be more integrated into the lead rather than as it is own separate paragraph at the end? I am not against the structure, but I was just curious about the decision behind it.
• In the “Film” table, do you think that you should link “voice” to Voice acting?
• The lead does not make reference to the following films: The Intern, Alice Through the Looking Glass, and Colossal. I would image that these films should be present in the lead in some way.
• For 83rd Academy Awards in the “Television” chart, should you make a note that she was co-host alongside James Franco?
• Is there a reason for not including The Woman in White and Children and Art in the lead?
• I do not think the “Notes” column in the “Stage” table is necessary as you do not have anything in that column.
• The White Queen should be linked in the “Films” table.
• Cameo appearance for Don Peyote in the “Films” table needs to be linked.

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. All of my comments pertain to prose, and I will leave anything dealing with source use and reliability to the person who conducts the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 18:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments – The year range in the second sentence (1999-2000) needs an en dash (as in 1999–2000). After Hoodwinked!, a period isn't needed because the exclamation point serves as punctuation. "The following year, she made transition to more mature roles with the acclaimed Brokeback Mountain." Needs "the" before "transition". The comma after Becoming Jane should probably be taken out to polish the writing a bit there. Remove the space between (2010) and the nearby comma. Remove "the" from "in the Rio". Another comma needs removal: the one after "biggest commercial success". Also remove "the" before Tom Hooper's. All caps in the title of ref 69 should be removed. The hyphen in the title of ref 70 should be an en dash instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) @Giants2008: Done.Krish | Talk 08:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support – One of the comments hadn't been resolved when I went back to check the article fixes, but for the sake of expediency I fixed the remaining issue myself. The changes that were made look good, and I think this meets the criteria now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• Hathaway's breakthrough role came with the role of Mia Thermopolis in the successful Disney comedy The Princess Diaries (2001). The role established her as a teen idol and she later reprised the role in its sequel. While the phrasing is fine, you may want to write ...she later reprised the role in its sequel, Royal Engagement. to avoid violating WP:EASTEREGG.
• In 2005, she voiced the lead character in the highly successful animated film Hoodwinked! Add a full-stop here, since the "!" is of the film's title, and not an independent punctuation.
• Hathaway went on to voice Jewel in Rio (2011) and its sequel Rio 2 (2014). Mention Jewel's species, and the fact that Rio was an animated film.
• As mentioned by User:Aoba47 at Trisha filmography's FLC, "make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use."

I don't think it is mandatory to link the references on every occurrence. It is a choice. And, yes he once asked me too to do that.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the "stage" table, decapitalise "pilot" since it is not a proper noun.
• Some tables read "Ref(s)", one reads "Ref." Please be consistent.
• In those roles where she plays herself, you may want to just replace "Herself" in the tables with the actress' name for sortability. Otherwise, you may retain "Herself" but link to "Anne Hathaway". Ask others which is fine.

I am sure someone will object to this.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all from me. Optionally, please verify whether the lead can mention Hathaway made her voice acting debut in 2003 with the English-dub of the Japanese animated film The Cat Returns, using this source. I'm not sure if it passes WP:RS, but I don't want readers thinking The Cat Returns is an English-only film. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This film is not even noteworthy in her career or in general. I am sure dubbed films are not mentioned in the lead.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done.Krish | Talk 18:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support: My comments have been addressed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments "short lived" should be hyphenated. You could afford to increase the size of the lead image. Consider merging some of the short sentences, e.g. the first and second of the lead. "all of which were financially unsuccessful" reads odd after picking out two individual films. " highly successful " quickly repeated... "with Christopher Nolan's over $1 billion grossing superhero film The Dark Knight Rises" awkward, as you've made "$1 billion grossing" an adjective so it should be hyphenated, so I'd reword it to say something like "... superhero film ... which grossed more than $1 billion ...." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Done.Krish | Talk 13:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:01, 19 October 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [13].

---

Serie A Coach of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled on this when browsing for potential FLCs, and it had about two lines of prose and a few refs, and a table. So I expanded it out considerably, and hope that it now matches the community's expectations of what a featured list should be like. As ever I will cover all comments here as soon as practicable. Yes, I have a nom and a co-nom running, but the former has two supports and the latter one, and neither are anything like this one, so there should be no read-across problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "The award is part of the Gran Galà del Calcio (former Oscar del Calcio) awards event" - not very clear. Are these two different names for the same event? Two different events? When did the name change? Also, this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
• "Only two non-Italians have won the award, Sven-Göran Eriksson became the first in 2000, while José Mourinho was the first foreign coach ever to win the award twice." - first comma should probably be a semi-colon, or even a sentence break. Mourinho bit does not need the word "ever"
• "yet lost Champions League Final to "perennial German underdogs"" => "but lost the....."
• Internazionale in the tables but Inter in the History section?
• In the "By nationality" section, the Special One's name is spelt incorrectly

Think that's it......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude all address I hope, thanks for your interest and comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I still think you need to mention the awards ceremony in the main body of the article as well as the lead............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure. The "main body" is the history of the winners. There's not much more to add beyond the lead. It would look odd to suddenly start talking about the awards ceremony there, don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I tried crowbarring it in, what thinketh you? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, happy to support now. I was just going on the rule/policy/guideline that nothing should be in the lead that isn't also in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Looks good with all the expansion. (I am also a regular editor of the page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support prose looks all good..found a typo but just corrected it myself..only issue (and a nondealbreaker really) is I did wonder whether it was worth including any rationales for when a coach won the award whose team did not win the title (eg Ancelotti in 00-01) - just a sentence here or there..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cas, thanks for your comments (and correction). I've tried to objectively include why the coach may have been selected (e.g. Coppa Italia wins, Champions League etc), but the award has no citation attached so any claimed rationale would be OR. In Ancelotti's case, it's an odd one. Italian clubs were terrible in the Champion's League that season, and while Roma won Serie A, they were only mediocre in the the UEFA Cup, so I guess on balance, Ancelotti's second place combined with limited progress in the CL put him marginally ahead of Capello. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that was the case (that any real speculation of why would be OR as the judges wouldn't be saying..), as it would be in various "player of the year" awards I know about here in Oz, hence why said nondealbreaker...but in an ideal world. Anyway, it is a nice read and has come out fine with nothing to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 15 October 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Northamptonshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Essex and Cambridgeshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Northamptonshire" should be in blue, not in bold.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Couldn't "Area" be replaced with the following code instead of repeating the units in every cell? "Area<br />{{nowrap|<small>[[Hectare|ha]] ([[acre]]s)</small>}}"

• I think it is more convenient for readers to see the units when looking at each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Site names are in bold and centered. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.

• Fixed. (I must have edited with Word, which messes up the formatting). Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• "B" and "G" lack {{tooltip}}. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Area" and "Location" lack notes; "Map" and "Citation" have different notes. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed first one, fixed Esses for second. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• {{commons category}} is at the bottom. Not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• {{GeoGroup}} is near the "Sites" heading. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.

• Fixed Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Could use a "See also" link for Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not saying this list should be updated to look like the previous ones – you might as well update the previous lists, just be consistent. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Sandvich18. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. :) If you prefer having units in cells, then may I suggest adding style="width:75px;" to the first cell in the "Area" column and |disp=br() to each {{convert}} in the table? It would make that column look less busy. I took the liberty of implementing that change myself to show you what I mean, feel free to revert it if you don't like it, of course. I also think expressing coordinates in DMS instead of decimal would look better. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to the area column. It looks much better. I prefer not to change to DMS. Decimal looks OK to me and it would be a lot of work to change all the lists to DMS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I'd also suggest using "{{As of|2017|07}}" in place of "As of July 2017". Other than that, I think the list looks great and I support this nomination. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

'As of' template added. Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list which has already had most of the minor tweaks resolved, so I don't have much to add:

• In the lead does England need to be wikilinked? (I thought linking of common terms was discouraged)

• Delinked. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be worth wikilinking fen as some readers may not familiar with the term (eg in description of Aldwincle Marsh)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• I know we have debated definitions (and wikilinking) of ancient woodland in the past but now we have "secondary woodland" which could be wikilinked to Secondary forest (eg in description of Ashton Wold)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• In Alder Wood and Meadow we see "a surviving fragment of the Royal Forest of Rockingham" by the time we get to Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorn's Woods and Wakerley Spinney we have "remnants of the ancient Royal Forest of Rockingham" and at Geddington Chase, Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods and Short Wood "medieval Royal Forest of Rockingham." - would it be worth making these consistent? Is it ancient or medieval?

• I followed the source in each case, but William the Conqueror introduced Royal Forests, so they are medieval and I have corrected.

• I know ages of geological deposits are approximate but we have the Rutland Formation and up to nearly the top of the White Limestone Formation, "169 to 166 million years ago" (Cranford St John) & "168 to 166 million years ago" (Finedon Top Lodge Quarry). At Roade Cutting we see White Limestone Formation between 168.3 and 167.1 million years ago. Have we got a date for Blisworth Clay (Thrapston Station Quarry)

• The International Commission on Stratigraphy says 168.3±1.3 to 166.1±1.2, so I have settled on 168 to 166. The British Geological Survey says Blisworth Clay is Bathonian, and Thrapston is the type site, so I have amended accordingly.

• Many of the references to citation sheets etc are archived but some are not - any particular reason? I now use the IA bot form to archive them all.

• Someone else must have archived some citations as I rarely archive, but I have tried running your bot. I have never used bots before and I got two failures with error messages but the third time it worked fine.

I can't see any other issues with meeting the criteria at present.— Rod ^talk 13:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing these minor issues. I think it now meets the criteria so I can support the nomination.— Rod ^talk 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review

• Consider adding alt text to File:River Nene in Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow 2.jpg ("|alt=as caption" would be sufficient.)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• What makes "countiesinengland.com" a reliable source?

• It is the only source I could find for uncontroversial information. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• The lead, and that source, omit Rutland from the list of counties that it borders. (It isn't inaccurate, it just says "borders 8 counties including...", and only lists 7 of the 8.) This might work for the bordering counties, this for boroughs and councils and this possibly for the "East Midlands". Harrias ^talk 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done - with I think a better source for East Midlands. Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Put a full-stop at the end of ref #43 for consistency.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Checks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Harrias ^talk 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nice work, thanks for the quick responses – images and sources are all okay. Harrias ^talk 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Lead kicks off with "It... It... It..." which is a bit clunky. Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "and it has " not sure you need the "it" here...! Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) " Nature Conservation Review" shouldn't that be in italics? Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "A small marsh has very diverse herbs" maybe "It contains a small marsh with ..."? Changed to "There is also small marsh..." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) " ash-maple woodland" link species of tree for consistency. "ash, lime and" ditto. "well drained" hyphenate. maple and blackthorn need links. I won't pick any more of those up here, just check for others please. All done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Forgive my ignorance, what are "wet flushes"?? They are slopes where water flows down without being confined to a channel. I cannot find an article to link to so I have changed to "wet slopes". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC) The usual high standard, nice work, just a few tweaks please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks very much for the comments. Sorry about the delay in replying but I have been away on holiday. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 15 October 2017 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [15].

---

John Ford filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because John Ford is largely regarded as one of the greatest movie directors of all time. Therefore he warrants a featured list for his filmography. Having done several FL filmographies in the past I have now prepared this one for what I believe is ready for the upgrade. Please feel free to make some suggestions to help me get there. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsguy17 @Jimknut: A very solid list, but I do have a few comments. Lede I notice inconsistencies in the use of the comma after "In 1920" or "As of 2017" or whatever year it is. I don't have a preference for whether or not you have a comma after the year or not, but I'd rather see it consistent throughout the list. Fixed. Commas have been taken out. In the very first sentence that indicates his birth year and death year, replace the regular dash (-) with the em dash (–) Fixed. Regular dash replaced with em dash. Change "moved quickly" to "quickly moved". It flows better imo Fixed. Words altered per your suggestion. Films" section Any way to use another term besides "The list presented here". I'm not sure what a good alternative is exactly, but using "The list" or "This list" is generally discouraged. Reworded Replace "1917 until 1923" with either "1917 to 1923" or "1917–1923" Fixed. Changed to "1917 to 1923". Add a citation about the Jack Ford screen name. Note added about Ford's name. For the note right before the list (nb 1), remove the space between the nb 1 and the period. Fixed. Space taken out. It may look like a long list, but all of the above items are relatively minor. If you get them all resolved, I will support the promotion of this list. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Not a long list at all. Thanks for the help! Jimknut (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns were addressed. I'm quite impressed with how well-written the list is. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Slightlymad: Tried so hard for a nitpick but alas, this list exceeds expectations—from comprehensiveness to high-quality sources. Well done! SLIGHTLY^mad 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks. Jimknut (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - Good work on the article. A fully detailed list and well sourced.--Earthh (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you.Jimknut (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – The sources all look to be reliable, and spot-checks of a few LoC refs didn't turn up anything that I am concerned about (interestingly a couple of the pages I checked called him Jack Ford, but I see from his article that this was his early professional name, so no problem). The only issue I see is that the publishers of the Washington Post article in ref 187 and ref 220 should be italicized per style guidelines. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments "John Ford with portrait and Oscar, " no need for bold and would avoid "Oscar" in favour of Academy Award. Fixed. " Ford enter films almost " doesn't parse for me. Changed to: "Ford enter films shortly after graduating from high school" Nope, still not getting it. Do you mean he entered the film-making industry or something similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) How about this: "Ford enter the filmmaking industry shortly after graduating from high school" Jimknut (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC) No need to link "actor", it's sufficiently common enough. Link removed. You could, however, link short film which is much less common and more technical. Linked "worked exclusively in westerns until 1920 when he began working in other genres.[5] In 1920 " repetitive (1920, 1920,... worked, working) and you could expand on "other genres". Dropped the first sentence. "over 30 films" more than Fixed. "In the same year is these last two films" ungrammatical. Fixed. "In 1931 Ford began" comma after 1931. Fixed. "of World War II Ford " comma after II. Fixed. You suddenly switch from film to movie in the last para of the lead... Fixed. "As of 2017 ten..." comma before ten. Fixed "What follows is " This list of films... Fixed. (An earlier reviewer told me not to use "list"!) Why are the sort arrows on the line below the column they're sorting? Because there were pictures along the right side and I did not want the list to be cramped. Someone removed the pictures recently so I have expanded the width of the wikitable and put the sort arrows back in with the column headings. Page ranges in the refs need en-dash per MOS:DASH. Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC) That's enough for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Rambling Man. Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

Overall looks great. A couple comments:

• Looking at other featured filmography lists, such as James Cameron, Alfred Hitchcock, and Quentin Tarantino, I see that they have the movie title on the far right side of the table with the year column to the right of it. They also have the title column darkened (for this use ! scope="row"|) and put "plainrowheaders" at the top of the table to avoid having the titles centered. However, the Gene Roddenberry list has the layout like yours currently but still has the title column darkened. In your case I'd probably follow Roddenberry's list to save time but other than that everything looks great. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Obviously, your comments are well meant but nonetheless I find them dealing with aesthetic issues. My goal is to present accurate and comprehensive information about the subject, which I believe I have done. All of the other filmographies I have created or upgraded (Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Gene Kelly, Laurel & Hardy, David O. Selznick) have the release dates listed first, followed by the titles. They have all achieved FL status, so I'll retain the current formatting on this one. Jimknut (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Support – You got it. I got no other comments or concerns. I fully support the nomination for featured status. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Argh, I was going to promote, then saw that the tables are missing col and rowscopes. These are required as per WP:ACCESS so that screen-readers can parse the tables; it's not an aesthetic change. Please add to all tables; ping me if you don't know how to or want to undo any aesthetic changes and don't know how. --PresN 20:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Argh, I never had to do that to any of the other filmographies I created that made FA status! However, I've gone and added them in. Check them out and please see if I've done them correctly. Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, FA doesn't bother with technicalities like MOS:ACCESS! I think you're nearly there, the row scope should be the film name rather than the year of release though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2017 (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.

Thank you to everyone who helped me with this list. Jimknut (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC) [16].

---

List of India women Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(talk) 18:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Back to FLC after a hiatus. This one is based upon the existing FLs. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(talk) 18:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• First paragraph: "As of August 2017, India has played 73 WT20Is...", second paragraph: "As of 2017, India has played a total of 54 matches..." – No need for the repetition, particularly as they give different figures! Get rid of one of these, and make sure whichever you keep has the right figure.
• In the table, I would flip the header rows so that 'Batting', 'Bowling' and 'Fielding' are above the other headings. Historically, we had to do it this way for the sorting to work, but it would look better with those on the top row.
• Make the dashes in the Bowling average and Economy columns sort the other way around - the bowling average of 8.00 should appear at the top, not after a load of dashes. Similarly with the economy of 2.66.
• Referencing all looks good, and checks on the prosaic sources show no copyvio or close para-phrasing. All the link are live.
• All images appear to be free with appropriate licenses, and have alt text.

Nice work; not much to work on here. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive3? Harrias ^talk 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks for the comments. Hopefully, I've fixed all. Quite a task for a women-hating editor. :) Btw, I haven't forgotten your list - give me a day or two. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. Can be a pain keeping these up to date though! Harrias ^talk 13:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

:Hi Vensatry, please find my comments below: Lead: and is played under the rules of Twenty20 cricket fix link to Twenty20 Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) The first such match was held in August 2004 between England and New Zealand fix links to England women's cricket team and New Zealand women's national cricket team Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) The India national women's cricket team played its first WT20I fix link to India women's national cricket team Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) As of September 2017 add {{As of}} Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) It was among the semifinalists of the 2009 change "it" to "the team" or "India" Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Its highest score of 163 runs was made against Bangladesh in 2016 fix link to Bangladesh women's national cricket team Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) when it was bowled out for 62 runs again, change "it" Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Images Members of the Indian cricket team before a Women's World Twenty20 game in Sydney, 2009. fix link to India women's national cricket team Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Jhulan Goswami has been the leading wicket-taker India in the format. "in the format" is used in two captions in a row. Change to WT20Is. Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Key fix links to Caught, Glossary of cricket terms#H, Not out, Glossary of cricket terms#B, Result (cricket)#Tie Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Table: Fix link in headers – Glossary of cricket terms#H, Glossary of cricket terms#B, Economy rate (cricket) Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Row 9 – fix sort for Nooshin Al Khadeer It already sorts by the last name. —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Rows 1 and 3 – fix sort of highest score Goswami's 37* came of 26 balls [17] while Chopra's came off 52 [18] Rows 24 and 34 – fix sort of highest score Nagarajan's 15 came of 14 balls [19] while Bisht's came off 15 [20] Rows 13, 4 and 43 – fix sort of highest scores Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Please check the highest score sort for the 3's, 2's and 1's as well Rows 16 and 19 – fix sort for 50's Raut's 4 came from fewer innings. Please check the sort for the remaining 50's Sorting by wickets needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by matches Sorting by BBI needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by overs bowled Secondary sort can be done only based on a statistic that's available in the table. Overs pertain to individual matches. —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Sorting by catches needs to be fixed as well, secondary sort by matches played Stumpings – should those players who have never kept wicket have dashes rather than zeros? Done —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Thanks for the comments. As for secondary sort, the feature is already built in. All that you have to do is, first sort by matches (or whichever column(s) is/are applicable) and then by the intended column. —Vensatry (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) @Harrias and Ianblair23: Any update yet? —Vensatry (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Great job Vensatry! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Mithali Raj photo: The caption could use "the" before "most occasions".
• Jhulan Goswami photo: This caption needs "for" before "India in the format". Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(talk) 11:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:13, 9 October 2017 (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) 23:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC) [21].

---

List of accolades received by Velaiilla Pattadhari

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian Tamil comedy-drama film, Velaiilla Pattadhari starring Dhanush and Amala Paul. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members, especially Dhanush, several awards and nominations. It is my eighth attempt at a accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I think the following part of the lead can be revised to flow better (a civil engineering graduate who is unemployed for four years, and his search for a job, which he gets), specifically with how the sentence ends with a verb. I am not sure "which he gets" is entirely necessary, so I think you can remove it and that would fix that part.
• For the phrase (it received seven nominations and won five), I think you need to add "awards" after "five" to complete the phrase as without the word, it sounds like you are saying it won five "nominations".
• In the phrase (It garnered eleven nominations at the), the "eleven" should be put as "11".

Great work with this list; once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have resolved the first two comments. As for the third, I'll stick to "eleven" so as to maintain consistency in case other fellow editors question it in future. I hope you understand. Thank you for reviewing as usual, Aoba.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me; I support this. Wonderful work with this list. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I'm currently taking a break from reviewing as per my talk page statement. Good luck with your FLC though, looks great.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response, and I apologize for not checking. I hope that you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for asking, Aoba. Yes, my weekend is good. Hope yours is too.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Caption in infobox needs full stop.
• No need to relink ₹.
• "Surbhi,[3] " why specifically inline reference that?
• "a job. As soon as he finds a job" repetitive, suggest you replace the "a job" with "employment".
• "Recipients and Nominees" -> "Recipients/nominees" (because it's misleading, the nominees aren't listed for those awards which this film won...)

Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All of your above comments have been resolved, TRM.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Mention the english translation of the title.
• The alt text is missing a fullstop.
• 'Tamil-language comedy drama' seems too much. Trim it to 'tamil comedy drama'.

For some reason, languages must always be mentioned this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• VIP was Velraj's directorial debut, I guess that should be mentioned.
• The name of supporting actor is too long. Try trimming it down.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: All of the above comments (except the one Kailash has enquired about) have been resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

Just two comments: One, Vela Illa Pattadhaari (Title Song) must be within quotes since it is a song name. And I think "title song" can be removed since it is obvious that it is a song. Two, as mentioned by Aoba47 at Trisha filmography (now a FL), "make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use". But this list is otherwise perfect to me. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Resolved the "title song". As for the second one, I think I have done that. If not, can you point out any instance where I haven't. That would be great.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support: All my comments have been addressed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks Kailash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:13, 9 October 2017 (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.